Busy vs. Overload
 

The posts above make good points. There is no single magic bullet that ensures that high schoolers consistently make good choices. I'm fairly confident that I've been lucky with my kids, and I know what's worked for them.

There are dozens of activities at the Glenbrooks (and lots of other suburban high schools). Not so every student needs to be involved in every activity, but to ensure that every student can find some niche to belong to. It makes the big school smaller and the intent is to create an environment where there are no outcasts.

We've always tried to get our kids to be involved in no more than 3 activities at any time. Generally they are doing a music thing, sometimes they're involved in a sport, and they attend the youth group at church. I think occassional "crunch" times are good preparation for the real world--it teaches kids that they can operate at a high level for a period of time--but I don't advocate crunch time all the time.

I think it's important to pick one activity to really get involved in. For my kids, that's been music. They spend a lot of time with a good group of kids and develop a talent that they can use outside of school--my daughter plays in the church orchestra and hopes to join an ensemble when she's at college. For my kids, being "Bandies" meant that they had a place to belong even before the first day of school Freshman year.

Are there kids in the band who make bad choices? Of course there are. Does making bad choices ruin them for life? Probably not, but it depends on the types of bad choices they make.

From my perspective, keeping them busy also means guiding my kids to prioritize their activities and manage their time effectively. Their involvement in something that includes performances (or games) gives me a chance to share the experience with them (from a distance), and with the parents of their peers. I have some idea of what's going on in their lives without asking a million questions.

There always has to be balance! Too much of anything is not good.

Straying a little off the original topic, but in line with the later posts:

We have three kids, all of whom graduated from a top notch high school in what is allegedly (you know how I feel about "lists" if you've read my early posts) one of the top ten school districts in the country. Even if that's not accurate, it's an excellent district.

They were all involved in performing arts and a lot of other activities.

Two of them graduated with high academic honors -- one was, in fact, one of the two "Outstanding Seniors" in the school, and one of ten in the entire district and a National Merit Scholar. Our oldest graduated from college Magna Cum Laude. Our youngest finished his Freshman year in college with a 4.0.

The third barely graduated from high school and did the drug experimentation routine and had to go through detox.

Same family, same school -- remarkably different results.

For whatever it's worth, the "challange child" was the only varsity athlete of the three. Aren't athletics supposed to build character and leadership?

I guess my only point in all of this rambling is that kids simply refuse to fit our stereotypes.

Good kids go bad sometimes.

DeltAlum, I am sorry about your child's situation and drug problem. Drugs can take such a terrible and devastating toll on a family. I hope that all of your children are well.

Hi Cream,

Thank you for your good wishs. Actually, the entire family is doing very well now, and our "drugie" has been sober for three years, is married and has presented us with our only grandchild so far. She went to cosmotology school she and her hubby are doing great.

Which brings up another trite old thought, when it comes to kids, all's well that ends well.

Good for her! I am glad that she turned her life around. :)

Another Update
 

From the local newspaper...

Hazing videos to air at teen's trial
BY IRV LEAVITT
STAFF WRITER

Amateur videotapes of the May 4 "powder puff" incident made it a worldwide event, and now, the tapes have moved to the center of the first scheduled trial of a defendant in the incident.

Cook County Circuit Court Judge Timothy Chambers, hearing pre-trial arguments Friday in the misdemeanor battery case against Gina Mengarelli, 18, said showing five or six lengthy tapes to jurors likely means it will take five days to try a case that typically might be completed in hours.

He noted that not only will jurors have to sit through the tapes, but they'll also hear testimony of each of the youths who held the cameras, explaining what they saw. Jury selection was scheduled for Wednesday.

Prosecutor Joan Pernecke said the state expects to call a score of witnesses, including doctors who will testify to injuries two Glenbrook North High School students claim Mengarelli inflicted.

Defense attorney Steven Decker said he plans to only call three or four witnesses.

Decker argued Friday that the tapes shouldn't be allowed as evidence at all, because they were shot without the "powder puff" participants' permission, and therefore violate Illinois' anti-eavesdropping statute. "There's not a scintilla of evidence that anyone there knew their voices were being recorded," he said.

Pernecke's co-prosecutor, Mark Anderson, said he believed Mengarelli and all the other youths present at the Chipilly Woods site saw the video cameras, and were aware their voices could be picked up. "All these individuals were seen by all the other individuals," he said. "Case law ... defines eavesdropping as a conversation that is private and that is recorded secretly."

Decker maintained not only that the tapes should not be allowed as evidence, but also that those who made them could be charged with felonies for eavesdropping. He said that if the television cameras at Wrigley Field were boosted to capture private conversations of baseball fans, those camera operators might be felons, too.

"Are you telling me that in Wrigley Field, they could be committing 38,000 felonies, or 50,000 in Cellular Field?" asked the judge, as he admitted the tapes into evidence. "It was a public park, a public place with millions of video cameras," he said of Chipilly Woods. "Under no circumstances was this a felony."

The judge was unable, however, to immediately rule on another Decker motion last week. The defense attorney wants Chambers to allow him to mount a consent defense, saying that the two youths claiming to be his client's alleged victims actually invited at least some of the abuse they may have received.

Like most of the 15 "powder puff" battery defendants, Mengarelli, now a graduate of Glenbrook North High School, is charged with multiple counts of battery. She is charged with two counts of battery resulting in "bodily harm," for variously pushing, pulling hair, shaking or kicking, according to court documents. She is also charged with two counts of battery of "an insulting and provoking nature," counts that reflect pouring and smearing of various substances upon the youths.

Decker maintained that his client didn't hurt anyone, and that her actions could be explained as consensual acts, since previous "powder puff" events included such abuses, and the then junior class students who participated must have generally known what was coming. He said if some of the activities went beyond what the younger students expected, "too firm of a handshake" or "an over-expressive hug ... could be considered provoking and insulting."

Pernecke countered, "We're talking about someone being kneed in the back, grabbing someone by the hair, and snapping their head back and forth."

Decker backed off the use of the consent defense for the bodily harm battery counts, maintaining that "none of those things are attributable to the defendant," but admitted that she had smeared ketchup and other substances, and that a 2002 "powder puff" videotape will show those actions should have been expected as a traditional part of the annual event. Chambers said he would rule on the consent defense request today in Cook County Second District Criminal Court, 5600 Old Orchard Road, Skokie.

The judge said he would likely also accept into evidence today some school records of the two complainants, which July 15 he ordered that Glenbrook District 225 provide to Decker. Decker wants to use the records to try to impeach the testimony of the complainants, partly by seeing whether they were actually injured enough to miss school or gym class.

District lawyer Camille Grant brought the records to court last week, but said she couldn't give them up, because her firm had failed to notify the students' parents. By law, parents must be informed five days prior to turning over records. Chambers ordered her to inform the parents that day, so that they would have the opportunity to fight the records' use in court today. Attorney Rollin Soskin, who represents both clients in school suspension hearings "and other matters," told the judge he foresaw no protest being made.

Others charged in relation to the May 4 incident are scheduled to appear in court Aug. 15 or Sept. 18, for bench trials or pre-trial motions for bench or jury trials.

More Closure
 

There were more hearings related to the GBN incident today...there's an update on www.nbc5.com. Here's the link:

http://www.nbc5.com/news/2408729/det...94&dppid=65192

Several students have received a combination of community service and court supervision. Apparently once supervision is completed successfully, the incidents may be removed from their criminal records.

There are more hearings September 18. Doctors who treated the injured girls will be at at least one of those hearings.

Guess where Marnie Holz is going to college? Yeah, that's right, my school. At least, that's where she was planning on going -- we're not sure if the UW administration decided to retract their offer of admission after the hazing incident.

Our rush chairs have the names of female GBN seniors who were involved in the hazing case and if any of them of them decide to come through rush here, they will be cut ASAP. I think most other sororities on campus are planning to do the same.

Marnie Holz
 

I hadn't heard that any of the girls had their admissions rescinded. The judge worked the court schedule of one of the girls who was charged so she wouldn't miss her college orientation.

Three of the former juniors (now seniors) who refused to sign the deal and were suspended have filed suit to have their suspensions expunged from their records. Two of the three are still students at GBN, the third has moved out of the area.

Local Paper Editorial
 

While it's not the national story it used to be, the GBN hazing debacle continues to make headlines in the local community.

So far, every teen charged that has gone through the courts has been given court supervision (of up to a year) and community service (I think as much as 60 hours). The moms haven't had their trials yet.

Rules at the high schools are changing to make it clearer that participating in events like powder puff off campus will result in school consequences. The students at South are compiling a list of families who pledge that any parties at their homes will be drug and alcohol free.

The hazing task force meets, and its not clear how effective that effort will be. The following editorial from the local paper has some good questions, similar to those raised by Delt Alum and others on this thread.


Facts are critical to preventing hazing


The task force commissioned to look into the events leading to the May 4 "powder puff" melee appears to have abandoned its charge.

Initial reports of three subcommittees don't shed any light on how or why more than 100 teens gathered in Chipilly Woods to drink alcohol and beat up junior classmates, injuring five girls and giving Northbrook a black eye around the world.

The reports don't tell us anything about what staff at Glenbrook North High School knew about the event beforehand, or why any student or adult -- parent or GBN employee -- failed to sound an alert that this type of illegal behavior was on some kids' agenda.

They don't explain why local police took about 35 minutes to respond to calls about a ruckus in the woods, or why they didn't know state law assigns local police primary responsibility for law enforcement in local forest preserves.

And they don't provide any clues why several students kept videotaping the brawl, rather than calling police or parents for help, or offering any assistance to semi-conscious or bleeding fellow students.

If the panel doesn't answer these questions, it won't be able to suggest what steps should be taken to ensure this never happens again.

That's the reason the task force was formed, isn't it?

Or was it just supposed to provide enough political haze to let the appalling events of May 4 fade from memory?

The suggestions so far -- make sure kids know the consequences for their actions, develop some sort of code of conduct for adults, administer some sort of local court so such behavior stays out of the justice system -- fail to even acknowledge what really happened.

Over the years, the young people of Northbrook have developed a form of ritualized violence to initiate each other. The hazing ritual was accepted by participants and onlookers. It is rather unusual behavior, isn't it?

Before the Oct. 29 forum, the task force needs to answer these questions. Only then will it be able to formulate specific measures that can be taken to address what went wrong.

Those lists that GBS is having made crack me up. My high school had the same thing - and I can tell you for a fact many of the parents who signed those bought kegs or worse for their children.

That's exactly what I thought when the sheet came home. From what I hear, at least in past years, many of the kids involved in the student to student group (which is supposed to be kids who pledge not to drink or take drugs--and is the group compiling the list) were some of the biggest partiers in the school. I guess it was a way to fool mom and dad!

Sugar and Spice, if you're reading this (and can answer)

Did Marnie Holz try to rush? Did anyone take her?

oh how true that is! i was part of a group like that... out of about the 30 members of my class that were a part of it, you can probably count on one hand the amount of people that kept that oath. it's actually pretty sad. i remember, right before graduation, the administration found out about a party that about half the members of this group were at, and we all were called out of class and were yelled at and stuff.. for prom weekend we all rent houses on the cape and they threatened to call the cops and tell them to patrol the areas that we were in because there would be lots of underage drinking and they wanted us to get caught.

She did try to rush -- she came through our house first rounds and we cut her immediately. I'm not sure if she ended up in a house, but my guess would be no. I'll let you guys know if I hear any updates.


Our high school had a group called Peers Educating Peers, where high school students went to the middle schools and taught students there to say no to drugs, smoking, underage drinking, and other "risky situations." It was composed mostly of partiers, too -- I think they did it because it looked good on their college applications and you got out of class to do it.

Student council kids and athletes also have to sign pledges not to drink or do drugs (student council for the whole year, athletes during their season -- but many athletes were two or three-season athletes), but most of them broke that. The problem with that policy was that they didn't have to prove you were drinking -- if you were caught at a party with alcohol at it, you were suspended from the team. I didn't drink in high school, but because of that policy I had to be careful when just hanging out with my friends at parties while they drank, because I'd get in just as much trouble.