Churchill Every Fifteen Minutes

[Anonymous]

As some of you might know Churchill had their "Every Fifteen Minutes" program last week to coincide with homecoming. The emphasis is on safe driving and the dangers of drinking and driving.

So what do we find on the Churchill student Twitter feed this evening?



Overheard In CHS ?@OverheardInCHS

More than 5 kids threw up, 3 parents picked up kids that couldnt walk, and plenty of others shmacked, I'd say that was a successful party

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:As some of you might know Churchill had their "Every Fifteen Minutes" program last week to coincide with homecoming. The emphasis is on safe driving and the dangers of drinking and driving.

So what do we find on the Churchill student Twitter feed this evening?



Overheard In CHS ?@OverheardInCHS

More than 5 kids threw up, 3 parents picked up kids that couldnt walk, and plenty of others shmacked, I'd say that was a successful party

The Every Fifteen Minutes program has good intentions but its not going to change the behavior of teenagers.

[Anonymous]

I agree with PP; the program probably did make some kids stop and think about their behavior, but certainly would not stop all kids from drinking and driving. Those programs are still a good idea, though.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:As some of you might know Churchill had their "Every Fifteen Minutes" program last week to coincide with homecoming. The emphasis is on safe driving and the dangers of drinking and driving.

So what do we find on the Churchill student Twitter feed this evening?



Overheard In CHS ?@OverheardInCHS

More than 5 kids threw up, 3 parents picked up kids that couldnt walk, and plenty of others shmacked, I'd say that was a successful party

So if 3 parents picked up kids, that means 3 less drunk kids attempting to drive. Maybe the program did have an impact.

[Anonymous]

Assuming that everyone at the party was drunk which is probable then every parent should have picked up their teen.

[Anonymous]

So was this party at Churchill? Or at someone's house, an after-party?

[Anonymous]

I have a feeling that the tweet in question was done tongue in cheek. If you read other tweets from that account, many are satirical. Check out the link where the account owner posts his/her picture and you'll see what I mean.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So was this party at Churchill? Or at someone's house, an after-party?

AT Churchill? Are you nuts? Of course it was held at someone's house. I understand that the police were not called.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So was this party at Churchill? Or at someone's house, an after-party?

AT Churchill? Are you nuts? Of course it was held at someone's house. I understand that the police were not called.

Well that's totally different then. OP's post implied the entire student body was at this party and that the school was somehow to blame. Neither of which is the case, apparently. OP should have expressed herself more clearly.

So let's see. Maybe 50 kids, max, got in trouble at someone's private party. Yes, it's pretty bad. But I don't get OP's outrage at Churchill, which apparently tried, but failed, to stop it with the PSAs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So was this party at Churchill? Or at someone's house, an after-party?

AT Churchill? Are you nuts? Of course it was held at someone's house. I understand that the police were not called.

Well that's totally different then. OP's post implied the entire student body was at this party and that the school was somehow to blame. Neither of which is the case, apparently. OP should have expressed herself more clearly.

So let's see. Maybe 50 kids, max, got in trouble at someone's private party. Yes, it's pretty bad. But I don't get OP's outrage at Churchill, which apparently tried, but failed, to stop it with the PSAs.

I am the OP and in no way did my pot imply that the entire student body was at a party. There are no parties where the entire student body attends.

I have the Churchill student Twitter feed bookmarked just to stay informed. The point was that they had just finished Every Fifteen Minutes and on the very next day someone had a party where many students were drunk. The point was that none of these programs are worth a damn since kids shrug off the message and go out and get drunk the very same day.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:


I am the OP and in no way did my pot imply that the entire student body was at a party. There are no parties where the entire student body attends.

I have the Churchill student Twitter feed bookmarked just to stay informed. The point was that they had just finished Every Fifteen Minutes and on the very next day someone had a party where many students were drunk. The point was that none of these programs are worth a damn since kids shrug off the message and go out and get drunk the very same day.

So your point was that Churchill shouldn't have bothered? That we shouldn't even try to stop kids from drinking?

One tweet from one kid at one party isn't a good statistical sample. We don't know anything about the 40-45 kids at this party who weren't throwing up or staggering. We don't know anything about the 600 kids who were not at this party. It's possible the PSA had an impact on the vast majority of kids who were not among the 5 vomiters. Then again, it's possible the PSA had no effect. The point is, this single tweet proves nothing either way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So was this party at Churchill? Or at someone's house, an after-party?

AT Churchill? Are you nuts? Of course it was held at someone's house. I understand that the police were not called.

Well that's totally different then. OP's post implied the entire student body was at this party and that the school was somehow to blame. Neither of which is the case, apparently. OP should have expressed herself more clearly.

So let's see. Maybe 50 kids, max, got in trouble at someone's private party. Yes, it's pretty bad. But I don't get OP's outrage at Churchill, which apparently tried, but failed, to stop it with the PSAs.

I am the OP and in no way did my pot imply that the entire student body was at a party. There are no parties where the entire student body attends.

I have the Churchill student Twitter feed bookmarked just to stay informed. The point was that they had just finished Every Fifteen Minutes and on the very next day someone had a party where many students were drunk. The point was that none of these programs are worth a damn since kids shrug off the message and go out and get drunk the very same day.

I'd add that the parents don't get the message either. The parents where the party took place failed to supervise their house and the parents who's kids attended the party failed to check and see where their kids were going and if the parents would be their to supervise.

The schools in MoCo have been working their tails off to fight underage drinking and underage drinking and driving, yet parts of just about every high school community seem to tolerate and accept these parties.

YOu can't blame the schools when they try to help solve the problem and some parts of a high school community fail to support them. And this happens at just about every MoCo high school, not just Churchill.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:


I am the OP and in no way did my pot imply that the entire student body was at a party. There are no parties where the entire student body attends.

I have the Churchill student Twitter feed bookmarked just to stay informed. The point was that they had just finished Every Fifteen Minutes and on the very next day someone had a party where many students were drunk. The point was that none of these programs are worth a damn since kids shrug off the message and go out and get drunk the very same day.

So your point was that Churchill shouldn't have bothered? That we shouldn't even try to stop kids from drinking?

One tweet from one kid at one party isn't a good statistical sample. We don't know anything about the 40-45 kids at this party who weren't throwing up or staggering. We don't know anything about the 600 kids who were not at this party. It's possible the PSA had an impact on the vast majority of kids who were not among the 5 vomiters. Then again, it's possible the PSA had no effect. The point is, this single tweet proves nothing either way.

The party did in fact happen. Its location is known to many people. The parents were out of town. The tweet was from the "official Churchill student Twitter feed". It does not make it more reliable that if it was from Joe Blow but I'll bet it was pretty accurate.

They should just forget these programs. They make no impact. Its like DARE. After twenty years of wasting time in the classroom they found out that kids who take the DARE course are just as likely to use drugs in the future as those who didn't take the course. Montgomery County finally pulled their DARE officers out of the schools several years ago.

[Anonymous]

Our school did Every Fifteen Minutes too (a couple of years ago). My impression was that it had to do with drinking and drivng. I think there is evidence that efforts along these lines have been effective with teens. The twitter does not seem to indicate that kids were drinking and driving.

I would also be careful not to implicate every teen in this one party. Churchill has more than 2000 students. They surely weren't all there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
The party did in fact happen. Its location is known to many people. The parents were out of town. The tweet was from the "official Churchill student Twitter feed". It does not make it more reliable that if it was from Joe Blow but I'll bet it was pretty accurate.

They should just forget these programs. They make no impact. Its like DARE. After twenty years of wasting time in the classroom they found out that kids who take the DARE course are just as likely to use drugs in the future as those who didn't take the course. Montgomery County finally pulled their DARE officers out of the schools several years ago.

I'm not questioning whether the party happened. I'm sure it did happen.

However, I am questioning your assertion, based on the fact that 5 kids threw up and 3 more couldn't walk, proves these programs "have no impact" for the rest of the student body. What about the kids who weren't throwing up? Do we know if they were influenced? No, we don't know.