Has our intelligence dropped to zero already?
This is the country that we are living in. This is the pendulum swinging waaaaaaaaaay to the right. Unreal.
yeah..... pendulum swinging to the right.... and it seems someone cut the string. *watches it bounce away and fall off the table*
Where do I send money for the kid's bail?
Oh, and for a brain transfusion for the people prosecuting him? Is fiction not protected? (not picking a constitutional fight here) It said "zombies" what's that code for? terrorists?
I don't know. Doesn't tell us much about location.... Send money to abunch of places in kentucky and hope that one reaches him....
I'd like to see the writing myself. 18 year olds are capable of lying, you know. Why was he writing a "story for English class" in his personal "journal?" And his own grandparents are the ones who found it and gave it to police, so either they don't know their grandson at all, or they know him better than we do.
I'd like to see the writing myself. 18 year olds are capable of lying, you know. Why was he writing a "story for English class" in his personal "journal?" And his own grandparents are the ones who found it and gave it to police, so either they don't know their grandson at all, or they know him better than we do.
What could you discern from reading it yourself? What would you look for? You can't incite to riot in a freakin personal journal, other people gotta hear/see it.
**FICTION ALERT** (This means you AG Gonsalez) If I wrote "Zombies will take over the White House" **End Alert**, does my mail automatically get forwarded to Gitmo?
Is he guilty of a f*cking
thoughtcrime?!?! Look, I saw Minority Report, I read 1984, and I understand they're also works of fiction. Some folks seem to think it's real though.
God, it's sad, no, tragic to think that we have to PREEMPT every bad thing that
might happen. All that Sysiphean task accomplishes is more worry and more jumping at shadows and more conformity and more innocent people persecuted out of fear.
I will not live in fear.
What does it matter that this side or that is responsible for the elimination of our civil liberties. I can hear it now: "I had to burn the Constitution in order to save it".
Lord, help us.
The grandparents, not the government, snooped in the diary. They were motivated by something. We don't know what motivated them, but it's possible they knew this kid well, and knew that he might pull a Columbine. They were worried enough by what they found in the diary to call the police on their own flesh and blood. Most grandparents wouldn't get their grandkids in trouble with the law unless they absolutely had to.
The police read what was in the diary and decided it was bad. The DA agreed. The boy is claiming he is innocent. Is that really a surprise? Maybe he is, maybe he isn't.
This is why we have trials. The jury can read the journal, listen to the kid, hear from the english teacher, read what the law says, and make a decision.
You are making a decision after only listening to the kid.
What could you discern from reading it yourself? What would you look for? You can't incite to riot in a freakin personal journal, other people gotta hear/see it.
I would look and see if it said something like this:
The zombie horde stumbled through the hallways. "Brains... BRAAAAINS!!"
Or instead something like this:
John the Zombie took out his .357 that he'd gotten from his father's closet and began shooting all the students in the face, starting with Stephen, that fucking bully...
If the kid WERE planning to shoot up the school, and found himself being questioned by police because of his vivid written descriptions of it, the first thing that would pop out of his mouth is, "Uh, yeah, that's just fiction, I was just making some stuff up."
It could be a gross misuse of the court system, or it could be that the kid's a liar. Until I get to read the stuff he wrote, I'm not going to declare one way or the other the pendulum's position in its arc.
I'll just add this to my list of reasons to move to another country.
Current situation in my office:
Person A wrote a report. Person B asked “Can I see your report?” Person A said, “Yes, but then I’d have to kill you.” Person B writes a letter to the head office saying he/she was the victim of a “terrorist threat”. Person A is waiting for his/her day in court to tell Person B what a friggin’ ass-hat he/she is.
I am surrounded by such idiots! What is this world coming to?!
The grandparents, not the government, snooped in the diary.
Hey, if my son snatches his sister’s diary without her permission and reads it, that’s snooping. If he then shows the diary to his brother, then they’re BOTH snooping. No permission=snooping. Even an 18 year old in Kentucky has a right to be secure in his effects. 4th amendment: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches…
They were motivated by something. We don't know what motivated them, but it's possible they knew this kid well, and knew that he might pull a Columbine. They were worried enough by what they found in the diary to call the police on their own flesh and blood. Most grandparents wouldn't get their grandkids in trouble with the law unless they absolutely had to.
I'd buy that for a dollar.
The police read what was in the diary and decided it was bad. The DA agreed. The boy is claiming he is innocent. Is that really a surprise? Maybe he is, maybe he isn't.
This is why we have trials. The jury can read the journal, listen to the kid, hear from the english teacher, read what the law says, and make a decision.
Again, reasonable on it’s face, but the serious crisis here is why we are even having this discussion! More and more instances like this, where we are presented with a “potential” crime, places our national standard of innocent until proven guilty UNDER SIEGE.
No bulwark can resist constant pounding without being eroded. If our ideals are important, they must be protected. This constant drumbeat of criminal, terrorist, fear, fear, fear creates what it shouts about—literally. I know there was a time in our past when is was not a felony to write
anything in a journal. But now, apparently those days are gone. Pound, pound, pound, that is the sound of your freedoms being ground away, in the name of preserving them. Where is the drumbeat in the name of civil liberties? Drowned out and shouted down, and we all are the poorer for it.
Get up, stand up,
Don’t give up the fight.
You are making a decision after only listening to the kid.
No, I am not. This is not true. I am making some decisions after listening to what was reported, and the kid has something to say in the story and so does the law. For example:
”Even so, police say the nature of the story makes it a felony.”
Hel-lo. The nature of a story makes it a felony?! This is not what I signed up for—scandalous. It’s a felony to write about stuff in my journal?!
From 1984:
Thoughtcrime - see crimethink
crimethink - To even consider any thought not in line with the principles of Ingsoc. Doubting any of the principles of Ingsoc. All crimes begin with a thought. So, if you control thought, you can control crime. "Thoughtcrime is death. Thoughtcrime does not entail death, Thoughtcrime is death.... The essential crime that contains all others in itself.
Ingsoc - English Socialism. (feel free to substitute American Democracy in this thread)
Is this what we want to support? Striving to control thought in a doomed effort to control crime? Please clarify your position.
I would look and see if it said something like this:
The zombie horde stumbled through the hallways. "Brains... BRAAAAINS!!"
Or instead something like this:
John the Zombie took out his .357 that he'd gotten from his father's closet and began shooting all the students in the face, starting with Stephen, that fucking bully...
Well, I guess that specifics like names in your example would be scary, but the young man says no:
"It didn't mention nobody who lives in Clark County, didn't mention (George Rogers Clark High School), didn't mention no principal or cops, nothing,"
Certainly, something like this is easy enough to check. I guess we’ll see, certainly a jury will see. Maybe the kid is really a dumbf*ck and he wrote like you described and then just lied about it to the reporter. 50-50, right? But the kid’s statement here regarding the content of what was written is much more easily verified than the state’s position:
"Investigators say they discovered materials at Poole's home that outline possible acts of violence aimed at students, teachers, and police."
My biggest beef here is that intent=crime. I cannot fully articulate why or how badly that offends me.
For the record, in my book, pre-emptive war is all f*cked up too.
This is the country that we are living in. This is the pendulum swinging waaaaaaaaaay to the right. Unreal.
The word is 'swung'. Remember after the Madrid bombing? The FBI arrested a lawyer in Oregon and held him for (if I remember) 9 months in jail. Why? The Spanish police found a partial fingerprint that matched the lawyer's fingerprints. When the FBI (using principles in the Patriot Act) searched his house, they found Spanish messages. They arrested the lawyer on this other 'just as flimsy' evidence.
The FBI is so poorly run internally that it still takes a long time to translate that Spanish. It was his kid's Spanish homework.
How did we solve the problem? How many FBI agents were on the verge of discovered the 11 September attack if not stopped by their supervisors? At least four teams that we know of. So how do we fix this management defect? We made another layer of bureaucracy called Fatherland Security and passed all kinds of laws to give that Fatherland Security the right to violate basic American rights. At what point do we go after the only reasons for security failures - incompetent top management? To an administration dominated by the principles taught in B-schools, management is never the problem. Blame the terrorists, weak laws, people who advocate human rights, money shortages, a military too small, nuclear armed missiles, a universal hatred of Americans ... anything except the incompetent top management that made these problems possible.
Jail a lawyer for nine months because his son was writing secret terrorist messages in Spanish. Same reasons to justify torture of what we now know were innocent people in Guantanamo Bay, Iraq, and Afghanistan - by the administration. This is the 'we fear everything' mentality that has even recreated something from 30+ years ago - the Ugly American.
Person A wrote a report. Person B asked “Can I see your report?” Person A said, “Yes, but then I’d have to kill you.” Person B writes a letter to the head office saying he/she was the victim of a “terrorist threat”. Person A is waiting for his/her day in court to tell Person B what a friggin’ ass-hat he/she is.
I am surrounded by such idiots! What is this world coming to?!
It's called intolerance - like we have not seen since the 1960s. Intolerance avocated by concepts such as racism and religious extremism. Intolerance of barbers murdered because they shave Iraqi beards in violate of Sharia law. Intolerance of science that teaches scientific principles in direct contradiction to Biblical parables (ie Dover PA):
Origin of Life Debate Key Issue For School Board Candidates
Intolerance starts with those who are most intolerant - the extremist religious who would force their religious beliefs on all others and who would even worry about silly wardrobe malfunctions as if it required an anti-ballistic missile defense system (another idea based on no science and justified by religious fever).
Once we start the disease of intolerance, then it only expands into every aspect of society. So intolerant that even a kid's Spanish homework becomes messages for terrorism. This is what happens when the most intolerant put their people into positions of power. Intolerance then spreads like a plague. Nobody expected the Spanish Inquisition.
[Everything tw said]
The man makes a good point. Several actually.
I
intolerance!
how intolerant of you BigV
Let us not forget the other edge of the sword.
The multi-culties are intolerant of intolerance. They insist on cultural equality and the recognition of the specialness of every person everywhere.
Unless you don't agree with them.
0050217_BBEPhiladelphia
Boeing Black Employees Association affinity group to start in Philadelphia
Boeing Philadelphia employees interested in forming a local chapter of the Boeing Black Employees Association (BBEA) affinity group are asked to contact Donna Irby at 1-3106.
An affinity group is an employee association that meets to participate in common interests. They provide skills development, professional growth, mentoring opportunities and leadership tools to aid in achieving strategic objectives of The Boeing Company, through the Business Strategy, Vision 2016, the Diversity Strategy and the Affirmative Action Plan.
Membership is open to all Boeing employees, all retired employees of The Boeing Company and its subsidiaries, government, customer, contract, vendor personnel assigned full time to support the company without regard to race, color, sex, age, religion, sexual orientation, national origin, gender or gender identity, status as a special disabled or Vietnam era veteran or the presence of a disability.
(February 17-24, 2005)
Content: Philadelphia Communications
Technical: Rotorcraft Web Team
Bet if I tried to start a Caucasian Christian Men’s Association they’d fire me.
Even if I allowed all Boeing employees, all retired employees of The Boeing Company and its subsidiaries, government, customer, contract, vendor personnel assigned full time to support the company without regard to race, color, sex, age, religion, sexual orientation, national origin, gender or gender identity, status as a special disabled or Vietnam era veteran or the presence of a disability to join. They wouldn't tolerate it.:(
Yeah, but are you going to go join the Boeing Black Employees Affinity Group?
My coworkers decided the other night that they wanted to form An Average White Guys Club. I told them that although I suspected they would not be permitted to do so, I would support them wholeheartedly, and that they were welcome to exclude me, as I am an Above-Average White Chick.
My coworkers decided the other night that they wanted to form An Average White Guys Club. I told them that although I suspected they would not be permitted to do so, I would support them wholeheartedly, and that they were welcome to exclude me, as I am an Above-Average White Chick.
I guess we know what the house band would be.
just think about how all of this started.kids who built bombs in their bedrooms ,planned an attack on their school and actually went through with it.wouldn,t you know what your kid was up to?i sure would.the people taking action in this case probably don't even know where their kids are.
just think about how all of this started.kids who built bombs in their bedrooms ,planned an attack on their school and actually went through with it.wouldn,t you know what your kid was up to?i sure would.the people taking action in this case probably don't even know where their kids are.
Notifying parents is a far cry from locking kids up. No guns or bombs were found. I would like the bar set high for locking up juveniles for something they have written. Even then, it would probably be safer to give them a room to themselves at someplace like Wolf's facility then throw them in with the general population in juvenlie detention.
Let's say something bad happens to the kid while locked up and it is shown that what he wrote was not a 'terrorist threat'. Who do the parents go to? The attitude of the authorities will be 'we went by the book' and 'shit happens'.
By these standards, I doubt Stephen King and George Romero would have survived high school.
edit: Scratch that, it appears that the kid was 18 and is being held in adult detention. That's a lot worse.
Now, if it could be shown that the kid was actively recruiting zombies...
Hey, if my son snatches his sister’s diary without her permission and reads it, that’s snooping. If he then shows the diary to his brother, then they’re BOTH snooping. No permission=snooping.
While my son lives in my house, anything and everything is open to search by me or my husband. Period.
Even an 18 year old in Kentucky has a right to be secure in his effects. 4th amendment: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches…
As a parent, I wouldn't be going through his room unless I had a reason to. It seems to me that if grandparents found stuff that causes them to be suspicious and go into his journal, and it alarms them to the point they call the cops, and then the cops come and find other stuff that gives them cause to arrest, well then, there has got to be something there.
That being said, when I'm paying rent/mortgage/whatever, I have the right to know exactly what is being brought into and carried out in MY house (in other words, to be secure in my house, papers and effects.)
If my 18 year old (who is still in school) doesn't want me in his business, he needs to move the hell out and be independant. They prosecute parents for the crimes of the kids nowadays. If I'm responsible for his actions, I'm going to be all up in his business. If he don't like it, he's 18, he can get the hell out.
I guess we know what the house band would be.
This new tw is awesome!
By these standards, I doubt Stephen King and George Romero would have survived high school.
By these standards,
I wouldn't have survived high school.
It was rather in vogue in my school to write elaborate short stories regarding hostile takeovers of the school. Weaponry and James Bond like devices were common components.
Much like my approach to video games where the object is to shoot people in the head, I did this so I didn't HAVE to.
My final project in a class called "anatomy of a revolution" was one of these stories, using the school as a setting, real staff members and fellow students as characters, that detailed a revolutionary takeover of the school, following the pattern described by Crane Brinton in the book we used as a text.
I graduated with honors, rather than a body count.
A court recently ruled that parents couldn't eavesdrop on their kid's phone conversations, didn't they? What I forget is if this was the Supremes or a Circuit Court.
(actually the legal issue involved was that information gathered in this way could not be used in criminal prosecutions, but the effect is the same).
As a parent, I wouldn't be going through his room unless I had a reason to. It seems to me that if grandparents found stuff that causes them to be suspicious and go into his journal, and it alarms them to the point they call the cops, and then the cops come and find other stuff that gives them cause to arrest, well then, there has got to be something there.
So, every time the cops arrest it's because they have something that proves guilt? In other words, cops never arrest innocent people? That is an incredibly naive statement.
According to the article, there was no 'other stuff'. No bombs, gunpowder, rifles, hand grenades, etc. Just a story.
I'm hoping the ACLU is going to look into this. By the definitions of the law as it was reported, any screenwriter could be arrested for writing an action movie based in a high school.
I would like the bar set high for locking up juveniles for something they have written.
I don't care what they write, it's not a threat until it's sent or delivered to someone. Handing it in to a teacher as a writing assignment doesn't count either.
If someone is freaked by a kids writings then talk to them, ask pointed questions if necessary to clear the air. But locking them up or throwing them out of school for "just in case", clearly sends the wrong message. :(
I don't care what they write, it's not a threat until it's sent or delivered to someone. Handing it in to a teacher as a writing assignment doesn't count either.
If someone is freaked by a kids writings then talk to them, ask pointed questions if necessary to clear the air. But locking them up or throwing them out of school for "just in case", clearly sends the wrong message. :(
Hey xoB, OC, all, what is your read on this next escalation in the preemptive war on terror? I cannot find the original CNN link, but there are plenteous similar repetitions of this story, enough to give me confidence that it has some veracity. Your comments, please.
[INDENT]Boys arrested for stick figure drawings
Wednesday, January 26, 2005 Posted: 7:29 AM EST (1229 GMT) Wednesday, January 26, 2005 Posted: 7:29 AM EST (1229 GMT)
OCALA, Florida (AP) -- Two boys were arrested for making pencil-and-crayon stick figure drawings depicting a 10-year-old classmate being stabbed and hung, police said. The children, charged with a felony, were taken from school in handcuffs.
The 9- and 10-year-old boys were arrested Monday and charged with making a written threat to kill or harm another person. They were also suspended from school.
One drawing showed the two boys standing on either side of the other boy and "holding knives pointed through" his body, according to a police report. The figures were identified by written names or initials.
Another drawing showed a stick figure hanging, tears falling from his eyes, with two other stick figures standing below him. Other pieces of scrap paper listed misspelled profanities and the initials of the boy who was allegedly threatened.
The boys' parents said they thought the children should be punished by the school and families, not the legal system.[/INDENT]
Things are only going to get much worse before they get better.
From Fox News, April 7, 2005:
WINCHESTER, Ky. — Police in Winchester, Ky., say Winston Poole would have been the nation's next school shooter, had they not intervened.
"All the bells and whistles went off on this case," said Steven Caudill, a detective with the Winchester Police Department. "Our No. 1 goal is crime prevention and law enforcement, not just here in our community. But the nation as a whole. All the warning signs were here in our community. We saw it. We acted on it."
Poole, 18, has been charged with terroristic threatening for allegedly trying to recruit fellow students he called "soldiers" to participate in a school shooting (search). His grandmother turned him in after finding his journal.
"He was talking about taking over the high school and when it was all done, that everybody would be laying" on the ground, said Poole's grandmother, Joyce Craft. "You have to stop and think that these things can happen. If somebody sees it coming, or has some suspicions, then they need to report it. I could not let this go by."
Police said Poole is a legitimate threat and they read excerpts from his journal to show just that at his preliminary court hearing.
"They yelled, 'kill them.' All the soldiers of Zone 2 started shooting. They are dropping all of them. Then after five minutes, all the people are laying on the ground, dead," Poole wrote in his journal.
Poole's lawyer said the journal was a school assignment, that Poole is passionate about horror films and that he was writing about zombies. But police said Poole didn't have a writing assignment for English class.
"The evidence has already shown publicly that this was far from any story," Caudill said. "All the evidence we seized in this case never indicated anything to indicate this was a story about zombies."
Supporters said it's not a crime to write about violence, as long as you don't act on it. A group of California First Amendment (search) supporters — unwilling to be identified — freed Poole temporarily by paying his bond.
"It was just a fiction story and everybody is just blowing it out of proportion," said Poole's friend, Anthony Rudolph.
Poole's plight has become a cause celebre on the Internet for the First Amendment movement. A Google Web search for "William Poole Winchester" nets more than 160,000 results, including a "Free William Poole" petition that says famous authors would be locked away if writing about terrorism (search) was a crime.
Poole has landed back in jail, where he's awaiting trial for showing up at an elementary school in violation of a school order. Police say the community is safer with Poole locked up. But the teen's supporters say it's dangerous to muzzle speech, regardless whether it's fact or fiction.
Poole, 18, has been charged with terroristic threatening for allegedly trying to recruit fellow students he called "soldiers" to participate in a school shooting (search). His grandmother turned him in after finding his journal.
These damn articles are so short on the details. This is the first I've heard that he was trying to recruit others. I wish I knew the details around that. Was he just writing about his hopes of recruiting others or did he actually approach others and speak to them about his plot to murder fellow students? Huge difference.
With the lack of details here, I think it's right to err on the side of the grandparents who turned him in. They know him best, and they turned him in to the cops. They must have had a good reason.
This is from Fox "We make Pravda look accurate" News. Anyway, it's not illegal to fantasize about killing everyone in school, nor even to write about it. Ask Joss Whedon...
Has our intelligence dropped to zero already?
Of course not, silly. Just the average has. :haha:
It's back where it was. At least it looks that way. They re-normed the test.
So, see, now our FEAR of 5 year old kindergarten girls has escalated to the level of CALLING THE F*CKING COPS AND HAVING HER HANDCUFFED????
yeah. somebody's intelligence is zero, fuckin A.
http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=&q=kindergarten+police+girl+st+petersburg&btnG=Search+News
http://www.wpbfnews.com/news/4407473/detail.html
(sorry AP--whole story with credit)
[INDENT][SIZE=5]Video Captures Police Handcuffing 5-Year-Old Girl[/SIZE]
POSTED: 3:12 pm EDT April 22, 2005
UPDATED: 5:44 pm EDT April 22, 2005
ST. PETERSBURG, Fla. -- An attorney says he plans legal action against St. Petersburg police officers who handcuffed an unruly 5-year-old girl after she acted up in her kindergarten class.
[SIZE=5]Girl Handcuffed By Police[/SIZE]
Three police officers handcuffed a 5-year-old girl after she acted out in her kindergarten class.
A video camera was rolling March 14 as part of a classroom self-improvement exercise. The camera captured images of the girl tearing papers off a bulletin board, climbing on a table and punching an assistant principal before police were called to Fairmount Park Elementary.
Then it shows the child appearing to calm down before three officers approach, pin her arms behind her back and put on handcuffs as she screamed, "No!"
Largo lawyer John Trevena let the news media see the tape this week after he got it from police.
The attorney said it's incomprehensible that the police officers would bend a child over a table and forcibly handcuff her.
Copyright 2005 by The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.[/INDENT]
Ok, I had a couple of deep breaths, kicked the cat, really, I'm fine.
Question: Where are the adults in this situation? I've been around my share of childhood tantrums. Hell, I've BEEN the child in those tantrums. I'm just askin, why do we need to call the cops and have the little girl put in handcuffs? *the urge to shout is building strongly again*******
Why? Why is force our only answer? Hey, did you always get what you deserved, from the powers that be? Maybe you got more than what you deserved, like this little girl's getting in spades. That is fucked up in every possible way..
What will the officer say? She was a physical threat to me? She was a danger to others in the area? It was for her own protection?
Goddammit. I gotta sign off now. I'm gonna blow.
Oh my God.
Look, I know that a webpoll is worth only 10% of what you paid for it, but WTF?????
At least they didn't tazer her. :shocking:
Anyone see the poor under feed? laywer?
Here is a link to the classroom where the tantrum started and
here is a link to the assistant principal's office where she was arrested.
It appears that they already cleared the classroom when the incident started. I'm not a professional, but something appears to me to be wrong with the girl. This seemed to me to go beyond simple 'bad behavior'.
If you listen, when the cops show up, he says,
"Do you remember me? I'm the one your mom told to put handcuffs on you."
And they did.
I think that teacher needs a raise. And I think Jyeesha (or however you spell it) is a special ed student.
Amazing. I agree that the teacher needs a raise.
I think the school district needs to look over it's behavioral control policy.
From the scene in the classroom I started to gather that the teacher was NOT allowed to touch the kid. This was confirmed by some of the commentary during the scene in the principal's office. I expect that since they have her on video tape grabbing the kid, even though it was to protect her, she'll get some kind of official reprimand somewhere along the line.
I would have had the little beast in a baskethold before she could spit. Heck, I do that to full grown out of control nuts when necessary. Kids are a piece of cake, although they do tend to be more squirmy.
And yes, I have had to do this with kids. Usually not that young, though.
--snip--
It appears that they already cleared the classroom when the incident started. I'm not a professional, but something appears to me to be wrong with the girl. This seemed to me to go beyond simple 'bad behavior'.
NO. The incident must have started when the class was full, and the two video clips I saw were both in the vice principal's office. The substitue/teacher in training couldn't handle the situation with the little girl, she was sent to the vice principal's office.
Bad behavior? Yes. But the girl is FIVE YEARS OLD. Who is the adult here? When you send your child to kindergarten, don't you expect the teachers and the administrators (or the nurse or the librarian or the gym teacher or the school secretary or somebody) to have had some experience with little kids? How to soothe a kid that's having a tantrum?
I have a young child. I asked him how he felt when he was sent to the principal's office. His answer: scared. That sounds about right. Try to think of it from the five year old's point of view. You have no power. Things don't go your way. Mommy's gonna be mad. Hell yeah you're scared.
Now that bad behavior, that acting out, that "hitting" the principal, that's not good. It's not good for the girl, the adults, or anyone else around. But how can that behavior stop? By definition, the kid's lost control at that moment. Who does the responsibility for control fall to then. Come on, think. I bet you can get this one right. Yeah. The adult.
Remember when your young'uns were colicky, inconsolable? Hey, some power struggle over something in which you were completely right and the kiddie was completely wrong. Like this classroom situation. When you and child had this conflict, how did you settle it? How would you de-escalate the situation? Could you try distraction? Persuasion? Calming words? When the kid's scared, you know they're not at their most malleable or reasonable. How do you get them to do what you want? You have to soothe the fears, duh. I didn't see much of that in these two videos.
For that I fault the adults.
If you listen, when the cops show up, he says,
"Do you remember me? I'm the one your mom told to put handcuffs on you."
Wrong.
The male cop says to the vice principal:
"I see you took my advice."
The camera is on Jaieesha, she is sitting quietly at the table. The male cop says to her:
"Jaieesha. You have to calm down and you have to do it right now. Ok? Remember me? I'm the one you told your mom put the handcuffs on you. Aight."
And they did.
Yep. And leg restraints (shackles). And she was put in the back of the squad car.
I think that teacher needs a raise. And I think Jyeesha (or however you spell it) is a special ed student.
Really? Explain these wild statements. I love a good fantasy story.
I think that teacher needs a raise. And I think Jyeesha (or however you spell it) is a special ed student.
Amazing. I agree that the teacher needs a raise.
I am amazed that you would consider rewarding such incompetence with a raise. Did she do her job? Did she control the situation? Shit. Did she teach anybody anything? A raise?! phbtbbtbbtbtbt.
I think the school district needs to look over it's behavioral control policy.
Damn straight. Because if the existing policy is to CALL THE POLICE AND HAVE THEM ARREST, HANDCUFF AND SHACKLE FIVE YEAR OLD GIRLS who have tantrums, the policy, and I'm being generous here, is b-r-o-k-e-n.
Hey OC, your sig talks about personal responsibility.
[INDENT]"Up to a point a man's life is shaped by environment, heredity, and movements and changes in the world about him. Then there comes a time when it lies within his grasp to shape the clay of his life into the sort of thing he wishes to be. Only the weak blame parents, their race, their times, lack of good fortune, or the quirks of fate. Everyone has it within his power to say, 'This I am today, that I will be tomorrow' "
- Louis L'Amour[/INDENT]
Would you say that that point in a person's life when the dominant shaping forces change from environmental factors to internal factors is near five years old? Maybe teenagers? Fully growed adults, though, for sure, right? But all parties surrender their self responsibility. And of all them, only the little girl can be excused. Actually, the cops don't shirk their responsibility. But their reaction is utterly over the top. Did you see that part where the girl's sitting at the table and the cop tells her to settle down and do it right now? Ok, achieved. Where's the reason to cuff her?
*crickets chirping* *sound of pin dropping* *deafening silence*
Right. I thought so. There is no reason, no good reasonable reason.
But the spokesman for the police department , Bill Profit,
agrees with you:
[INDENT]Bill Profit:
"There is no minimum age for criminal culpability."
[/INDENT]
News flash! A five year old is NOT criminally culpable for a tantrum in class like this. He's toeing the company line, sure, but I want people in these positions, and in postions like the officers, to use judgement, not just dogma.
Remember that 911 call from the moron in the drive through? That dispatcher, SHE exercised some adult judgement to not dispatch the cops to enforce a cheeseburger. Her humor and intelligence prevail. Why was that absent here?
This is wrong wrong wrong. When there's a problem with my kid in class, he may have to go to the principal's office. This little girl did. When my kid's having a problem at school, call me. The school did. When my kid's freakin out, calm him down. There were a couple of false starts here, but not sustained.
But when my five year old child is in this kind of awful situation, do not call the cops. Don't arrest him. Don't handcuff him. Don't shackle him. Don't park him in the back of the squad car. Don't do these things and expect to have your job on the following Monday, because if you do, your galactic fucking incompetence endangers ALL the children you're around. You're a failure and a menace. Get out of my face and get out of my school
I hate to even post, but when I was in school. One trip to office would sufice, because you got your butt busted + again when you got home.:smack:
I hold the right to reserve judgement till more is known about this case. As of now I have only read the article that was posted which leaves many questions:
1. Why was the kid living with his grandparents? What happened to his parents?
2. Had he been acting suspicious, had they caught him with drugs, was he taking antidepresents or some perscribed drug for emotional problems.
3. What is this kid's personality like? Is he a loner that gets depressed alot? Are the other kids at school picking on him and putting him down and that's why wrote what he did in his diary?
These are things only a police profiler or phsychiatrist can answer and hopefully they will come out in court. We can't pass judgement without all the facts. The police can search and seizure without a warrent if they can prove in a court of law that they had probable doubt that a situation existed. After all is said and done can we afford to take any more risks with our kids lives. If your a parent think if your childs death could have been prevented by another parent or gaurdian actually taking intrest in thier childs well fare instead of letting them watch TV and play video games on the internet with out knowing what in the hell thier kid is actually up to but expecting the media and internet to babysit for them.
Hold the phone, Big. Just stop for a second, and take a deep breath from your indignace for a moment.
NO. The incident must have started when the class was full, and the two video clips I saw were both in the vice principal's office.
The video clips you linked were (1) classroom and (2) principals office. They are clearly marked as such.
You cannot tell if that classroom is a special ed classroom or a regular classroom. You cannot tell that from the video nor from the commentary. You don't know if she's special needs or not. If she isn't, she needs to be.
The substitue/teacher in training couldn't handle the situation with the little girl, she was sent to the vice principal's office.
Perhaps that was her regular teacher, (I've seen no indication in the news story it was a sub or teacher in training) and Jaieesha lost it. Let me point out this one teeny little fact.
As a teacher, YOU CANNOT TOUCH THESE CHILDREN. You can't. That's one reason why the video tape was moved from the classroom to the principals office. Because they wanted proof (you can hear them discussing it on the tape) that the teacher did not touch the child, other than removing her from the table, which is a dangerous situation for the child. The teacher keeps saying "You cannot touch me" while Jaieesha is hitting her.
Bad behavior? Yes. But the girl is FIVE YEARS OLD. Who is the adult here?
The teacher was, and under strict guidelines CANNOT TOUCH THAT CHILD.
When you send your child to kindergarten, don't you expect the teachers and the administrators (or the nurse or the librarian or the gym teacher or the school secretary or somebody) to have had some experience with little kids? How to soothe a kid that's having a tantrum?
Yes, but.. we know the cops have seen little 5 year old Jaieesha before because she remembers the cops!! We know the mother had been called 45 minutes prior to the arrival of the cops. We know the mother wasn't there. It's obvious that Jaieesha has issues that go beyond a normal child's "tantrum".
I have a young child. I asked him how he felt when he was sent to the principal's office. His answer: scared. That sounds about right. Try to think of it from the five year old's point of view. You have no power. Things don't go your way. Mommy's gonna be mad. Hell yeah you're scared.
I bet your son, being raised by a responsible (and normally level-headed) parent, would have a tantrum, get sent home, get disciplined, and that would be it. This child had a tantrum OVER AN HOUR LONG. That is NOT a normal "tantrum". That's a special needs child that needs help that a school cannot provide.
Now that bad behavior, that acting out, that "hitting" the principal, that's not good. It's not good for the girl, the adults, or anyone else around. But how can that behavior stop? By definition, the kid's lost control at that moment. Who does the responsibility for control fall to then. Come on, think. I bet you can get this one right. Yeah. The adult.
I agree 100%, but lets keep in mind our school's rule. THEY CANNOT TOUCH THE CHILD. They cannot restrain the child. They cannot put her in a lock or a hold, or anything else, because they are the school, and if they do, it spells LAWSUIT for the school district. I promise you. No district wants a lawsuit, so they have very very strict guidelines. Ask your son's school. They won't touch him either. They will call you and keep him from hurting himself and others as much as possible WITHOUT touching him.
Remember when your young'uns were colicky, inconsolable? Hey, some power struggle over something in which you were completely right and the kiddie was completely wrong. Like this classroom situation. When you and child had this conflict, how did you settle it?
When it's MY CHILD, I would either (a) restrain or (b) beat the snot out of him until he figures out that isn't going to fly with me. The school can't do EITHER, Big. They just CAN'T.
How would you de-escalate the situation? Could you try distraction? Persuasion? Calming words? When the kid's scared, you know they're not at their most malleable or reasonable. How do you get them to do what you want? You have to soothe the fears, duh. I didn't see much of that in these two videos.
As a teacher, I'd do just what the teachers in the video did. By the time we saw Jaieesha in the classroom, it was too late. The cajoling and the persuation had already happened, and she was out of control. And she was loving her power. Let's review: if it's a regular classroom (which I sincerely doubt) she's managed to disrupt it enough to clear it out. She's got all eyes on her, she has multiple teachers there, she's getting alot of attention.
Later, in the principles office, she was tearing shit off the walls for Christ's sake. The teacher kept telling her no, using hand signals (another reason I think this was special needs...they are trained to use gestures as reinforcement) and she was playing a game with ripping the pictures off the wall. Darting, faking, she was having a damn good time.
Once a child reaches the point where they know they aren't going to be punished at school, they will act up in school. And it doesn't appear the threat of her mother was too bad, either....and was followed up with mom not showing up for over 45 minutes. Yeah. Great parenting.
Wrong.
The male cop says to the vice principal:
"I see you took my advice."
The camera is on Jaieesha, she is sitting quietly at the table. The male cop says to her:
"Jaieesha. You have to calm down and you have to do it right now. Ok? Remember me? I'm the one you told your mom put the handcuffs on you. Aight."
I've listened again and I don't hear it that way.
Yep. And leg restraints (shackles). And she was put in the back of the squad car.
Really? Explain these wild statements. I love a good fantasy story.
Come on, Big, don't be like that.
I am amazed that you would consider rewarding such incompetence with a raise. Did she do her job? Did she control the situation? Shit. Did she teach anybody anything? A raise?! phbtbbtbbtbtbt.
Damn straight. and a big ass one, too. She followed district and school policies and showed a patience and tolerance for that bullshit far better than *I* would have. She did her job AND more.
Damn straight. Because if the existing policy is to CALL THE POLICE AND HAVE THEM ARREST, HANDCUFF AND SHACKLE FIVE YEAR OLD GIRLS who have tantrums, the policy, and I'm being generous here, is b-r-o-k-e-n.
To be continued:
Big.... this was NOT a normal tantrum for a 5 year old child. Dude. Over an HOUR?? This was not a "tantrum". This was Jaieesha showing the if she ISN'T in a special needs classroom, she NEEDS to be. I don't want my 5-year old child in the classroom with her, because she's obviously got issues with control and violence. She's been involved with the police before, this is "acting out", not "tantrum". This is NOT normal 5 year old behavior, even in a "tantrum" situation.
All you're seeing is the big bad policemen handcuffing her. On the tape, she doesn't go sit in the corner until she hears that the cops have shown up. THEN she goes and sits down (prolly tired as hell) and tries to look all innocent. It appears she respects the police officers and NO ONE ELSE.
Perhaps (and keep in mind we don't have the history of this situation, thanks to the attorney who posted the video but gave up no prior history of the school, her behavior or whatever..) this is the only attention she gets. She freaks until the cops show up, then it's all good.
Hey OC, your sig talks about personal responsibility.
[INDENT]"Up to a point a man's life is shaped by environment, heredity, and movements and changes in the world about him. Then there comes a time when it lies within his grasp to shape the clay of his life into the sort of thing he wishes to be. Only the weak blame parents, their race, their times, lack of good fortune, or the quirks of fate. Everyone has it within his power to say, 'This I am today, that I will be tomorrow' "
- Louis L'Amour[/INDENT]
Would you say that that point in a person's life when the dominant shaping forces change from environmental factors to internal factors is near five years old?
I would say dominant forces are between birth and 5-ish. And this little girl OBVIOUSLY has issues. Whether it's a physical problem (ADHD, bipolar, aspergers) or just a behavioral one (parents don't discipline, don't care, don't wanna care) this child has a very long, hard road ahead of her.
Maybe teenagers? Fully growed adults, though, for sure, right? But all parties surrender their self responsibility.
I think the teachers and administrators did their job. They could not control the child, and so called the police to control the child. Teachers are not babysitters. They are educators. When you can't touch a child, or restrain them, calling the police is your only opotion. Why don't you understand that??
And of all them, only the little girl can be excused.
I don't think some of this is her fault, but I don't think this behavior is excused. This was willfull behavior. She was fully aware this was not correct behavior. And didn't care.
Actually, the cops don't shirk their responsibility. But their reaction is utterly over the top. Did you see that part where the girl's sitting at the table and the cop tells her to settle down and do it right now? Ok, achieved. Where's the reason to cuff her?
I want to be clear. I think handcuffing her *at that point* was necessary because they were going to take her away to the police station, and if *I* was a cop, I would not want a violent 5 year old in the back seat of my squad car unrestrained. She could be flailing around back there and hurt herself. Better to handcuff her in the building and put her in the car than try to handcuff in the car.
*crickets chirping* *sound of pin dropping* *deafening silence*
Right. I thought so. There is no reason, no good reasonable reason.
You're speaking from the standpoint of an emotional parent. Step back and look at the administrators and the police pov. It makes sense.
But the spokesman for the police department , Bill Profit, agrees with you:
[INDENT]Bill Profit:
"There is no minimum age for criminal culpability."
[/INDENT]
Well, yeah, I don't think there was criminal activity here. I think that's a dumb statement.
News flash! A five year old is NOT criminally culpable for a tantrum in class like this. He's toeing the company line, sure, but I want people in these positions, and in postions like the officers, to use judgement, not just dogma.
I agree with you here.
Remember that 911 call from the moron in the drive through? That dispatcher, SHE exercised some adult judgement to not dispatch the cops to enforce a cheeseburger. Her humor and intelligence prevail. Why was that absent here?
This is wrong wrong wrong. When there's a problem with my kid in class, he may have to go to the principal's office. This little girl did. When my kid's having a problem at school, call me. The school did. When my kid's freakin out, calm him down. There were a couple of false starts here, but not sustained.
Yes, the school did just right. They tried to calm. But keep the rule in mind here. THEY CANNOT TOUCH YOUR CHILD. All they can use is words, and as we saw, that did fuckall. They called the parent. Parent never showed, even after 45 minutes. So they took the next step and called the police. Absolutely right.
But when my five year old child is in this kind of awful situation, do not call the cops.
What else are they going to do? The parent didn't show. After 45 minutes. Hello?? What is the school supposed to do? Spend all day dealing with this child's behavior and send them home on the bus? I don't think so. The parent here is the one who could have avoided this situation. Hey, note to Jaieesha's mom: when the school calls and tells you your child is having a meltdown and is in the principals office, GO GET THE CHILD.
If I was the school, and the mom didn't show up in 45 minutes, hell yeah, my next step is the cops.
Don't arrest him. Don't handcuff him. Don't shackle him. Don't park him in the back of the squad car.
Once the cops arrived, the school was done with the situation. Once the cops arrived, it was the cops responsible for the situation. The teachers and administrators don't make the call if she's handcuffed or arrested. The cops do.
Don't do these things and expect to have your job on the following Monday, because if you do, your galactic fucking incompetence endangers ALL the children you're around. You're a failure and a menace. Get out of my face and get out of my school
Wrong wrong wrong. You have thought out the situation, followed district and school policy, and you'll do it again like that last time.
Call your kid's school. Ask them what their policy is.
I've gotta pick up a speed reading course. This all started out with a teenage kid writing about killing his classmates then changed in a second to be about the 5 year old girl who got handcuffed. It all boils down to the parents. I was beaten with a belt and a switch( a small young sapling reed or stick for non southerners). These kids today are give time outs. They are told they can't be disciplined by spankings(by the way in my day corpral punishment was in school and we'd rather get spanked by the principal than have to go home and have our parents spank us). Time outs have become the biggest BS in history. How can you discipline a child by telling them to go to thier room when they have access to cable TV, video games and the internet. We should be making them have time out on the front stoop or the back yard. Make them plant a tree or some flowers. This go to your room crap is for the birds. I guess after my long "tantrum" I should come to my point. The parents are what make or break these kids. Relying on others to raise our children and discipline them and just think we can sit back and feed and cloth them with out molding them into model citizens who respect not just those with badges but all adults. Have you actually been into a highschooll lately the freshman are bullying the Seniors....when the hell did this come about. Seniors used to bully freshman now it seems the freshman are too scared that the same laws that we say protect our kids will actually make them be the bad guys now for fighting back. This PC society has weakened the infostructure of what America was founded on. How many kids today even know what the American Constitution is let alone know where it is or what's written in it? Ok that's enough of my "soap box" for now.
What I don't get is why she wasn't treated as a behavioral emergency, and taken to the nearest psych hospital.
"Go Wolf." this seems to be the heart of problem. Call your kid's school. Ask them what their policy is.
Maybe a little "cool hand luke" is needed at home?
I've gotta pick up a speed reading course. This all started out with a teenage kid writing about killing his classmates then changed in a second to be about the 5 year old girl who got handcuffed.
That's how it is around here.
It all boils down to the parents. I was beaten with a belt and a switch( a small young sapling reed or stick for non southerners). These kids today are give time outs. They are told they can't be disciplined by spankings(by the way in my day corpral punishment was in school and we'd rather get spanked by the principal than have to go home and have our parents spank us).
That was a different time, when neighbors knew each other, and when neighbors could beat your ass when they saw you doing stupid shit and then take you home to your mama and then SHE'D beat your ass, too, for making the neighbor take the time out of her day to discipline you.
Time outs have become the biggest BS in history. How can you discipline a child by telling them to go to thier room when they have access to cable TV, video games and the internet. We should be making them have time out on the front stoop or the back yard. Make them plant a tree or some flowers. This go to your room crap is for the birds.
My 17 year old is too big to beat now, so I restrict him from the computer and the phone and the radio. That didn't used to work, because he didn't care and would go to sleep for the day. Now that he's got a girlfriend, he gets pissed. It's punishment now. (evil laugh)
My 12 year old still gets the time outs in the corner of the living room, not his room where he can go play...he sits there, back to the TV. He's not allowed to speak unless he raises his hand. For him, that's punishment enough, unless he REALLY messes up, then he gets a 3 swat beating. He goes through cycles...he'll gradually increase the messup ratio until the beating, then he'll be fine for a few more months, then another beating....
All I have to do with the 8 year old is look at her mad and yell and send her to her room and she's a mess.
I guess after my long "tantrum" I should come to my point. The parents are what make or break these kids. Relying on others to raise our children and discipline them and just think we can sit back and feed and cloth them with out molding them into model citizens who respect not just those with badges but all adults.
Amen! Teachers are not babysitters. They are educators.
Have you actually been into a highschooll lately the freshman are bullying the Seniors....when the hell did this come about. Seniors used to bully freshman now it seems the freshman are too scared that the same laws that we say protect our kids will actually make them be the bad guys now for fighting back.
I know that the 8 year old is having trouble at school, because he needs a different classroom setting than "regular" ed, but the schools only alternative is special ed, which is the severely handicapped or severe behavioral disorders like Jaieesha (and worse). That would be worse than regular, so he's in regular. Still not what he needs, but the only other option is homeschooling, which I can't afford to do. This lifetime.
This PC society has weakened the infostructure of what America was founded on. How many kids today even know what the American Constitution is let alone know where it is or what's written in it? Ok that's enough of my "soap box" for now.
I'm not quite sure where that came from, but YEAH!!
;) Welcome to the cellar, by the way. UNC!
I agree, BigV, that it was unreasonable for the girl to be handcuffed.
Unfortunately, due to our lawsuit happy country most, if not all, reasonable options are closed. Unless the girl is mentally handicapped, I suspect a timeout would have settled her down. But what do you do if the child refuses the timeout? You can't spank her. In some places you can't even touch her.
The fact that the girl had the temper tantrum in the first place indicates to me that she is not disciplined at home. So what do you do when parents won't discipline their children, and teachers can't?
For christs sake! I haven't read the whole thread so I apologise now if any of this is out of context, but "time out"?? This notion of punishment is cruel, ineffective and gives kids completely the wrong idea. If I did something my parents didn't like and I was made to stand in the corner of a room I would think them ridiculous, not listen to what they have to say. Bear in mind the kid-in-need-of-discipline obviously didn't consider his actions to be wrong, or he wouldn't have done it. Parents need to instill a proper sense of right, wrong and rationality in kids so they can UNDERSTAND why they mustn't do something, then they won't do it again! If they don't understand, they'll keep doing it. If they do understand and still keep doing it, there's no hope, give up, and let them ruin their lives. They'll either remain so until they die, or hit a sudden realisation at some point causing them to take responsibility for their actions.
It's a difficult subject I know but parents acting stupidly by reacting or making them do stupid things will not help a child to think of them as a trustworthy authority on life, just another 'silly adult'.
To be quite frank, if one does not possess the ability to be rational and get it right (and thus effective in their discipline), they shouldn't be having children.
Just to add that I'm all in favour of a sharp wrap (not beating) at younger ages to stun an irrepresible child and show them who's boss.
Now that bad behavior, that acting out, that "hitting" the principal, that's not good. It's not good for the girl, the adults, or anyone else around. But how can that behavior stop? By definition, the kid's lost control at that moment. Who does the responsibility for control fall to then. Come on, think. I bet you can get this one right. Yeah. The adult.
I'm glad this is coming out into the open. Because we've completely taken away any power from authority figures in school, the kids are running the place. They learn by their 3rd week in class that the adults in the building are terrified to do anything to them for fear of lawsuits. Unless, of course, it's a hot-button issue like drugs, in which case a kid with a Flintstone vitamin can be locked away for life.
This little girl knew she owned the teacher, and had no reason to stop misbehaving until she just tired out. Of course, if the teacher had swatted that little butt a couple times in the early part of the incident, the video would only have been 20 seconds long. And the teacher would go to jail for abuse. Of course, the child would know that it's unacceptable to throw a screaming fit, but hysterical school boards and anti-discipline advocates translate that as, "teaching her that violence is the answer."
The cops are the only recourse these poor teachers have when "time-out" fails to work. At last count, I believe it fails 100% of the time.
I'm as angry as BigV is, but I'm angry at a system that is less concerned about children than it is about lawsuits from special interest groups.
Edit: just read the first bleatings about how badly the child was "damaged" by having police put handcuffs on her when she was sitting so sweetly at the table, not hurting anyone. :doh: if she continues to act like that without being disciplined, she better get used to the sensation of cold metal on the wrists.
This little girl knew she owned the teacher, and had no reason to stop misbehaving until she just tired out. Of course, if the teacher had swatted that little butt a couple times in the early part of the incident, the video would only have been 20 seconds long. And the teacher would go to jail for abuse. Of course, the child would know that it's unacceptable to throw a screaming fit, but hysterical school boards and anti-discipline advocates translate that as, "teaching her that violence is the answer."
The cops are the only recourse these poor teachers have when "time-out" fails to work. At last count, I believe it fails 100% of the time.
Now you are just pulling shit out of your ass.
The only thing a child learns from being hit is that "might makes right."
My children have never been spanked or hit in any way, and they don't act like this. My kids know what is expected of them, they know what our family values are, we strive to enforce rules as consisitently as we can, because that's the key. There are lots of ways to punish a child without getting physical. Taking away privileges is the best way I've found. My daughter, who is the same age as the kid in this video was one of a handful of students recognized in her school as a "peacemaker," so I'm not just a proud parent speaking with bias. She's an extremely well behaved kid who has never been spanked once, and never will be.
True discipline is a hell of a lot more than hitting a kid, and hitting is
totally unnecessary. In fact, I would say (biased view coming) that people who hit their kids are too lazy to actually discipline them correctly and effectively. The hitting feels like you are being "tough" but doesn't actually convey any useful information to the kid. In fact, I think hitting probably does more harm than good in most cases.
I don't know the details of this case, but I think Wolf may be on to something that the child is a special needs kid.
P.S. If any teacher laid a hand on my kids, they would feel what it is like to be hit themselves.
The cops are the only recourse these poor teachers have when "time-out" fails to work. At last count, I believe it fails 100% of the time.
"Time Out" only works for children who have a conscience.
P.S. If any teacher laid a hand on my kids, they would feel what it is like to be hit themselves.
Now that's not the answer. Instead, reasonably explain to them that...
oh nevermind. you just killed your argument, is all.
I'm not talking about beating a kid, and I'm not talking about using it as retribution. I'm not talking about causing pain -- at least, not lasting pain. I'm talking about getting the attention of someone who has turned into a fire-breathing, tantrum-throwing monster and won't stop. I'm glad you never had to swat your kids, but believe me, there are no vital organs located in the buttocks, and they will survive.
Furthermore, you can see from the video what
not disciplining a child does for them.
edit #2: dang, now you have *me* all worked up too. Glatt, surely you're not saying that anyone who dares spank a child is doing it for some kind of power trip? That the parent who spanks is teaching violence? Not at my house. When it happened to us, we knew exactly why, and knew that it was just (except for one time, where I took the heat for my brother over something. But that was me being nice).
touchy-feely new age bullshit is poisoning the world.
P.S. If any teacher laid a hand on my kids, they would feel what it is like to be hit themselves.
This is why the rule is in effect, and when talking, cajoling and bribing doesn't work, call parents, and when they don't come, there is one recourse: to call police.
Once the police arrived, it was no longer the school's problem.
Don't be pissed at the school because the police cuffed the child.
I'm sorry I mentioned that bit about what I would do to a teacher who hit my kid. I'm not sorry because I take it back, I'm sorry because you latched on to it and missed the rest of my post. There's a difference between adults and kids. I have no responsibility to teach discipline to adults, so I'll use violence on them if I need to. Plus, they are the same size as me, so it's a fair fight.
Furthermore, you can see from the video what not disciplining a child does for them.
We are in agreement there. The only problem is that to you, discipline=hitting. To me, discipline=discipline.
The only problem is that to you, discipline=hitting. To me, discipline=discipline.
Mmm...
Can you smell ideology and the over-simplification? I can...
I'm sorry I mentioned that bit about what I would do to a teacher who hit my kid. I'm not sorry because I take it back, I'm sorry because you latched on to it and missed the rest of my post.
I got the rest of the post. And for most cases, spanking is NOT the answer. But it most definitely IS the answer for some cases. My parents were very loving people (still are) who would gladly have given their lives for any of us. But your post essentially lumps them into one of three groups: child abusers, ignorant cretins, or lazy parents. And I call bullshit. Our discipline ranged anywhere from lectures to repayment of debts to grounding to the :mg: occasional swat on the butt when we needed it to get our attention. The idea that "all spanking is wrong, and only teaches that might makes right" is naive pop-psychology claptrap. If you are an adult who throws a fit in front of a police officer and he/she hits you with pepper spray, explain to them that they are sending you the wrong message about violence, and I'm sure they won't do it anymore. Sheesh.
We are in agreement there. The only problem is that to you, discipline=hitting. To me, discipline=discipline.
wrong again. see above. I'm sure you love your kids very much, and I know you're completely sincere. But so am I.
I'm sorry I mentioned that bit about what I would do to a teacher who hit my kid. I'm not sorry because I take it back, I'm sorry because you latched on to it and missed the rest of my post.
I didn't miss the rest of the post.
There's a difference between adults and kids. I have no responsibility to teach discipline to adults, so I'll use violence on them if I need to.
Which still teaches your children that might makes right, and violence is ok if it's adult violent to an adult.
Plus, they are the same size as me, so it's a fair fight.
So, if it's ok adult to adult, and size to size, then child to child is ok?
Either "violence isn't the answer" or "violence is ok sometimes". Can't have it both ways. Do as I say, not as I do?
We are in agreement there. The only problem is that to you, discipline=hitting. To me, discipline=discipline.
No, to me, hitting= I've tried everything else and you still didn't get it, so let me get your attention.
all children and all parents are different. i would challenge (and place bets) on you spending one month with my son with your anti-swatting stance. my son is a very good child, he is not a brat or an animal in any way. he is also very smart. too smart for his own good anyway.
we tried the non-physical discipline route in the beginning. what we have found is that when he disobeys in a more-or-less unintentional way, time outs, toy restrictions, etc. work.
more often when my son gets in trouble, he knows exactly what he is doing and knows there will be consequences.
---time out? ha! he laughs and will fall asleep with his head against the wall.
---take away a favored toy? HAfuckingHA! after i did that he went to his room and one by one brought out ALL of his favorite toys. i asked why and his response was that I could take those because he is going to keep doing ____. until then i thought steam coming out of one's ears was only for the cartoons.
---take away his activities such as soccer and gymnastics? he retorts with - "good i was too tired anyway".
---lecture and discussion? nope, he'll just sit there with a tear in the corner of his eye, and a nasty little grin on his face for as long as i take - no big deal.
---Carrots rather than sticks? nope - the toy he wanted more than anything??? he said he didn't need it if it meant doing what he was told.
---i sting his little ass? he stops. right then and there. the tears aren't really from physical pain, but from the realization that he crossed the line. AND THEN we add on one of the other methods.
he won't even be 4 until June and this is his personality. this aspect of his personality is from his mom. i lived in fear of my father's justice (not abuse). my wife is exactly like him though. her parents just laugh. i do want to reiterate that he is generally a VERY good boy. but boys will be boys.
not every child responds to thoughtful discussions, timeouts, groundings, etc.
Either "violence isn't the answer" or "violence is ok sometimes". Can't have it both ways. Do as I say, not as I do?
OK, you win. I take it back about hitting the teacher. I've never hit another person in my adult life, and I don't believe in violence. I was being dramatic.
mrnoodle, it's nice to see you backpedaling a bit too, and talking about other ways of disciplining besides hitting. I may have misread it, but your post at 12:24 about "hysterical school boards," "anti-discipline advocates," "adults who are terrified to do anything to [unruly kids] for fear of lawsuits," and that "time-out" fail "100% of the time" seemed to advocate hitting as the answer to all these problems. You seemed to be saying that if teachers were allowed to hit students, that would go a long way toward solving the problem of misbehaving students. Perhaps I read too much into that post. Your most recent post, where you say "And for most cases, spanking is NOT the answer." is much more reasonable, and is one I wouldn't have taken issue with.
I understand some parents think spanking is OK. My own parents spanked me from time to time, and I turned out OK. I would never support a ban on parents being able to spank their kids, regardless of my own parenting methods.
Teachers spanking kids is another story. I never witnessed any teachers ever hitting a kid when I was a student in the 70s and 80s. That was 30 years ago, so it's not some new Liberal conspiracy of weak-kneed school boards. Perhaps my schools were different. Teachers shouldn't have that "tool." There are plenty of other tools at their disposal.
all children and all parents are different. i would challenge (and place bets) on you spending one month with my son with your anti-swatting stance. my son is a very good child, he is not a brat or an animal in any way. he is also very smart. too smart for his own good anyway.
we tried the non-physical discipline route in the beginning. what we have found is that when he disobeys in a more-or-less unintentional way, time outs, toy restrictions, etc. work.
more often when my son gets in trouble, he knows exactly what he is doing and knows there will be consequences.
---time out? ha! he laughs and will fall asleep with his head against the wall.
---take away a favored toy? HAfuckingHA! after i did that he went to his room and one by one brought out ALL of his favorite toys. i asked why and his response was that I could take those because he is going to keep doing ____. until then i thought steam coming out of one's ears was only for the cartoons.
---take away his activities such as soccer and gymnastics? he retorts with - "good i was too tired anyway".
---lecture and discussion? nope, he'll just sit there with a tear in the corner of his eye, and a nasty little grin on his face for as long as i take - no big deal.
---Carrots rather than sticks? nope - the toy he wanted more than anything??? he said he didn't need it if it meant doing what he was told.
---i sting his little ass? he stops. right then and there. the tears aren't really from physical pain, but from the realization that he crossed the line. AND THEN we add on one of the other methods.
he won't even be 4 until June and this is his personality. this aspect of his personality is from his mom. i lived in fear of my father's justice (not abuse). my wife is exactly like him though. her parents just laugh. i do want to reiterate that he is generally a VERY good boy. but boys will be boys.
not every child responds to thoughtful discussions, timeouts, groundings, etc.
Damn, dude. That's a headstrong child. Good luck to you and Mrs. Lookout.
Our rule of thumb was that spanking was reserved for willful disobedience. I've only had to spank my kids maybe ten times. But my kids aren't that bull-headed.
Catwoman - timeouts are very good for their intended purpose - to get a kid to calm down and take a deep breath. Having a kid stand in a corner for 1/2 hour is not a timeout. It is physical punishment of a different sort.
Teachers shouldn't have that "tool." There are plenty of other tools at their disposal.
Like what? I'm not advocating teachers spanking here. I want to know what you think teachers should do when a child is disrupting the classroom and will not stop.
In our kids' school the teachers only have to threaten kids with a PN (parental notification - note to the parents). That settles 'em right down. But we live in an area where the kids learn discipline at home. Plus, my kids go to a private school. They have the ultimate weapon - they can kick the kid out. Public schools don't have that.
It's nice that we found at least some common ground on this, but I still think the reason why so many kids are out of control in school is because they've outlawed the paddle. I support the outlawing, but ONLY because the caliber of many teachers today is about as pathetic as the caliber of student. The ones that arent' getting pregnant by their charges are truly abusive in other ways (of course the majority aren't that bad, but you see the trend every day)
I told a story here one time about my dad's experience teaching high school (maybe it was jr. high) shop class to a bunch of cornfed football players. They had run out the previous teachers and were trying to do so to my dad. Long story short, one day he had enough. When they came in the next day, having openly defied his instruction to clean up the shop after use, he gave them a choice: leave my classroom now and never come back (bonus: meeting with the parents to explain why) or stay and take your medicine. One kid left, and was later expelled (the story is much deeper than just not cleaning up after class). After the kid left, dad shut the door, removed the Belt of Justice, and lined 'em up. Each got a thwack or two, all yelled. Some cried. None ever crossed him again, and he says they were his best class ever after that.
Only one parent complained: the father of the kid who walked out. Not a single other parent complained, and several called the principal to SUPPORT what had happened. The football coaches were amazed at the new attitude these kids showed.
My dad didn't do it out of anger, didn't do it to show that might makes right (in fact, a couple of those kids could've taken him in a one-on-one fight. He was only 5'9" and 150# or so). He explained what was going to happen, why it was happening, gave them the choice, and administered the discipline. This happened in 1961, I think -- it was his first teaching job after getting his masters' after the Navy.
I admit that approach wouldn't work today. The kids would be more likely to pull a gun or knife than take a spanking, and they might have already spent time in jail. The other teachers would file a complaint, the principal would lose his/her job, every talk show in the world would provide wall-to-wall coverage, and at some point he would be accused of a hate crime, if one of em was gay or black or something.
So, yeah. call the cops. It's the only option they have left when things get out of control.
i'll be thirty-one in a few days so i grew up in public schools in the '80s. my grade school still had a wooden paddle that was used pretty damn frequently.
a pattern that i recognized as a child and i focus on now is that the kids who got in trouble at school, generally, were the ones who had no fear of retribution from home. they would act out, disrespect the teacher and eventually get sent to the office. Mr Sperry, cranky old drunk that he was, would take the wood to their butts and that was it for them.
those of us that didn't get sent to the office didn't behave out of some fear of that paddle. it was our parents. i knew (as did most of my friends) that if i got into big enough trouble that the principal used the paddle, then my parents would get the phone call - and that is when the real trouble kicked in.
I wasn't abused in any way, but i knew that my parents would be disappointed in me. (i had conscience enough to not like that), but also that my dad may take a physical discipline route, a lecture, grounding, etc. it was consistant, harsh, and effective.
today, the school can't do anything because if the kids get in trouble or aren't doing well in class, it must be the teachers' fault or some other kids. there is very little personal accountability for these kids anymore. there are no consequences to their actions. kids aren't any different today than they were 20 or 30 years ago - the parents are different. the parents do not teach the children any respect for authority. without respect for authority, forget about discipline. without discipline kiss any hopes for healthy, well-adjusted children right out the window.
that is why my kid is already in a private school. not because we are snobs (i hate the idea of private schools and ridiculed private school kids when i was a public school kid.) but because i get to choose a school that maintains discipline in a way i support. they choose their students based on interviews, not zip codes or economic situations(sizeable scholarships for volunteer work). the parents have real money invested in their child's education and work with the teachers for REAL accountability for the kids.
I'm surprised your school had a paddle that recently. My parents' schools supposedly had them in the 40's. I hadn't heard of them since then.
today, the school can't do anything because if the kids get in trouble or aren't doing well in class, it must be the teachers' fault or some other kids. there is very little personal accountability for these kids anymore. there are no consequences to their actions. kids aren't any different today than they were 20 or 30 years ago - the parents are different. the parents do not teach the children any respect for authority. without respect for authority, forget about discipline. without discipline kiss any hopes for healthy, well-adjusted children right out the window.
Agreed.
I've never spanked my boys...however, I have waved the .45 around in a menacing manner....seriously, though...wolf is dead right. Shoulda been called on a psych emergency and then everybody would've been :)
i don't disagree that it should have been a psych emergency call, but if it had been then a different group of people would be pissed.
There are no answers anymore that DON'T piss someone off. Vive la difference I guess. None of the opposing sides of these arguments are powerful enough on their own to actually destroy the world, so I guess the compromises will turn out to be ok.
But if that little girl was mine, she would've performed approximately .0000429 seconds of that little display.
No, I don't have kids, why do you ask? ;)
Hey Glatt. Are you going to answer my question in #71?
Hey Glatt. Are you going to answer my question in #71?
I don't have a magic bullet answer.
Basically, with a kid who is disrupting the classroom, the kid should be sent to the principal's office, and the parent should be called to come get them. I think that will work in the overwhelming majority of cases. When it doesn't work, the kid should be romoved from the classroom for good, and put into a special class of some sort for kids with special needs. If the kid is diruptive to the point of being a danger to themselves or someone else, I think it's perfectly appropriate for the cops to come in. Shouldn't happen too often.
The idea is that it shouldn't ever get to this point. If the parents send kids to school who are ready to learn, and the teachers keep the kids engaged, this won't happen often. The detention/suspension route in high school has decent results, but isn't age appropriate for kindergarten. Good teachers have lots of tricks up their sleeve. I'm not one so I don't know them all, but if the teacher senses trouble brewing in a kindergarten classroom because the kids are getting bored, he/she should consider switching topics. A good teacher will come up with lesson plans that will keep the kids engaged. Kids who are bad chemistry when seated together should be put at separate tables. Much disruptive behavior is because the kid is seeking attention. Give them attention ahead of time, and they won't need to seek it. So have a schedule of special jobs for the kids so they feel like they are part of things. Not real jobs, but token ones. Line leader, door holder, caboose for the line, helper, paper-passer-outer. Whatever. I don't know all the tricks. But the good teachers do.
disclaimer:
have just rec'd news of death in family. will post fuller response eventually.
summary:
dar512, glatt, bigv--right.
troubleshooter, catwoman, silverfox, mrnoodle--varying degrees of missing the point, mostly off base.
onyxcougar--alone in a special category of wrongness.
later..
disclaimer:
have just rec'd news of death in family. will post fuller response eventually.
summary:
dar512, glatt, bigv--right.
troubleshooter, catwoman, silverfox, mrnoodle--varying degrees of missing the point, mostly off base.
onyxcougar--alone in a special category of wrongness.
later..
Wow, should I feel chastened?
I still think some kids need spankings (at least temporarily) and some don't. My son has never been spanked. He has never needed it. He is so sensitive that time-outs and taking priveledges and discussions get through to him. He can be stubborn, but that is when his lightsabers are put atop the fridge for a couple of days and he is reminded why when he asks. My step-son, on the other hand, rarely responds to his name, let alone punishment. Nothing seems to bother him or change his behavior unless it is accompanied by a spanking from his dad. After a few days of being with us, a threat of "Do you want a spanking?" does the trick. Every once in a while, he challenges the threat, and finds it to be real. But, for the most part, it works. It isn't laziness. It isn't violent. It is very controlled and dad and him talk about why he got the spanking afterwards. He finally takes it seriously. I don't think there is anything wrong with it. Otherwise, this kid wouldn't learn anything, because he just doesn't listen. Difference in wills, difference in personalities.
My brother's 2 year old daughter is the same way. She gets snooty from time to time, tests her boundaries, etc. But if my brother says "No" sternly, it almost breaks her heart. She lies down on the floor facedown until the unimaginable pain goes away.
Not so with her mom. She'll just turn her head away and sneer. I think it's because they're both women.
First you have to get their attention. :eyebrow:
Young children are remarkably similar to mules, however, you often need to use different methodologies to get them to see things your way.
While I understand the school district's apparent policy regarding "no touch" I work with a number of different schools and school districts that allow for a "therapeutic hold" (which usually requires a buttload of documentation to justify it after the fact).
Staff are specifically trained to do such things ... you can't just jump on a kid and hold them down until they stop screaming, sometimes because in those kinds of situations, not screaming = unconscious or dead. There is a right way, and if you have the certification, you can justify the use of the hold.
The kid in the video is not merely the poster child for Ritalin, I think she's probably the poster child for horse tranquilizers.
My own school experience lacked paddles (even during my brief tenure in Catholic School), but I did detour around a little scene in my high school where a gym teacher was in the midst of a learning experience that involved throwing one of the stoners into a bunch of lockers and a lot of very loud instruction. The student seemed to understand the lesson after that.
BigV, sorry to hear about the death in your family. I wish you peace, understanding, and healing.
Thanks for responding, Glatt. I think we're basically in agreement.
I'm sorry about the sad news, Big. My thoughts are with you.
This topic is stealing my rest. I cannot sleep well. I want peace. Here goes.
Zero-th: If you think that handcuffing the little girl was an
inexcusable overreaction by the police, you are excused from the following long-ass post. If, on the other hand, you think there was any justification for the actions of the school staff or the police, you are welcome to read on as I try to explain myself. You may learn something, but if you don't, stay away from my kids. Far, far away.
First, what's not at issue here. Folks, parenting is important. It is most important. It's so important that we have a whole forum full of threads full of advice and conversation and support. So stipulated.
Second, I know threads drift, get hijacked, wander. I wish to redirect our focus on the point that is most important.
Now, this part of the conversation began with an item about the authorities reaction to a student's behavior. Sadly and surprisingly, there have been plenty of examples. In all the examples, there have been voices on both sides of the issue. Some say that the response was appropriate. Some say that the response was inappropriate. Bounteous argumentation was enjoyed by all.
I wish to talk about the most recent incident, the little girl that was handcuffed at her kindergarten. This was wrong. This was a mistake of the first order. I have read all the posts subsequent to my introduction of the story. Rather than cheer the points I agree with and refute the ones I disagree with, point by point, I will imagine I am speaking to the child's teacher, or to her vice principal, or to my child's school's staff. I'm speaking to the adults responsible for my children while they're at school. In this imaginary conversation, I'll refer to the points made by my friends here in the cellar. I may refer to them or my imaginary school person, the imagined adult responsible for my child, may refer to them.
The key here is that the adults are the ones responsible.
You have an enormous responsibility. Your work is difficult and rewarding. Frustrating and fulfilling. Important and undervalued. When I send my child off to kindergarten, I'm putting him in your hands for a little while. I get him back later, you get the day shift and I get graveyard and swing. Same kid back and forth. You count on me to get him there, on time, clean, rested, prepared for another day of fun, and if there's some learning snuck in, so much the better *wink wink*. I try to make sure that he's in a maximally receptive state for what he faces in kindergarten.
It's a big place, kindergarten. Waaay bigger than home. Bigger than daycare. So many kids, big kids, and bigger adults, people he doesn't even know. And so much to take in! Papers and books and games and puzzles and songs and just everything. The transition from home to kindergarten is on the same scale as the transition from school to work. Remember those days? Find a place to live? Pay bills? Buy food? File taxes? What's that about?!? Get here do this fix that!! So many rules to follow, some written and
some not. It was not so long ago that you don't remember the high points and the low ones. It's a big change and sometimes you were unable to cope. Fortunately you have your family and friends to rely on for help.
Kindergarten's different in this way though, my son has
you to rely on for help when he can't cope.
When he can't get that math thing, grrr, I know you'll help him. You have those teaching skills you learned back in school. Just lay it out in a different way and it'll be clear. When he's stuck with reading, just say it in a new way and show him how to overcome that obstacle. When there's confusion and conflict with his classmates, use your wisdom to bring reconciliation. If he's sad one day, talk to him and comfort him. You're his advocate, his friend. When he falls on the playground and skins his knees, break out the first aid. If he's sick, send him to the nurse.
Whew, I'm tired out just saying all that. And I've covered, what, 1% of one day's challenges. You'll certainly have to use your judgement all the time. What's that? You're saying you suspect dyslexia is the root of the math trouble? We'll call the doctor. Reading problem is because he's an ESL student? We'll try to use more English at home. Sad and listless in class? No, I don't think he's sick, we had a death in the family this week. Trouble getting along with his classmates? Yeah, we're seeing trouble with his siblings too. We don't know why yet. Wipeout on the playground? Is he ok?! Whew, thanks for helping him. A fever? 101.5? Yes, I'll be there as soon as I can.
*steps out of story* You get the idea.
Definitely a dialog between the teacher and the parent. But the point is that the teacher isn't alone. She (my son's teacher is a woman) has tools, she has support, she has people to consult, just as I do as a parent. But she's the adult in charge, on the spot. It's up to her, not my child, to make the right call in a given situation. Now sometimes that right call is a little benign neglect. I don't expect her to read
for him, or solve his math problems or do everything for him. It's ok for him to struggle with it some. Not to the point of surrender in frustration, but she should let him try to work through the problem. Actually, this strategy is used all the time in all situations with the kids, at home and at school. Let them do for themselves while they can, and when they've reached their limit, step in and end the activity or finish it off for them.
Parents and teachers EVERYWHERE do this. Having trouble coloring and the kid's reached the crayon-breaking point. Bzzzt! Time to quit and move on to something else. Stymied with those *&^#&$% shoelaces? Ok, I'll tie them for you. When the limit is reached, the adult/parent/teacher has to step in and make a decision. In this particular case, it seems clear that the kid has lost control of herself. This sometimes happens and though loud and dramatic, is not by itself an emergency. When it happens in the frozen foods section because I won't buy the popsicles he wants, it's embarassing, but not an emergency. What's called for is some restraint. And just like coloring or shoelaces when the kid's resevoirs of restraint are dry, the adult must compensate. That means the restraint has to come from the adult. Both personal restraint to not overreact, and loaned restraint, for the child.
Hold him. Speak calmly and lowly in his ear. It's right there, remember your arms are around him. Reassure him. Soothe him. Remove him from the situation. This did not happen in this case, and that's the first mistake revealed by the video.
You can't touch him! Call your school!
I've heard
enough of that crap.
As a matter of fact, I did call my school. I spoke to the principal. The rule is that the teachers and administrators are permitted and urged to use their judgement. It says that the teacher or administrator is allowed to use an appropriate amount of restraint to keep the kid from hurting himself or endangering others. He further said that if there's a question as to whether the restraint can be applied in a way that is safe for all parties, he may indeed call the cops. For example, if he is faced with a big kid that is "blown out", he may escalate the response to include the cops.
In the example of the five year old girl, if it had happened at my kid's school, you'd never have heard about it because the kid's tantrum would have been allowed to come to a natural and safe and quick end because she'd have been calmed down by the adults around her, with a long hug, maybe minutes long, and with soothing talk. It would not have been inflamed by a teacher towering over her, repeating the same ineffective chant. Dude, it is not working, time to switch to plan b.
Ok, she did switch, but to plan...e or f: Call the principal's office. That's a good plan. Tragically, the vice principal was no more adept at dealing with children than the hapless teacher. The vp was plenty big enough to restrain this child, she
is just a little five year old girl. But she didn't. All that sidestepping in the office while the papers float to the floor--that's not restraint. That's playing zone defense, protecting her desk. Pitiful. Watch it again. All she does is move in an arc around her desk. She doesn't restrain the child. What would she have done if she thought the child would hurt herself, say by stabbing herself with a pencil or some scissors. Where's the hands off policy now? "Just don't bleed on the carpet"?
So everyone in the school is unable to restrain and calm this child. How sad, how f*ckin pitifully sad. "I can't do this!", so call the cops. I guess they're following the same policy as my school. But the level of competence displayed before throwing up the hands and calling the cavalry is vanishingly small.
I know less about police procedures than I do about school procedures. Maybe the rules say they gotta handcuff you. But I've talked to the cops plenty of times. I represent a vastly greater physical threat than that little girl, and I'm a handcuff virgin. Who will talk to this little girl? Who will have compassion? Who will listen to her? Who will advocate for her? Who?
And more frighteningly, if this is our response to the tantrum of a five year old girl in kindergarten, how will we react when something more dangerous confronts us?
In the example of the five year old girl, if it had happened at my kid's school, you'd never have heard about it because the kid's tantrum would have been allowed to come to a natural and safe and quick end because she'd have been calmed down by the adults around her, with a long hug, maybe minutes long, and with soothing talk. It would not have been inflamed by a teacher towering over her, repeating the same ineffective chant. Dude, it is not working, time to switch to plan b.
I honestly hadn't thought of this approach, and it looks good on the surface. But what happens when a parent objects? How long to hold a child, and at what distance? How could the video have shown what was being whispered in the ear? Where's the line between good touching and bad touching if you are restraining a child? Don't give me the logical answer, give me the lawyer's answer. This is a litigious society, and that teacher was hobbled by it. She can't lose her job over one tantrum. Calling the cops for a 5 year old is silly, but in the heat of the moment, terrified of angry parents and school boards, the teacher did what she thought was best.
BigV - it is ridiculous, but - BUT - we don't know anything other than what we see on this video. who don't know how this student behaves normally, we don't know of previous problems, we don't know about previous interaction with the parents, etc. i'm not saying that the school was right or wrong - i am saying we don't know all the facts.
i know one thing for sure - i will watch a 5 year old be handcuffed before i allow myself to run the risk of being dragged to court by some parent who doesn't like the fact that i held their kid in a way that they don't appreciate. teachers aren't there to teach discipline and good behaviour. the parents are responsible for teaching the child it is inappropriate to throw over the top temper tanturms. the teacher is supposed to teach reading, writing, mathmatics, and revisionist history.
BigV - it is ridiculous,
Yes. It is. Don't qualify it to death. It's inexcusable.
but - BUT - we don't know anything other than what we see on this video. who don't know how this student behaves normally, we don't know of previous problems, we don't know about previous interaction with the parents, etc. i'm not saying that the school was right or wrong - i am saying we don't know all the facts.
too late.
i know one thing for sure - i will watch a 5 year old be handcuffed before i allow myself to run the risk of being dragged to court by some parent who doesn't like the fact that i held their kid in a way that they don't appreciate. --snip--
Ok, l123. Let me ask you this. I'm trying to listen to what you're saying and I think it's this: [INDENT]
As a teacher,i know one thing for sure - i will watch a 5 year old be handcuffed before i allow myself to run the risk of being dragged to court by some parent who doesn't like the fact that i held their kid in a way that they don't appreciate.
[/INDENT]
Italics mine. You have a reasonable fear of being sued by the parent. Ok.
Could you with equal ease say this:
[INDENT]
As a parent, i know one thing for sure - i will watch a 5 year old be handcuffed before i allow myself to run the risk of being dragged to court by some parent who doesn't like the fact that i held their kid in a way that they don't appreciate.[/INDENT]
Italics mine. I wonder...
And if you can would you further say this:
[INDENT]As a parent, I would rather see my 5 year old handcuffed than risk having him be held by his teacher, because I might not appreciate it.[/INDENT]
(Hey, paraphrased you instead of mangling the syntax.)
If it's YOUR KID, what's your call? Cuff'em or hug'em?
And if it's not your kid? Same rules or not? If not, why not?
The rules I spoke of do not permit inappropriate touching. In fact I reported "appropriate restraint is permitted". Shit, just because the cop CAN handcuff the kid doesn't mean he can feel up the kid. Just because the rules say a teacher can restrain a kid doesn't mean the teacher can feel up the kid. Seriously.
Are you saying you'd rather trade the guaranteed trauma of being handcuffed to avoid the potential trauma of inappropriate touching? Hey, if circumstances are so out of control that a kindergartener is in handcuffs, the inevitability of throwin down in court was established some time ago. Just gonna be different charges.
BigV - as a parent - if my child is throwing an uncontrollable fit in school like this, they would rather deal with the cops than me. but the problem is that achild who behaves like this probably doesn't have a proper framework of discipline at home.
but as a parent, if my child does acts out that terribly that a teacher, a principal, and a cop see fit to handcuff - then so be it. i am not the suing type if they chose to restrain him themselves (within reason), but i know that there are many out there just looking for an excuse to sue so i wouldn't blame them. i know that, as a parent, if my child was one of the other children sitting in their seats, annoyed, disturbed, and probably afraid of the little freakshow kid, i would be seriously pissed if they HADN"T used whatever means necessary to get that little brat out of the room.
keep in mind that we aren't talking about a teacher walking up to a student who is quietly drawing and thinking "hmmm, i wonder what they would look like in handcuffs?"
the child went berserk. the teacher responded - ineffectively - but to the extent of their abilities at the time.
as a teacher? i would hope that i would have been able to diffuse the situation before i got that far, but i would not pick up that child and hug them and try to soothe them when they are in that condition unless i knew exactly how the parents would view that - because one little brat is not worth my time, money, or energy in court.
I honestly hadn't thought of this approach, and it looks good on the surface. But what happens when a parent objects? How long to hold a child, and at what distance? How could the video have shown what was being whispered in the ear? Where's the line between good touching and bad touching if you are restraining a child? Don't give me the logical answer, give me the lawyer's answer.
Look, I can't speak for other parents. Duh. As a parent of MY kids, for myself, I'll say this.
The video won't reveal what's being whispered in the kid's ear. So I'll ask. I'll ask the teacher and my kid. I'll combine that infomation with everything else I learn about the situation and see if anything stands out.
The line between good touching and bad touching is approximately what your good sense tells you it is. A ballpark estimate? Areas covered by a regular bathing suit are the out of bounds areas. And another big clue, have another adult present. Makes everyone a little more comfortable. Shit, have more kids present if it's appropriate. For example, if a kid's freaking out because he's being teased because he had an accident in his pants, then maybe it's adults only, no additional kids. I'm saying, be open. I mean if the video's rolling, then what will you try to get away with that you can't defend in court.
Ok, you just asked for the laywer's answer... don't know. not a lawyer. What I know of lawyers is that they have a duty to their clients. And the client is parents and kids in this case. Soooo... back to me.
If I find out that it was bad touching, and it was a crime of opportunity, occasioned by my kid's tantrum--he's goin down. ALL inappropriate touching is verboten. But damn. If it's not inappropriate touching, then it's not. The end.
This is a litigious society, and that teacher was hobbled by it. She can't lose her job over one tantrum. Calling the cops for a 5 year old is silly, but in the heat of the moment, terrified of angry parents and school boards, the teacher did what she thought was best.
Litigious society. Fuckin fight the power! Don't sue someone today.
Gonna lose my job. Hell, you were looking for a job when you found this one, weren't you? Maybe this isn't your field.
Terrified of parents and school boards? Time to renew that application down at Starbucks, baby.
Be a force for good. Imagine that you're not the only one, and treat others accordingly. Admit your mistakes, and learn from them. Acknowledge that others do exactly the same thing. Do your best. Communicate what you're trying to accomplish to the kids, the parents, the other staff. Review your own goals and motivations for this kind of work. Be aware that this shit happens and how will you improve next time. Don't give up.
From the point of view of a young teacher who has faced down an emotionally disturbed, out of control 6 year old in an inclusive classroom...and felt totally powerless, and unable to cope, even after the restraint training workshops...I see nothing wrong with this response. The kid needed to restrained for her own safety and the rest of the school's kids. She need to be calmed and removed. I applaud the school for calling for help. No one wants the kid hurt. Or any of the other kids. There are some mentally ill kids out there that are not simply "undisciplined". I dont know, but I'm guessing she's been scarred by far worse than police restraints.
I will simply add that all those that assume what a easy gig managing a class of 20-28 average kindergarteners would be, never have.
BigV, you are missing a big BIG chunk of the story here, one that MUST be considered before further dialog and discussion can take place:
(1) Is the child special needs.
If the child is special needs, then what kind of special needs is crucial. To Autistics and Asperger's children, (and a variety of syndroms like them) you touch them, you might as well have lit them on fire. It is BAD BAD BAD.
(2) What is the previous history with this child?
I agree with most of your post. I think RESPONSIBLE parents don't have a problem with this, because they are, well, responsible. Like yourself. As a parent, you would obviously rather come to the school and pick your child up or calm your child down rather than see your child handcuffed.
But if you are the kind of parent that won't come pick the child up, or teach the child basic discipline and good behavior, then what else do expect the school to do? We do know that the school called the child's parents and they never came. After 45 minutes, it's police calling time.
BigV, you're looking at this from a respectable, responsible, INVOLVED parent perspective. From that perspective, you're absolutely right on all points.
But you're missing the reality of the situation. The reality is that regardless of Jaieesha's "needs", (special or otherwise), her mother DID NOT SHOW UP when she was advised the school could no longer contain the child. That tells me VOLUMES. What kind of parent won't go get thier kid?? The same kind that isn't teaching good behavior, respect, responsiblity, etc etc.
This is the SAME KIND OF PARENT who will sue the school quick as you can BLINK for restraining her child "improperly".
The same kind of person that sue McDonald's for hot coffee.
It happens. It's not right. It's not fair. But it happens. Teachers CANNOT ignore the legalistic viewpoint because ALL TOO OFTEN it means their job.
I'm sorry you don't like that. I don't like it either. But that doesn't change how things are.
This case is actually on CNN after the commercial, so tune in to that...
From the point of view of a young teacher who has faced down an emotionally disturbed, out of control 6 year old in an inclusive classroom...and felt totally powerless, and unable to cope, even after the restraint training workshops...I see nothing wrong with this response. The kid needed to restrained for her own safety and the rest of the school's kids. She need to be calmed and removed. I applaud the school for calling for help. No one wants the kid hurt. Or any of the other kids. There are some mentally ill kids out there that are not simply "undisciplined". I dont know, but I'm guessing she's been scarred by far worse than police restraints.
Needed to be calmed down, agreed. Needed to be removed, also agreed. Needed to be restrained, sure. The teacher's needed help, obviously. And the cops come when you call, ok.
But I have a higher standard for the police. I expect them to be able to use the MINIMUM force required to protect and to serve. From what I saw, their actions exceeded this standard, and I expect they'll answer for it.
UT joked early on that at least they didn't tazer her. Or tear gas her. Or shoot her. Why not?
Obviously because that level of response was not warranted. I submit that even the handcuffing was not warranted. I repeat my admission of the shallowness of my knowledge of police procedures. I can only support this opinion on the strenght of my standing as a citizen and a parent. This kid did not deserve to be cuffed.
I will simply add that all those that assume what a easy gig managing a class of 20-28 average kindergarteners would be, never have.
I haven't done this myself. Close though. And the closer I get, more kids, younger kids, rowdier settings, power tools, open water, projectiles, the more respect I have for those courageous souls that enter the arena day after day.
Big,
I put this in a previous post.
The child is uncontrollable. Do not put the child in the back of the squad car unrestrained. She could hurt herself back there.
If you're going to put her in the car, restrain her first. ALWAYS.
wolf, OnyxCougar, thank you for you kind thoughts and words of encouragement.
Troubleshooter, you are urged to feel as chastened as is necessary. I will leave it up to your good judgement to determine the depth and breadth and duration.
OC's right about needing to restrain folks in a squad car. Even very cooperative, agreeable folks. I take a lot of handcuffs off voluntary patients.
What I'm trying to figure out is where they got a set of cuffs to fit the kid.
Unfortunately, my good judgement, based on personal experience at home with my own child and working an adolescent ward at a psychiatric facility, dictates that I feel no chastening. Sorry.
My friend has taken to carrying two sets of cuffs now, a small and a large. Before long he's going to end up with a case of them in his unit.
OK Big, I just don't see where I'm alone in a special category of wrongness here.
OC's right about needing to restrain folks in a squad car. Even very cooperative, agreeable folks. I take a lot of handcuffs off voluntary patients.
What I'm trying to figure out is where they got a set of cuffs to fit the kid.
Plastic zip tie style cuffs. You're right regular steel cuffs didn't work.
Guess why? They're not designed to be used on children that small.
Guess why? They're not designed to be used on children that small.
That's because children that age weren't as likely to behave like that in the past. Straw Man.
I've got a book of sayings by Balthazar Gracian, who lived in the early 1600s. One of the quotes is, in effect, "Kids these days are out of control."
Guess why? They're not designed to be used on children that small.
I'm well aware of that.
Most cuffs don't fit adult women, either, but cops certainly expect to arrest them.
OK Big, I just don't see where I'm alone in a special category of wrongness here.
OC, I said that for a couple of reasons. I'm not going to bother formatting this reply with your "quotes". You're free to correct my memory. Not in any particular order...
1 -- Let's say the little girl does have special needs. That's no excuse for denying her special attention. Ausberger's or whatever doesn't like touching? Ok, not an expert in that area but that means there's some other way of rendering the help she needed. I said APPROPRIATE restraint. Ok, whatever's appropriate for her. I contend that handcuffs were not appropriate. Adequate? Yes, more than adequate, way more.
2 -- I've already addressed the fiction of not being allowed to touch a child. My disagreement with you is the deeper issue of hiding behind the rules as an excuse for not doing what needed to be done. Speaking for the teacher, you defended her actions by saying "THE RULES SAID" she couldn't touch the child. I am upset that the respect for the rules exceeded the compassion for the child.
3 -- I asked about personal responsibility. You indicated that the dominant forces happen from birth to 5 years old. Do you mean that by 5 years old that personal responsibility should be dominant? You were singing a different tune when the discussion was regarding your own child. You spoke at length about the responsibility resting on the shoulders of the adult when push came to shove. And yet you seem to give the adult in this case a pass because the little kid should have more personal responsibility, has issues, is having an epic tantrum, etc. That kind of double standard chaps my ass.
4 -- This video and this story struck a very different chord in you than it did in me. I was aghast at the image of the little girl being handcuffed by police. Your reaction was "Bravo to the teacher for courage in the line of fire. Give her a raise." Hey, it's a free country. You can think and say what you want. Maybe "wrong" is not exactly the right word here....But I struggle to find a better word, and I can find none. It is
wrong to see this video and fail to be scandalized by the image of cops handcuffing a little girl.
That's because children that age weren't as likely to behave like that in the past.
Not true. Kids have been having tantrums since time immemorial. It's a part of growing up.
Are you saying that the cuffs didn't fit because they were designed in a time when kid's behaved better?
I contend that the behavior shown here is largely unchanged since "the past", and that instead, our standards of behavior have changed considerably. Furthermore, this case represents an enormous change in
our reaction to that behavior and how it compares to our changed and changing standards.
Straw Man.
Not true. The cops didn't use steel cuffs because they didn't fit. They didn't fit, because they're designed to fit adult wrists. The kid's wrists were smaller than what the cuff designers intended to accommodate. No straw man. Just a really short, really easy to follow set of facts.
It is when you try to lead to the conclusion that they shouldn't do it or shouldn't need to do it because of the size of the cuffs.
And incidentally, those cable ties ... great for large scene control problems, lousy for regular usage. They have to be cut off.
I won't approach one of my clients with a pair of scissors to cut off a wristband on discharge, I'm sure as shit not doing so before admission (and medication) to cut off a cable tie.
Hey, I looked up Straw Man fallacy.
Review the thread:
wolf's question:
where did they get cuffs to fit a kid?
BigV's answer:
they didn't. they used plastic ties.
BigV's explanation for answer:
steel cuffs didn't work, because they're too big. I implied that the cuffs are only too big because the wrists are too small.
Draw your own conclusions. My answer said nothing about about whether the cops shouldn't do it or shouldn't need to do it.
Methinks the lady and others doth protest too much.
BigV, is it the image of the girl wearing handcuffs that's so objectionable, or the actual long-term effect on the child herself? Because she'll live. Having to hold her hands behind her back for 15 minutes will not scar her nearly as deeply as 1) whatever environment fostered her acting out; 2) being allowed to throw tantrums unchecked; 3) growing up in a world where your every action is viewed through a filter of pop psychology and victimhood rather than personal responsibility.
I suspect that you are the kind of empathetic person who sees your own child in the eyes of every other child, and that's a good thing. But not every child is as well-adjusted as yours, and not every teacher is a trained expert in handling every random behavioral oddity that comes through her door.
Ok, say you're a teacher. Class is proceeding normally, when suddenly Sybil starts spewing green puke from the back of the room. You have 10 seconds to restore order. 3,2,1, GO.
...try to hug her, she tries to claw your eyes out
...try to explain to her, she screams and spits, not hearing a word
...try to remove her from the classroom by taking her arm. Oops, you left a mark. Abuse! call the ACLU!
...try to remember page 57 of whatever flavor-of-the-month child development manual you read last week. I think it had something to do with "strong-willed children". OW! the (edit: brat)bit me.
10 minutes, not seconds, have now elapsed, and you have a case study in demon possession still raving in front of you. Come on, you're the teacher! Fix it, NOW! But don't screw up, or you'll lose your job and won't be able to make your mortgage or care for your own children. Plus, know that every action you take is a possible lawsuit in the making, not to mention a possible life-altering event for the foaming monster in front of you (within whom, somewhere, is a little girl).
Not quite so easy as Monday morning quarterbacking, is it?
Let's try a few flows here...
A) most perpetrators are adults or adult sized
B) handcuffs are used in the handling of perpetrators
C) most handcuffs are sized for adults
A) the least number of perpetrators are children or child sized
B) handcuffs are used in the handling perpetrators
C) the least number of handcuffs are sized for children
A) most situations a police officer will have to deal with are adults
B) many situations will require handcuffs
C) most handcuffs are adult sized
D) most officers carry handcuffs
D) most are adult sized handcuffs
Am I far off base here?
I won't approach one of my clients with a pair of scissors to cut off a wristband on discharge, I'm sure as shit not doing so before admission (and medication) to cut off a cable tie.
You need
these:
and
this:
3,2,1 go.
on the fly, quick reply.
Sybil, are you ok? Sybil?! no, ok, grab the trashcan and the paper towels on the way to the back of the room. Johhny, a good kid in the front row, Johnny, go to the office and tell Mrs Smith we need help right away! Go, now. Hurry.
Sybil--what's wrong honey, you're pretty sick. Are to taking any medicine? Clawing and raving? Sounds like a seizure. Let's get down on the floor. Rebecca, Harry, move those desks and chairs out of the way, thanks guys. Ok, Sybil. here we go, down on the floor. You're ok. I'm here to help. Can you breathe ok? No, it's ok, stay down on the floor, lie on your side. I'm right here with you. It's gonna be ok, it's gonna be all right, honey. All right... Lisa, go next door and ask Mrs Thomas to come here, quickly, please. Go on. Go, go.
Ok, *louder* Class! Sybil's sick and I'm trying to help her. I need your help too. Please stay in your seats, the nurse and the principal are on their way. Just sit quietly for now, please. That would be a biiig help to me, thank you, thank you very much.
*continue rendering aid until help arrives* That help would hopefully be my next door teacher, the principal, the nurse, and maybe the paramedics and the cops. Somebody's gonna call mom and dad too, for sure. My job as the first responder is to give the first help, not the best help.
I have been spat on, shit on, hit, bit, and kicked, called every name in the book, in more than one language. I've dodged and caught pictures and vases and books. I've had to talk with cops, paramedics, firemen, parents, siblings, bystanders, tow truck drivers, victims, victims families, strangers, my kids, my parents.
I've had to explain myself, defend myself. I've apologized more times than I can count. Sometimes I didn't mean the apology when I said it, but that's another thread: feelings versus facts. Many times I've said Eureka! and sometimes out loud even. I have been known to change my position. I've been cried on, I've cried with, I've cried alone.
I wonder every day if I could have done better, and make that the plan for tomorrow.
MMQB? No. Livin is harder, and more rewarding than monday morning qb'ing. Analyzing what happend and what can be learned is valuable on Monday, though.
You are diagnosing a temper tantrum as a seizure. I don't have the medical knowledge to refute you, but I don't buy it. I have to defer to your apparent expertise, but I smell something funny about it. In the first place, every 5-year-old in the room knows a shit fit when they see one. They've tried em themselves.
If what happened that day was a medical emergency, I'll just have to take the word of medical folks.
But what about the first question? Is it the image of a child being restrained by police that's objectionable, or is there actually lasting psychological harm to the child?
mrnoodle, I want to answer your first question now. I'll wind up repeating some of what I've already said.
I suspect that you are the kind of empathetic person who sees your own child in the eyes of every other child, and that's a good thing. But not every child is as well-adjusted as yours, and not every teacher is a trained expert in handling every random behavioral oddity that comes through her door.
Let me start by saying thank you for the nice compliment. It is not hard for me to see my child in the eyes of every other child. This is not just my hyperactive imagination at work. Gosh this is difficult to explain. Seriously, I know they're not
my kids. Duh. But I view them as if they're worthy of the same respect, and effort and love that my kids deserve. And I try to act accordingly. I am straining to avoid melodrama here, but if children are not thought of as precious, and treated as precious, what the fuck are we doing here?
EVERYBODY gets this on some level, tobacco companies, MTV, McDonalds, schools, contries (Italy, negative birthrate, aging population) GW and SS, even the nook-yu-lar family gets it.
Shit.
I started off saying thanks for the compliment and drove it into the ditch. Ok, seriouisly, I do have empathy for children. But not just the good ones. All of them. I aim high. And I am often rewarded only by the effort of the child. But sometimes I am rewarded by their efforts and their success! But even when I am rewarded with scoffs of derision, I know that I have planted seeds of hope and love. The germination and growth of those seeds is not my department. But I sow and plant and water and weed and nurture. The rest (well, really all of it, I'm just a steward) is in God's hands.
BigV, is it the image of the girl wearing handcuffs that's so objectionable, or the actual long-term effect on the child herself? Because she'll live. Having to hold her hands behind her back for 15 minutes will not scar her nearly as deeply as 1) whatever environment fostered her acting out; 2) being allowed to throw tantrums unchecked; 3) growing up in a world where your every action is viewed through a filter of pop psychology and victimhood rather than personal responsibility.
Yes, the image is horrid.
The long term effects chill me as well. Not only for the child, because I believe that adverse circumstances far worse than this can be overcome. But also for the school and our society as a whole. This should not be how we respond to kid's tantrums. It is an isolated incident? I hope to God it is. Is this the beginning (or continuation) of a trend? Maybe, a strong maybe. Probably, even. That makes me sick.
Sick because it's sooo much emphasis on the symptom at the expense of neglecting the problem. I played water polo in school. It's a tough sport, and I loved it. Our coach would drill us to death. Passes, plays, drills, sprints, manouvers, practice practice practice. Practice makes perfect, right? Coach says NO. Perfect practice makes perfect. His point is that if we practice sloppy, we play sloppy. He's right. If we practice hookin up kindergarteners, that's how we'll play...Bad precedent.
Yeah, she'll live. I have no fears on that score. I know bupkis about her home environment. If you do, share.
I want to take #s 2 and 3 together. Unchecked tantrums and pop psychology and victimhood versus personal responsibility. The personal responsibility idea is key here. The little girl IS responsible for the tantrum, in a...mathematical sense or whatever, literal sense. But what a tantrum is is the loss of control. Sometimes that loss of control can be a conscious decision, like when you dive into a fight. Sometimes it can be faked, just the illusion of the loss of control. I don't think either of these apply to the little girl. It's possible, but I don't think so.
Regardless, I say that the adults bear the final responsibility. What if the kid thinks it's ok to dart into the street, into traffic. Maybe the kid just wasn't thinking, they were just chasing after their ball. Or maybe they knew the rules about the street and decided it was ok and went anyway. The adult now has a responsibility. Standing on sidewalk with the kid? Grab them if possible. Shout NO! STOP! The adult driving the car? Dynamite the brakes or steer around. The kid's behavior propel the situation. Yes, they're responsible in that way. Responsible too for poor judgement or lack of judgement. Now it's up to the adults to act. In this analogy, the teacher and the vice principal are easy on the brakes. Hell, maybe their brakes just aren't that strong.
But the kid's not in control, the teacher couldn't get and keep control, the vice principal is out of her depth. Call the cops. They were able to exert contol. I am sad this happened, as we all are. I am disappointed in the school staff, I have higher expectations. I am alarmed that the cops needed to do what they did to achieve the result they sought: "Jaieesha, you need to calm down and you need to do it now. OK." Then the cuffs. It looks lazy and overcautious. I mean, what the hell! What crime was committed here? Where's the personal safety threat? The cops have a hard job too. No question about it and dangerous as well. It is harder to do just the right thing and no more, but this was more.
You are diagnosing a temper tantrum as a seizure. I don't have the medical knowledge to refute you, but I don't buy it. I have to defer to your apparent expertise, but I smell something funny about it. In the first place, every 5-year-old in the room knows a shit fit when they see one. They've tried em themselves.--snip--
No, I'm playing along with your hypothetical examples in a previous post. Let me be clear: I do not think the little girl in the video is having a seizure. It is a shit-fit, no question. And you're also right on target about the rest of the kids in class. All of them. That's what make me mad here, who hasn't seen, been, and lived through little kid's shit fits?! Hands? Ok, now how many of those ended in handcuffs? Hands? Zero. Wait, one. This one.
I think the problem is not how you view the girl, BigV, but how you view handcuffs. To you, handcuffs are an indication of a crime, and a harsh and painful restraint. To others, handcuffs don't carry the same emotional baggage, and are completely equivalent to holding the child in a bear hug, or restraining them in a strait jacket, or wrapping their arms at their sides with SaranWrap.
The point is restraint, and you've already said you agree with the bear hug as a means of restraint. The only difference is that in a bear hug, the restrainer has the chance of being injured, and can't effectively move the child, say to another classroom, or a squad car, or anywhere away from the situation that started the tantrum.
Hypothetically, if a child had to be restrained and moved out of the room at the same time, how would you do it? What if you had a medical stretcher with straps and leather restraints for the wrists and ankles, would you feel comfortable using that? Can you think of any method of restraint other than a bear hug that you would be comfortable with?
OC, I said that for a couple of reasons. I'm not going to bother formatting this reply with your "quotes". You're free to correct my memory. Not in any particular order...
1 -- Let's say the little girl does have special needs. That's no excuse for denying her special attention. Ausberger's or whatever doesn't like touching? Ok, not an expert in that area but that means there's some other way of rendering the help she needed. I said APPROPRIATE restraint. Ok, whatever's appropriate for her. I contend that handcuffs were not appropriate. Adequate? Yes, more than adequate, way more.
By the way, I use quotes because I post most often from work and it helps me focus when I'm in and out of window so often.
At no time was the teacher or VP denying her special attention. She was getting all the attention she could hope for, and it turns out, more than anyone bargained for.
Appropriate restraint for a child that is kicking and hitting is not close physical contact. In fact, in the CNN broadcast last night, the lawyer for the parents stated that it's the police he's most upset with, and he feels the teachers were "shadowing and hovering" around her in a way that was "not conducive to calm"ing the child down. (Those are direct quotations.)
So here, you're screaming for physical restraint on the part of the teacher, but the lawyer is saying he's thinking of pressing charges because they were too close to her!! Obviously the lawyer thinks she should have been left in an empty room to destroy it. *shrug* Bottom line is, the LAWYER didn't want them to touch her, and that's exactly the point I was trying to make.
I want to also say that I am 100% for the use of hug as a method of restraint, but again, for the millionth time, legal bullshit prevents me (and anyone else) from doing so. Your school's policy is different than Jaieesha's school, and it's different from mine here in Podunk, NC. It's also different in my kids schools in every school they've been to, since 1996, in Las Vegas. No touching is hardly an isolated policy.
2 -- I've already addressed the fiction of not being allowed to touch a child. My disagreement with you is the deeper issue of hiding behind the rules as an excuse for not doing what needed to be done. Speaking for the teacher, you defended her actions by saying "THE RULES SAID" she couldn't touch the child. I am upset that the respect for the rules exceeded the compassion for the child.
The child was not in physical danger, until she jumped up on the table, when the VP physically removed her from the table. Then she wasn't in danger then.
This school has a no-touching policy, and the VP followed policy. As a teacher, the child's shit fit (not physical danger, but shit fit) does not, and will never, trump my source of income for my family. In other words, I will not get fired over restraining this little brat. School policy is not to touch, she's not in physical danger. Done deal.
3 -- I asked about personal responsibility. You indicated that the dominant forces happen from birth to 5 years old. Do you mean that by 5 years old that personal responsibility should be dominant?
No, that's not what I mean. Dominant forces in a childs life are birth to 5. Meaning, if you haven't put the correct foundation in, it's MUCH harder to add it later. If by 5 you haven't shown by example, taught with love and discipline, the basics of personal responsiblity and respectable behavior, chances are, they're not going to get it without a serious learning experience. That is not to say that all 5 year olds take personal responsiblity, but it IS to say that the seeds have to be planted BY age 5 and then nurtured and grown into adolescence and young adult hood.
You were singing a different tune when the discussion was regarding your own child. You spoke at length about the responsibility resting on the shoulders of the adult when push came to shove. And yet you seem to give the adult in this case a pass because the little kid should have more personal responsibility, has issues, is having an epic tantrum, etc.
No, I wasn't singing any other tune. I agree that the adults in the situation were ultimately responsible for what happened, and that starts with Jaieesha's parents, NUMBER 1. Jaieesha KNEW that she was wrong. She KNEW she was pissing the VP off, and she was flat out playing games with the VP. Willfully. This behavior is not ALL Jaieesha's fault, by ANY means, mostly I blame her parents. But there *IS* a measure of personal responsibility that she needs to take. Let's use your 5 year old as an example.
LittleV is having a *really* bad day. He manages to clear out the classroom, and then gets sent to the principles office. At this point, LittleV *knows* beyond a shadow of a doubt he's in deep shit. He knows that when you are called, his ass in the ringer for sure. At this point, if at no other, he should take personal responsibility and calm down, and that's it. It's over. You come, pick him up, do whatever you do, and it doesn't happen again.
Jaisheesa isn't like LittleV. Jaieesha got the the VP's office, and at that point (and any normal child's point) INSTEAD OF TAKING PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY or, instead of being afraid of punishment, or whatever, she continued, because she KNEW she was wrong and didn't care.
That's the difference, Big.
That kind of double standard chaps my ass.
It's not a double standard, so there's some vaseline.
4 -- This video and this story struck a very different chord in you than it did in me. I was aghast at the image of the little girl being handcuffed by police. Your reaction was "Bravo to the teacher for courage in the line of fire. Give her a raise."
I don't see the big nasty police throwing her down on the floor, putting their knees in her back, and manhandling her. I see them restraining an out of control little girl, so she can be safely transported to CPS or wherever, since her parents haven't come to retrieve her in over 45 minutes.
Hey, it's a free country. You can think and say what you want. Maybe "wrong" is not exactly the right word here....But I struggle to find a better word, and I can find none. It is wrong to see this video and fail to be scandalized by the image of cops handcuffing a little girl.
I AM scandalized. I'm scandalized that our country has come to the point that schools HAVE to have this policy or something like it to keep from being sued. I'm scandalized that parents don't give a shit about their kids that they don't give them the loving care and discipline (also called loving limits) that they need.
I'm scandalized that instead of the PARENTS being handcuffed for not doing THEIR job, (1) teaching Jaieesha proper behavior and (2) coming to pick her up when she's out of control, the FUCKED UP PARENTS are suing the cops for restraining their child, because the school can't, because of policies put in place because of parents like them!!!
Why aren't you pissed about that?????
Why aren't you pissed at the parents, Big???? They are the ROOT CAUSE of this whole situation. The PARENTS failed at not just one juncture, but TWO. And you're pissed at the teacher?????
Fuck THAT.
Teachers are in a unique position. They have full responsibility of the child during class time, essentially assuming the role of parent. However, while they are equally as responsible as the parent during this time, they do not have the same freedom of judgement or action that a parent has. It's like putting J-Lo naked in a snake tank, and asking her to do the same job as Steve Irwin with a 12 bore. Not all that fair.
Parents will (generally) know the best method of discipline for their child. Some chidren respond best to calming hugs or explanation. Others respond better to physical input - ie stronger restraining or spanking. Some don't need anything at all. The teacher will need to respond accurately to the situation and use her judgement to administer the appropriate discpline. This is hard enough without restrictions on spanking and physical contact.
The teacher in the video responded appalingly to the situation, for these reasons:
- She did not have the ability or insight to judge the situation. You can tell by the way she follows the child around, hangs about, and doesn't really do anything. She doesn't speak to her, not properly, and clearly doesn't have a clue what to do. I don't blame her for this; someone like her should never have been put in a position of authority. Good teachers 'sense' children, they are instinctive in their approach to tantrums or problems and have the ability to sooth, usually without any physical contact. You need to have natural authority, and be competent yourself if you expect the same rationality from your students, especially young children.
- She was restricted in what she could actually do by not being about to touch/restrain
In this sense that she was restricted, yes she technically did her job right, did what she was supposed to, what was acceptable. But she didn't go any further than this, just panicked, lost control and called for someone else. You don't need anyone else! One adult should be enough. Every kid plays up, she's not special needs nor is she any different to anyone else. It is fear and misinterpretation that caused this dilemma.
This is how I would have handled it, from the classroom:
1. Turned the video camera off, or at least put it down and pretended I'd turned it off. The girl is quite aware of its presence and looks into the lens a couple of times, clearly playing up to it.
2. Ignored her for a bit, to see if it's attention she's after or if she's just eaten too many sweets. Obviously you don't want the classroom destroyed so you'll have to intervene if she carries on. I'd simply take her by the hand, say 'come on, we're going' and move to another environment. I still wouldn't see a need to involve anyone else at this point. We move to maybe another classroom, or outside, just take her away from where she feels comfortable and where the outbreak started.
3. Try to engage her in conversation. Say 'have you been eating too many sweets today?' or 'Where's mummy today then' and just talk. This should hopefully settle her down.
4. If none of the above is achieved and she's punching and rattling like a catherine wheel, I would have failed and shouldn't be a teacher, and I'd hand my notice in.
It should never get to the stage of violence. It is possible to control it before it happens, but you do need incredible perception and people/child skills, which not many people have. If it does come to the point of a child throwing punches etc, restrain the overacting little brat! Teach them, don't pander to them.
Teachers are in a unique position. They have full responsibility of the child during class time, essentially assuming the role of parent. --snip-- Not all that fair.--snip--
Yep.
The teacher in the video responded appalingly to the situation--snip--
Double yep.
--snip -- In this sense that she was restricted, yes she technically did her job right, did what she was supposed to, what was acceptable.
Following the letter of the law and not the spirit. Weak.
--snip--It should never get to the stage of violence. It is possible to control it before it happens, but you do need incredible perception and people/child skills, which not many people have. If it does come to the point of a child throwing punches etc, restrain the overacting little brat! Teach them, don't pander to them.
Well put. I agree with you Catwoman.
Following the letter of the law and not the spirit. Weak.
Since you(I, we) have no way of knowing what the spirit of the law is, you have to come up with your own interpretation until the spirit is established in court. Unfortunately you may be screwed at that point. :(
Well, here's a new one.
Student Suspended Over Call to Mom in Iraq
COLUMBUS, Ga. - A high school student was suspended for 10 days for refusing to end a mobile phone call with his mother, a soldier serving in Iraq, school officials said.
The 10-day suspension was issued because Kevin Francois was "defiant and disorderly" and was imposed in lieu of an arrest, Spencer High School assistant principal Alfred Parham said.
The confrontation Wednesday began after the 17-year-old junior got a call at lunchtime from his mother, Sgt. 1st Class Monique Bates, who left in January for a one-year tour with the 203rd Forward Support Battalion.
Mobile phones are allowed on campus but may not be used during school hours. When a teacher told him to hang up, he refused. He said he told the teacher, "This is my mom in Iraq. I'm not about to hang up on my mom."
Parham said the teen's suspension was based on his reaction to the teacher's request. He said the teen used profanity when taken to the office.
"Kevin got defiant and disorderly," Parham said. "When a kid becomes out of control like that they can either be arrested or suspended for 10 days. Now being that his mother is in Iraq, we're not trying to cause her any undue hardship; he was suspended for 10 days."
If you told me to hang up on my mom or dad who was calling from a war zone and probably could only call once a week or so, I'd do more than use profanity. There are so many ways they could have descalated this.
It's lucky for them they didn't call the cops. When the cops found out why the kid was being arrested, they probably would have tasered the teacher.
Is it 'the new conservatism' or 'Columbine frenzy' here, where the first instinct is total control.
Considering the press this is going to generate for the school district, I'm sure the principal wishes the teacher had used more discretion. God forbid, what would happen if the kid's mom is killed in action and this was his last chance to talk to her?
Me, I would have let the kid stay on the phone and escorted him to a corner or lounge, or at least talked to the mom and found out when the next chance she would have to call.
Sounds like a teacher's power trip but there may be more to it. Maybe this is a problem kid or whatever, but it sounds like a bad call. :eyebrow:
I don't think there's enough info to make a judgment either ...
If I had a quarter for every time a patient tried for an early discharge with a dead, on life support or dying family member ... I'd have a lot of damn quarters. Phone calls to hospitals and family members not in cahoots with the patient typically resolve this. We've made a lot of these calls, and have gotten positive confirmation on the claim I think maybe two or three times.
If they have a zero tolerance policy for phone calls, then the teacher doesn't even have to make a judgement call.
If they have a zero tolerance policy for phone calls, then the teacher doesn't even have to make a judgement call.
He got the call during lunchtime. I'm assuming the kid's mom called at that time because she knew he could take the call then.
Kid's are also always supposed to be in school, unless there is a funeral or some other emergency. Some amount of common sense is necessary.
Should they arrest the kid's mom for disrupting the school routine? I'll bet the kid would be glad if they brought her back for questioning. I wonder if they would have given her leave if her son had been arrested.
From the kid's perspective, the whole situation sucks. I really can't blame him for cursing. I'm not sure if he's a true Army brat or if his mom is guard or reserves. I would guess that at least the regular Army kids have had time to adjust to their parent's chosen profession. The children of National Guard and Reserve soldiers have to face the fact that their parent's part-time job will now put them in a war zone a few thousand miles away for more than a year.
Arrest the kid? For saying that the situation is fucked up?
That's the problem with zero tolerance policies. No matter how stupid the decision, they can just shrug and say their hands were tied.
Suspension
reduced to time served.
The suspension gained national attention Friday, prompting a flood of e-mails to school officials. By Friday afternoon, they told Francois his 10-day suspension would be shortened to the three already served.
"He became very belligerent and very threatening to her" when she asked him to turn over the phone, Phillips said.
"He said he was 17 years old and he would do what he wanted to do," Phillips told CNN-affiliate WTVM.
The teacher took him to the principal's office, where "he became very unruly and out of control," said Phillips. "It was escalating to a point where they were getting ready to call security."
Francois disputed the school's version of the story.
"I was just talking to them and they wouldn't listen to me about talking to my mom," he said. "I didn't curse at them."
Francois received the call from his mother, who left for duty in Iraq in January, during a lunch break.
Phillips said Francois did not tell the teacher he was talking to his mother in Iraq.
"I'm sure if she was aware of that, she would have acted much differently in dealing with the matter," Phillips said.
Phillips said the school, which is located near Fort Benning, often arranges for
So the teacher says the kid never told him/her he was talking to his mom, that instead he said "I'm 17 years old and can do what I want". Why wouldn't he tell the teacher it was his mom calling from Iraq?
I think the teacher is trying to cover his/her ass, unless the kid is completely dysfunctional to the point where he cannot communicate a simple fact.
I've seen a lot of teenagers. Option 2.
"He became very belligerent and very threatening to her" when she asked him to turn over the phone, Phillips said.
"He said he was 17 years old and he would do what he wanted to do," Phillips told CNN-affiliate WTVM.
I wonder if this was during or after the call he was supposed to have made these remarks? Sounds fishy :eyebrow:
And isn't lunchtime considered during school hours?
I've seen a lot of petty tyrants. Option 1. He probably DID tell the teacher it was his mom, and THEN went off on them when they didn't consider that an acceptable "excuse".
I'm with russotto.
I would have done the same thing. And Iraq is 8 hours + Eastern time, so when it's noon on east coast, it's 8pm in Iraq. Makes sense she's calling during lunch.
From
here to
here.
This is a good articulation of what I was trying to express. She's right, it works.
two completely different sets of circumstances BigV. a newly adopted (previously abused and neglected) child being restrained and held by a new parent to prevent injury vs. a child in school being a complete demon. if the schoolkid's parent had bothered to show up then they could have chosen to pin her down and love her - that isn't the role of a teacher or a cop.
the teacher is there to teach a number of kids. if one is out of control you remove that child. spending inordinate amounts of time "loving" that child into a calm rational state would be an incorrect use of the teacher's time and energy.
Whereas arresting a five-year-old having a temper tantrum is a correct use of the time and energy of the police.
i don't know - i wasn't there. i do know that if she is destructive and cannot be controlled in the classroom she needs to be removed. if the parent or guardian was contacted but didn't show up and the destructive behavior continues then there aren't a lot of attractive options. i went to a school that would have just pummeled my ass if i had behaved like that. i had parents that would have crushed my ass when i got home if i behaved like that. maybe that knowledge is why i never behaved like that. maybe, just maybe, this kid might remember getting tossed into the back of a squad car next time and not go on a little rampage.
That's what the principal is for.
I just found it odd that your complaint was about wasting a teacher's time, and your solution was an even bigger waste of police time.
yeah, i know HM. i've got mixed feelings on this. i understand what BigV is saying. love the kids. my beef is with the idea that the teacher should just love the kids into compliance - eff that. they are there to teach. if one child disrupts the learning experience for the rest of the kids - get rid of that kid. yes i know that is cold and callous but i don't care. if the teacher is forced to take time away from the other kids to deal with an unruly brat who obviously has no parental involvement in their discipline, that is just not right.
as far as the cops? that is their job - to respond to problems. school calls and says we've got an out of control child and the parents aren't coming - the cops respond. they subdue, restrain, and remove the child. the cops did their job and the teacher can get back to doing theirs.
as far as the cops? that is their job - to respond to problems. school calls and says we've got an out of control child and the parents aren't coming - the cops respond. they subdue, restrain, and remove the child. the cops did their job and the teacher can get back to doing theirs.
A five year old having a temper tantrum isn't a law enforcement problem. It's what any teacher or principal of an elementary school should be willing and able to deal with. The teacher should get the kid to the principal and get back to class, and the principal should either handle the tantrum or pass the kid off to a counselor. When kids get older, that line can get blurry, but five is solidly in the "school can handle it" range.
I thought we had covered this at least partially ... school policy doesn't allow the staff to contact the students. Their hands are tied, if you'll excuse the expression, so they have to go to the next step (calling the cops) to control an out of control child.
I'm not assigning blame, since I don't know all the rules and regulations the teacher/principal/police were operating under. But I am saying that there is blame to be assigned, on the part of the school. If it's the rulemakers, so be it. I decried zero tolerance policies earlier on this thread, and that also applies to zero tolerance policies against teachers touching students.
I didn't revive this thread to reignite the sh*tstorm. I wanted to draw attention to a beautiful essay. There *was* a line in there that reminded me of my thoughts surrounding the thread, something along the lines of ...
Luke kicked and screamed. I stood between him and the door to keep him from bolting. His cries were anguished, animal-like. He had never seen a mirror and tried to escape by running through one. I wound my arms around him so he could not hit or kick. After an hour and a half he finally fell asleep, exhausted.
Which soon transformed into...
The next day we met orphanage officials to do paperwork. Luke was on my lap as they filed into the room. He looked at them and wrapped my arms tightly around his waist.
There is an
awesome power in the human touch. Like many things powerful, it can be used for good or ill. In the story of the little girl, I was sad because the fear of being accused of using that power for ill prevented the adults involved from using it for good.
In the second story, the powerful good that can come from using is showcased triumphantly. The stories are very different, but they share an identical core: A totally freaked out little kid, and an adult that has the chance to use that power for good.
In the second story, the powerful good that can come from using is showcased triumphantly. The stories are very different, but they share an identical core: A totally freaked out little kid, and an adult that has the chance to use that power for good.
Well, we tried the "love" method on my (adopted, abused, etc.) little brother. Didn't work. :( He hasn't spoken to anyone in my family in 9 years -- told us all to f*** off. It's great to wax eloquent about the power of love, but there are a great many people already beyond that power.
- Pie
There is an awesome power in the human touch.
I don't think anyone disagrees with that here, V. But the adoptor had the right and priviledge to hug the boy. Your average teacher does not.
The teachers at my wife's school are warned at the beginning of every year what the restrictions are. They are told not to even attempt to handle situations like this. The principal or the vice-principal must be called in immediately.
Gradeschool teachers make little enough as it is. I would be very upset with my wife if she risked everything we own on an out of control kid.
Question - would the cops in the situation have been open for lawsuits if they physically restrained the child instead of using handcuffs?
Pie, I'm sorry to hear about the sad story of your little brother. My sympathies.
He wasn't 5 or 6 years old when he signed off, was he? I hope not. Respectfully, your experience posted here notwithstanding, I must disagree with your conclusion that a great many people are beyond the power of love. (Or perhaps you meant beyond the power of touch--I believe that is possible, but there are more ways to express love than through touch.)
I wield that power, inexpertly at best. I have many chances every day to respond to the world around me and the people in it. My actions reflect this belief when I am at my best. Unfortunately, I am not always at my best. But that does not diminsh the power of love, nor my belief in it. It does motivate me to strive to become better. And so far, that striving has always been in the direction of more love, never in the direction of less love.
I don't think anyone disagrees with that here, V. But the adoptor had the right and priviledge to hug the boy. Your average teacher does not.
The teachers at my wife's school are warned at the beginning of every year what the restrictions are. They are told not to even attempt to handle situations like this. The principal or the vice-principal must be called in immediately.
Gradeschool teachers make little enough as it is. I would be very upset with my wife if she risked everything we own on an out of control kid.
Question - would the cops in the situation have been open for lawsuits if they physically restrained the child instead of using handcuffs?
Dar, first of all, I salute your wife for her underpaid, underappreciated, and undervalued service to our children. I thank her for the contribution she makes to the society I live in, the society my family lives in. Please feel free to extend my gratitude to her on my behalf.
The adoptor had the right, privelege and the
obligation to hold that little boy. In a situation like that, what other way could communicate what had to be communicated? Language barrier, social barriers, literally strangers, traumatized, out of control child, and dangers to the child all around. How do you get the message through? How do you get the attention first so that other obstacles can be overcome? I will freely acknowledge that every situation has its own unique considerations. But I think you and I will agree that to get something across to another person, you must first have that person's attention. I could blather on here without end, but without your attention which you generously give, it would matter not at all. (It may also be true that even with your attention, it would not matter, but I say attention is necessary, not sufficient.)
I did call my school and the rules there are that the teacher is permitted to use their judgement. That judgement may include "touching" or holding the child. A common sense understanding. I agree with the policy, and I hope common sense reigns when my son or daughter is the child in question. That includes the actions of the principal and the vice-principal when they're called to action.
As to the police officers' options--we live in a litigious society. I think the difficult work they do puts them in harm's way on the street and in the court, with only some respect to their actions. Sometimes they're wrongly accused, sometimes their misdeeds go unpunished, and sometimes justice prevails.
i don't know - i wasn't there. i do know that if she is destructive and cannot be controlled in the classroom she needs to be removed. if the parent or guardian was contacted but didn't show up and the destructive behavior continues then there aren't a lot of attractive options. i went to a school that would have just pummeled my ass if i had behaved like that. i had parents that would have crushed my ass when i got home if i behaved like that. maybe that knowledge is why i never behaved like that. maybe, just maybe, this kid might remember getting tossed into the back of a squad car next time and not go on a little rampage.
Amen. :thumbsup: