By Laura

October 28, 2005 1:13 PM | Link to this

They don’t have the right to challenge their values? It’s a Christian school! The parents know that values will be preached at Christian schools (regardless of what you say, Muriel, they are - I went to a Christian college and had many friends who went to Christian high schools, so I know). I applaud this school for doing something counter-cultural to try and help students. I mean, heaven forbid a school actually try to stop kids from doing something stupid. I mean, come on, that would be teaching them something! And schools aren’t designed to… teach… oh, wait…

By Ricjk

October 27, 2005 7:53 AM | Link to this

Muriel, I get the feeling that you condone the actions of the parents. It seems to me that you approve of sexual promiscuity of teenagers and their parents.

By Karen

October 25, 2005 2:39 PM | Link to this

Muriel, do you find the values that seem to be guiding some of these parents to be acceptable standards for raising children who will eventually be in charge of the world you live in? I would certainly prefer to live in a world where people are held to a higher standard. Those kind of people are raised by parents and communities (including schools) that hold their children to higher standards. Never challenging values and behavior because “They’re going to do it anyway.” means a child never learns what the higher standard feels like. You write: “It’s not the school’s place to challenge the values these parents are so willingly inflicting on their kids. The parents did not send their children to that school to have their own mandates smacked down. Mom and dad say it’s okay to party in the Hamptons this weekend but my principal says no?” Actually, as a Catholic institution, it is the school’s place to challenge skewed values. The school is not saying that those kids can’t go to the Hamptons and spend that kind of money if they and their parents want to do that. They are saying that they are not going to provide an excuse for it. (Parents “mandating” a party house in the Hamptons?) I agree that blind compliance is dangerous and, as a parent, would never say I agree with “anything” my child’s school does. But I also realize I am not perfect either, so there might be occasions when the school challenges me to change my behavior or thinking for the good of my child. (For example, “Mrs. Mom, you really need to stop completing Junior’s math homework.”) So, schools do have occasion to point out to parents when they are wrong. And in this instance, not sponsoring a prom (which is a privilege and not a right) sounds like a way to get an entire community thinking about what is really important in the scheme of things. (Though it is perhaps not the primary motivation for the principal to have cancelled it.)

By Muriel

October 24, 2005 9:58 PM | Link to this

The principal can say that it’s “emotionally traumatic” and that it only gets worse year by year, but I don’t think those kids or there parents see spending thousands of dollars as a traumatic experience. In fact I think the opposite is in play here. I think if you take that away from them, then that’s the traumatic part. The school says it will not sponsor an orgy. The “orgy” isn’t happening at the prom on the school’s watch. The very fact that it happens outside the prom location and at a “parent approved” venue (the Hamptons house in this case) already makes the parents responsible for whatever happens not the school. So their argument isn’t sound. I find it difficult to reason with him when the only defense he really has on his side (and the only thing he’ll really state in his letters — if you go to the school’s site they have a Sept. letter too) is that the vanity of it is the biggest problem and that that goes against the Christian education they are providing. He does make some points that he understands the parties will still happen but that the school won’t sponsor it. But at the same time, he can’t bring himself to actually say words he considers taboo half the time. He talks about a fight that occurred after prom where the prom was held with students and some people there for a wedding. He says, “A fight ensued, well fueled by you-know-what.” Come on. If it was fueled by alcohol then say it. Don’t dance around trying to be cutesy. And for an educator I’d really feel better about it if he knew how to spell limousine. His letters are written in a very unprofessional manner which gives him very little credit in my book. Yes, to a degree that is my argument. That it’s going to happen anyway. But moreso than that, my argument is that taking away the prom is not going to change it. The prom is a random variable here. They could say that the girls are dressing to revealing and so they must wear uniforms (which given that it’s a private school they probably do wear uniforms anyway) but that’s not going to stop the girls from wearing belly-bearing tops and miniskirts out on Saturday night. It’s not the school’s place to challenge the values these parents are so willingly inflicting on their kids. The parents did not send their children to that school to have their own mandates smacked down. Mom and dad say it’s okay to party in the Hamptons this weekend but my principal says no? That’s not going to fly with most parents. Except for the one quoted near the end of the article who says she agrees with anything the school does. Blind compliance is dangerous. There’s something to be said for the school not indirectly telling the students that their parents are wrong — whether they are or not isn’t the point. It’s not the school’s place.

By Karen

October 24, 2005 7:12 AM | Link to this

Just because it’s the parents’ and students’ value system that has led them down this road doesn’t mean it has to be the school’s value system. The principal says: “Each year it gets worse - becomes more exaggerated, more expensive, more emotionally traumatic. It would not have gotten this far if a significant portion of parents, either explicitly or tacitly, did not accept it or tolerate it. We are withdrawing from the battle and allowing the parents full responsibility. KMHS is willing to sponsor a prom, but not an orgy.â€? The school is taking a counter-cultural stand. Do you really think that 3 “safe” hours out of 18-24 hours of orgiastic behavior is going to make a difference? And that doesn’t even begin to address the issues of social justice that are raised by the kind of money these people are spending to indulge their children. Just because not every student (or parent for that matter) “gets it” as far as the values thing doesn’t mean the school should give up and cave in to the warped value system that led to the excessive spending and behavior. Muriel, your argument is “Just let them; they’re going to do it anyway.” Where does that lead to as a guiding principle in raising children?

By Muriel

October 23, 2005 11:42 PM | Link to this

Karen writes: “These parents are paying for a Catholic education, and therefore, an education in values.” Somehow I don’t think a religious education (of any kind, I’m not picking on one specific religion here) is one that is an education in values anymore. I think it used to be. But even in small town Ohio the kids that went to the Catholic (or other religious) schools were not always the nicest kids with the best values. In fact, some of them were worse (now I’m not saying that all of them were bad by any means). The thing is though, given where the kids in this case are from I don’t think that the parents there see it as “an education in values.” I think they see it as a private school where they can send their kids that is better than the public school choices. I think you have to factor in the society and culture surrounding them. I don’t think kids or parents should be spending $10,000 on the prom, but I also know that that wouldn’t/doesn’t happen in Ohio for example. At least not in the Miami Valley. In NYC (or surrounding areas — like the Hamptons) however that’s not nearly as much to them. It depends on where you are and what your status in life is. As far as providing the excuse for the behavior: Those kids are going to party hearty no matter what. Near the end of the article Scott linked to, there’s a kid quoted as saying that they still had their senior trip to disney where they’d all be staying in the same hotel. It’s their senior year (for many of the students) and to them, that is the excuse â€â€? and the only one they need. I’m saying if the kids are planning a weekend in the Hamptons (which you’ll note they went ahead with anyway) and you tell them that the one night they weren’t going to be at the house the entire time is now available, that’s 3 more hours that they are getting drunk. We hear so often that the kids that go to the school sponsored events and are involved with their school’s activities are the ones least likely to get in trouble and participate in dangerous activities. Seems to me that taking away that opportunity is only encouraging them to “be bad” even more. I think it’s great (to a degree) that the principal wants to help better the value system of these kids, but given their status in life, I think it becomes the school’s responsibility to provide the potential one place that’s not like that for them. In essence by taking away the prom, he’s giving up on those kids. And I just don’t see that as a positive step in enriching their lives.

By Karen

October 22, 2005 4:14 PM | Link to this

Muriel writes: “Why take away the one (and potentially more) chance for a safe evening because you claim to be concerned about an unsafe one?” Because the issue of safety isn’t the only problem here. These parents are paying for a Catholic education, and therefore, an education in values. I believe in his letter, the principal made it clear that the problems were the unsafe and illegal behavior AND the scewed value system that can justify spending $10,000 for the prom. (We didn’t spend that much on our wedding and honeymoon!) And taking away the one chance for and unsafe evening?? Isn’t the fact of the prom the excuse for the rest of the excess? The school is saying they don’t want to provide the excuse for the excessive behavior. (In the old days it would have been called providing the near occasion for sin.)

By Muriel

October 22, 2005 4:07 AM | Link to this

Okay, here’s the thing. You can take away the prom, but those kids and/or their parents are still going to spend that weekend in the Hamptons, get hotel rooms, drink, do drugs, have sex, etc. At least while they are actually at the prom, they wouldn’t be doing these things. Think about it, if only for that 3 hour time span they are in a safe environment and that’s 3 hours they aren’t partying in illegal or dangerous ways. Where I went to school, there was this amazing thing called After Prom. It was put on by concerned parents and teachers and every year once prom was over you could go to After Prom. It went all night until like 4:30 or 5 in the morning. They had tons of free food (donated), “mocktails” (alcohol-free mixed drinks sponsored by the SADD group at the school), games (everything from the giant inflatable gym equipment to ski ball — much like a carnival), and most importantly prizes. We’re talking huge prizes. TVs, stereos, phones, gift certificates and money. In increments from 50 bucks to 500 bucks. What kid (especially these, who seem to enjoy money quite a bit) doesn’t enjoy winning 500 bucks? It was monitored and controlled and I’d say at least 90% of the students who attended prom attended After Prom. Some kids even went to After Prom that didn’t go to the actual dance! And I can tell you that very few if any people from that school ever got in an accident because they’d been drinking before or after the dance and there were no babies conceived during the prom. And yes, I realize that some kids still went out after prom and had sex or got drunk, but a lot less of them did. It’s not the prom that caused the problem. The parents shouldn’t have helped the kids to participate in illegal and dangerous activity but the thing is, it’s going to happen with or without the prom if it’s going to happen at all. In the story they say that the vanity associated with the prom is another key problem. Yes, some people spend way too much money and time getting ready for the prom or other big event, but come on! It happens once (maybe twice depending on the school set up) in your life! It’s your prom! You want to look good and have everything go right. As long as the school gets its money from tickets (and in their case tuition) does it really matter how much a student and/or their parents spend. For that matter, when did it become the business of the school how much a family spends? Why take away the one (and potentially more) chance for a safe evening because you claim to be concerned about an unsafe one?

By wheels

October 21, 2005 3:39 PM | Link to this

I salute this school and the stand they are taking. Why do parents make these decisions? I would almost guarantee that if something happened to one of these kids that night, that somehow the school would have been blamed. We are raising a generation of children who are being taught that they don’t have to delay gratification, if they want it now, then by gosh, they’re going to have it right now. What ever happened to telling your kids “no,” and if they went against your wishes,then punishing them? Apparently, that doesn’t make you a very “cool” parent, but it might make your kids a little more responsible.

By emlady

October 21, 2005 11:18 AM | Link to this

Absolutely! Good for him. Natalie, the girl from Alabama, would still be alive if her high school’s parents had thought they needed to send those kids to Aruba for a drunkfest!

By Deborah Combs

October 21, 2005 10:41 AM | Link to this

I believe this principal acted appropriately. Generally, I do not approve of punishing an entire group for the bad behavior of some, but in this case, it seems the only option. The principal may well have saved the life of one or more of these teens who planned to party all night, drink to excess, and drive drunk. I’m shocked by the poor values parents display such as those who would hand their kids alcohol and send them off to a party, or those who would pay so much to provide a venue for illegal, unsafe drinking by their teenage children! Drinking, and exessive displays of wealth, are not necessary to have a fun prom. The parents at the Catholic high school my daughter attends organize an alcohol-free after prom featuring music, games, door prizes, food, and a monte carlo (kids “gamble” with tokens to win prizes donated by area businesses and supporters). Many of the kids at this school are not particularly wealthy—my daughter and her friends save for months to buy their own gowns, then take turns wearing them. I have a feeling they appreciate their prom night more than some of the kids at Kellenberg High. Many of the parents of kids at our school voluntarily sign a promise that their house will be alcohol-free when teenagers are present, and that information goes into the student directory. Kellenberg’s principal would do well to institute such a policy, though it sounds like he might have a difficult time winning support.

By tjay

October 21, 2005 10:38 AM | Link to this

It’s amazing the way parents “back” their kids when they get out of line at school. They come in acting like jerks and play the role of “lawyer” trying to get their kid off rather than being a parent and trying to teach them to take responsibility. An incredible number of parents these days want to be “pals” with their kids.