Kid gets suspended after standing up to bully

[Nihilianth]

You would think so, but then you would think parents would do a lot of things differently.
Some are busy doing other things unrelated to work and refuse to pick up their sick children, some get trespass bars for violence and intimidation while at school, some get arrested for their behavior in the pick up drop off lines. Many issues, if parent were all rational and reasonable that would be great.

The main issue is that many parents do not feel that the rules at school should apply to their children.

Yeah, as I have said in a different thread, the biggest problem with our education system are the parents. So you definitely have a great point there.

yes but if the parent encourages the behavior, tells them to do the behavior and then has a good laugh with their child, then that is a problem. The child does not exist in isolation form their environment.

focusing on only the bolded (not the laughing bit,) it would depend on the situation. If my kid successfully defended himself, I would encourage him to continue to do so, only if need be, though I am a teacher myself. I certainly wouldn't laugh at the situation, but I would have a serious talk with the kid about the importance of self-defense. I would probably, at that point, enroll the kid in some sort of martial-arts class. I may do it anyway.

But that is my own personal actions I would take. In this situation, a suspension would be illogical. But how can you know whether a parent would take this course of action if their kid is the victim? That is a good question. I don't think you would need to suspend any kid if they participated in a fight purely out of self-defense. Instead, I think the most appropriate course of action would still be tat call home in order to iterate the seriousness of violence at school, in order to head off the possibility of a parent deciding to laugh about it to them. A phone call home, or even a suspension, there are parents out there who would laugh at the situation anyway.

I was just wondering: It seems as though many people went to school without cameras in the hallways or outside. How can it be anything but obvious what transpires before a fight breaks out? What is so hard about placing the tape in the VCR and watching it on a tv monitor later? There shouldn;t be any excuse that "well, the school doesn't want to have to deal with trying to figure out who is at fault." It's not like it's hard to figure it out. Even without a video, depending on the individuals involved.

I did not say that, I said it does get the parent's attention, which can help a lot. If a parent who is very street and encourages their child to engage in street behavior has to leave work to get their child and pay for alternative care for their child, it makes them consider is they are teaching their child how to behave at school.

And a suspension is an even more unreasonable punishment then. Especially for the victim. If the family is struggling financially just to make ends meet, and one of their children is getting bullied at school, you would have a suspension in place purely to punish a parent for financial reasons even though their child was the victim? Man, I feel even worse for the victim and their families then. Not only do they have to put up with bullying, they are not allowed to defend themselves without punishment, and any punishment would be designed towards the parents in having less hours to work, and having to pay out more money for outside care while they are away at work.

I dunno, this reasoning seems to be quite bad, and not so well thought out.

Excuse me, do you really think that the children exist in isolation from their families while they are at school?

The school has to work with the children as they are, what do you think the school can do with children who batter other children, you have 400 students, one principal and one assistant principal. You have no extra staff to cope with the child's behavior. You may not strike, restrain or isolate the student.

Meanwhile you must attend meetings and to the other 400 students.

So your effective discipline that does not involve the parent is?

Did you know that corporal punishment is legal in close to half of US states still? Schools are afraid of lawsuits, so there are school policies in place,, banning corporal punishment. (I am a supporter of corporal punishment. Especially for parents.)

I work in a school where we have two staff members who are licensed specifically to restrain a child when they are throwing some kind of tantrum. (And yes, teachers most certainly are allowed to restrain a child during the course of violence.)

The principal and assistant principal does not have to attend to 400 students at any one time. For the most part, most teachers are more than capable of handling their own classrooms. It's not like there are 400 students who are all fighting at the very same time or anything. Usually, we get maybe one or two students out of the entire school who end up with a suspension every couple of days. It isn't that big a deal to figure out whether a particular situation is a bully situation or not. Every teacher knows the history of every student quite well. We know who the bullies are. We know who the quiet kids are that never get into trouble. We see bullying happen practically on a daily basis, and it usually involves the same individuals.

So, taking history and we see everyday into account, I think it is quite easy to figure out how to dole out punishments, and whether or not someone was a victim. Plus, we usually have video tape of most incidents as well, as we have cameras in all hallways, and on all the corners of the building, as well as on a couple of the light poles in the parking lot, and playground. There are a few "dark" spots, and most of those include the bathrooms. But when it comes to the use of the bathroom, we have a formal "bathroom break," where we take the entire class in the mid morning, and after lunch. I only send 2 or 3 kids in at a time while watching all the rest outside the bathroom. You can easily hear from outside the bathroom what is occurring in there with only two or three kids. I don't allow ANY talking whatsoever. They also have two minutes to go in there, do their business, wash their hands, and come back out. Five minutes for those in the stalls.

So I still see no excuse for punishing the victims of bullying in the same fashion as the bullies themselves. Indeed, I see no excuse for punishing the victims at all.

 

[Nihilianth]

And what are they supposed to do with the student, say the perpetrator?

One pincipal, one assistant principal, 400 students, office staff have other duties, all other staff have other duties.

I already covered this in my last post. But it was written quite badly. lol. I think most people would be able to get the gist of it though.

Basically, while there are 400 students in a hypothetical elementary school, there are not 200 fights going on all at once every single day, even in the worst of urban areas. (At that point, I think you could very easily call it a riot, and have the police come in to deal with the situation. lol.)

There is also the use of video cameras in every single school I have ever stepped foot in. Except for the bathrooms. (Usually the bathroom is the biggest problem area too. But most schools I have been to has one or two classrooms across the hall from the bathroom, and you can easily hear talking from the bathroom into the classroom. So there are probably two teachers who can know when something is going down in there pretty quickly.)

Elementary schools have formal "bathroom breaks," especially for the younger kids. You march your entire class out to the bathrooms, and send two or 3 kids in at a time, while watching the rest of the class in the hallway. Again, you can easily hear from the hallway any fooling around inside the bathroom. And you monitor how long it takes each student to go in, do their thing, and come back out again. And I know who my classroom bullies are, and which kids are the ones that can usually calm a situation down, and which ones get bullied. Usually, I will send one bully in with a kid who has nothing to do with classroom politics at the same time. The quiet kids go in at the same time. The kids, in other words, are assigned "partners," which makes the process go as quickly and as smoothly as possible.

We also have lunchroom monitors on the staff as well. Their duties include babysitting at lunch time, and walking the halls once in a while throughout the day. They are of enormous help in preventing fights and bullying. We only need three of them.

So, between careful classroom and bathroom management, cameras, lunchroom/hallway monitors, it isn't nearly as difficult a task as you made it sound.

 

[Nihilianth]

No. I am not a fighter - far from it. Perpetual coward me.



Apsolutely not my intention and apologies if that's how it came across. I do not blame the victim in any way. All I was trying to point out was that a) It's not always possible to know all the context from a video on the net and b) I was perturbed by how some people were glorying in the potential crippling of the instigator (I've quoted some examples above) who, whilst he certainly may be a bit of a git (at the very least) I did not think we should be wishing that sort of harm on him (especially as we don't know the full context).

Fair enough.

 

[Nihilianth]

I know it is most like forbidden or illegal for me to have such a weapon on me at any time. But if I do, for whatever reason, legal or not, then why should I rather allow someone to beat me up than use it?

"just getting punched around"?

How much "punching around" must I endure before it become legitimate that I try to put an end to it?

I never said the bolded. In fact, I had agreed with your stance, so I have no idea what you are trying to solve with your badgering me. I just simply stated that you can use whatever means are necessary to end a fight as quickly and as efficiently as possible in self-defense, so long as you do not use an illegal weapon while on school property. In fact, you shouldn't use an illegal weapon period. Because they are....well....illegal. And extreme. And stupid. Especially if the other person is unarmed.

Now, if you are in a dark alley at midnight and someone is trying to mug you, certainly pulling out a 9 would make a lot of sense. I know I would if I were packing. In a heartbeat. Definitely.

ETA: The only reason why we are even having this conversation, is simply because Thaiboxerken had asked me "what you mean, take out [you opponent]?"

I answered him with: "It can mean whatever you want it to mean. So long as you are honest, and don't broach the subject of "what about using an AK, or a rocket launcher or something?""

 

[3point14]

Good question, stupid lack of impulse control, he viewed me as a peer and was being macho.


Suspensions work solely because it gets the parents attention. Again victims do not get equal punishment in my district.

I need to ask again:

Why does the victim receive any punishment?

Does it end up on their academic record?

 

[Dancing David]

I think my point was that there are kids being suspended for being attacked. The attackers and the attackers' parents have earned the inconvenience (by being violent and failing to teach children not to be violent) while the victims and their parents are punished because of a dumb policy.

fair enough, I misunderstood and mis read what you wrote.

 

[Dancing David]

I need to ask again:

Why does the victim receive any punishment?

Does it end up on their academic record?

I don't know, in most cases in my school district there is no consequence for a clear victim, even in self defense. They may sit is in shool suspension while things are investigated. And sometimes be sent home for the rest of the day. Usually a clear victim receieves no consequence.

The cumulative record is a strange beast at best, hard to say.

Victims only have consequences when they were involved in provoking and escalating the stutation prior to the assualt or if they retaliate after the fists stop flying.

 

[3point14]

I don't know, in most cases in my school district there is no consequence for a clear victim, even in self defense. They may sit is in shool suspension while things are investigated. And sometimes be sent home for the rest of the day. Usually a clear victim receieves no consequence.

The cumulative record is a strange beast at best, hard to say.

Victims only have consequences when they were involved in provoking and escalating the stutation prior to the assualt or if they retaliate after the fists stop flying.

Thanks.

The bolded bit is what worries me. Bullying (although why we can't just call this incident 'assult' like it is, I don't know) is bad enough, but if, as a victim, it can effect your academic record and therefore the rest of your life, then something is very, very wrong.

 

[roger]

Well, considering the AK is illegal in most states

No, they are legal about everywhere.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_status_of_the_AK-47#In_the_United_States

 

[Rasmus]

I never said the bolded. In fact, I had agreed with your stance, so I have no idea what you are trying to solve with your badgering me. I just simply stated that you can use whatever means are necessary to end a fight as quickly and as efficiently as possible in self-defense, so long as you do not use an illegal weapon while on school property.

That is simply not what you said.

In fact, you shouldn't use an illegal weapon period. Because they are....well....illegal. And extreme. And stupid. Especially if the other person is unarmed.

I thought it had been established that a mere punch can easily be fatal. So why should it matter if the attacker is armed?

Now, if you are in a dark alley at midnight and someone is trying to mug you, certainly pulling out a 9 would make a lot of sense. I know I would if I were packing. In a heartbeat. Definitely.

I don't see the relevant difference in the two scenarios. Why would I be allowed to defend myself in one situation but not the other with whatever means are available to me at the time?

ETA: The only reason why we are even having this conversation, is simply because Thaiboxerken had asked me "what you mean, take out [you opponent]?"

I answered him with: "It can mean whatever you want it to mean. So long as you are honest, and don't broach the subject of "what about using an AK, or a rocket launcher or something?""

That is not what you said. You specifically excluded the use of a vewry specific weapon.

And again, you fail to explain why. That the weapon may be illegal is hardly a reason to not use it when you are being attacked. Why would it? Would you rather be killed than use a weapon for self-defense that you shouldn't have?

 

[Nihilianth]

No, they are legal about everywhere.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_status_of_the_AK-47#In_the_United_States

Well, it used to be illegal in most places apparently until 2004. Of course, older weapons were "grandfathered" in. This is well known. However, the heavy regulations make it difficult to sell some weapons and models.

Semi-automatic AK-type rifles are legal and obtainable in most states of the United States, however they may or may not be legal to own or possess depending on state, county, city, and local laws and ordinances. Persons interested in owning one of these types of rifles are strongly encouraged to research the laws where they reside or plan to keep and use the weapon. The 1989 Semi-Automatic Rifle Import Ban (18 USC 925(d)(3)) and the 1994 Federal Assault Weapons Ban specifically banned the AK-47 by name, and many other such weapons (including obvious clones of AK-47's) manufactured after 1994 had to be modified to the letter of the law (removal of barrel threading, bayonet lug and folding stock). This ban expired on September 13, 2004, as part of the law's sunset provision

In any case, firing any weapons outside of a shooting range or hunting area is strictly illegal, except in cases of self-defense. And it is not really legal to just be carrying around assault rifles unless you have a carry license, though they are legal to own under certain circumstances. And when it comes to personal self-defense, an assault rile is not exactly the best or most efficient weapon to use. You're better off with a handgun, as they are easier to handle, set your target, and pull a trigger.

But this isn't any sort of point in this discussion, because as far as I know, most firearms, especially assault rifles, are illegal in Australia. And certainly weapons of any sort is illegal to have on school property. And once again, the only reason why I brought this up to begin with, was because of a question that someone asked me what I meant by "take out" your opponent.

 

[Nihilianth]

That is simply not what you said.

Yes it was. That is exactly what I said. Well, not EXACTLY, exactly. It was paraphrased.

I thought it had been established that a mere punch can easily be fatal. So why should it matter if the attacker is armed?

It was also established that if you die from a single punch to the head, it is purely a freak accident. A total anomaly. People just do not die from getting punched in the head very often.

It should matter, because if you ARE armed in self-defense, you need to be completely expelled, even if you are the "victim." An armed student on school property is a very serious matter. Even more so than bullying.

I don't see the relevant difference in the two scenarios. Why would I be allowed to defend myself in one situation but not the other with whatever means are available to me at the time?

I want to ask you a frank question: Are you trolling, or are you really this naive? I know about your history of unnecessarily badgering, bordering on trolling, from the circumcision thread. I do not want to assume anything, so I am asking you. You just appear to be trolling now, because if you go back through this thread, you will see I have the exact same position as you that self-defense in school should not result in punishment. And a victim has every right to defend themselves using whatever means necessary.

Just in case my assumption is wrong, you're still quite naive if you really do not know the difference between two students in the school yard where weapons of all type are STRICTLY prohibited, and being by yourself in a dark alley with a license to own and carry a concealed weapon.

That is not what you said. You specifically excluded the use of a vewry specific weapon.

Doesn't matter. The argument remains the same.

And again, you fail to explain why. That the weapon may be illegal is hardly a reason to not use it when you are being attacked. Why would it? Would you rather be killed than use a weapon for self-defense that you shouldn't have?

You're ridiculous. This is a ridiculous argument. This is a ridiculous conversation.

 

[Noztradamus]

Originally Posted by Nihilianth
And that is a very basic rule of thumb in karate. Take out your opponent as quickly, swiftly, and efficiently as possible. I assume it is the same rule of thumb for all martial arts.

Take out? What does this mean? I suspect your assumption is wrong.

It means they go and have a malt and see a movie together. And beconme BFFs.

 

[Rasmus]

Yes it was. That is exactly what I said. Well, not EXACTLY, exactly. It was paraphrased.

So it wasn't what you said. Right.

It was also established that if you die from a single punch to the head, it is purely a freak accident. A total anomaly. People just do not die from getting punched in the head very often.

So should I just take the chance, or am I allowed to defense myself?

It should matter, because if you ARE armed in self-defense, you need to be completely expelled, even if you are the "victim." An armed student on school property is a very serious matter. Even more so than bullying.

That may very well be true, but it is a different question. I agree that students shouldn't be allowed to be armed, let alone with machine guns, rocket throwers or land mines.

You claim was that a machine gun should not be used in self defense, though. If we look at that question we must assume that a machine gun is available for self defense for whatever reasons we can come up with.

I want to ask you a frank question: Are you trolling, or are you really this naive?

Neither.

I know about your history of unnecessarily badgering, bordering on trolling, from the circumcision thread. I do not want to assume anything, so I am asking you. You just appear to be trolling now, because if you go back through this thread, you will see I have the exact same position as you that self-defense in school should not result in punishment.

That wasn't the point about the AK 47 at all.

And a victim has every right to defend themselves using whatever means necessary.

So let me ask again: What if the only means *available* are of the machine gun kind?

Just in case my assumption is wrong, you're still quite naive if you really do not know the difference between two students in the school yard where weapons of all type are STRICTLY prohibited, and being by yourself in a dark alley with a license to own and carry a concealed weapon.

No, I don't know the difference. Enlighten me, please. Is not punching people in the face strictly prohibited in the school yard? So if that was an argument for anything, ever, we wouldn't have this discussion in the first place,m would we?

Doesn't matter. The argument remains the same.



You're ridiculous. This is a ridiculous argument. This is a ridiculous conversation.

Not at all.

You're failure to understand the logical implications of the things you say does not make my pointing out these implications ridiculous.

 

[Nihilianth]

So it wasn't what you said. Right.



So should I just take the chance, or am I allowed to defense myself?



That may very well be true, but it is a different question. I agree that students shouldn't be allowed to be armed, let alone with machine guns, rocket throwers or land mines.

You claim was that a machine gun should not be used in self defense, though. If we look at that question we must assume that a machine gun is available for self defense for whatever reasons we can come up with.




Neither.



That wasn't the point about the AK 47 at all.



So let me ask again: What if the only means *available* are of the machine gun kind?



No, I don't know the difference. Enlighten me, please. Is not punching people in the face strictly prohibited in the school yard? So if that was an argument for anything, ever, we wouldn't have this discussion in the first place,m would we?




Not at all.

You're failure to understand the logical implications of the things you say does not make my pointing out these implications ridiculous.

It is ridiculous, because you are taking it WAAAAAYYYY out of proportion of what I said about machine guns. It was originally a joke, because I know already how people can be around here. I have to explain this to you once again in plain English, I suppose.

Someone asked me what I meant by "taking out your opponent." I told them "it can mean whatever you want it to mean...." Then knowing people just absolutely LOVE to take something way out of context with the discussion, I followed it up with "except using an AK47 or something stupid like that." Wow. Big deal.

 

[Dancing David]

Yeah, as I have said in a different thread, the biggest problem with our education system are the parents. So you definitely have a great point there.



focusing on only the bolded (not the laughing bit,) it would depend on the situation. If my kid successfully defended himself, I would encourage him to continue to do so, only if need be, though I am a teacher myself. I certainly wouldn't laugh at the situation, but I would have a serious talk with the kid about the importance of self-defense. I would probably, at that point, enroll the kid in some sort of martial-arts class. I may do it anyway.

My comment was more general and not about self defense, we have parents who think it is good for their children to be rude and disrespectful to other students. They think that there child taunting other children is acceptable and that the random nature of their child's assault is reasonable.

But that is my own personal actions I would take. In this situation, a suspension would be illogical. But how can you know whether a parent would take this course of action if their kid is the victim?

I was addressing suspensions in general.

That is a good question. I don't think you would need to suspend any kid if they participated in a fight purely out of self-defense. Instead, I think the most appropriate course of action would still be tat call home in order to iterate the seriousness of violence at school, in order to head off the possibility of a parent deciding to laugh about it to them. A phone call home, or even a suspension, there are parents out there who would laugh at the situation anyway.

I was reffering to violence in general, not self defense.

I was just wondering: It seems as though many people went to school without cameras in the hallways or outside. How can it be anything but obvious what transpires before a fight breaks out?

If the fight started verbally on the bus two days ago, it can be very hard.

What is so hard about placing the tape in the VCR and watching it on a tv monitor later?

Um lets see, no video first off, , it is all digital now. It takes lots and lots of moeny to have lots and lots of cameras, my two grade schools have only cameras at teh front or exterior dorrs.

then there is licensing.

One school has four camera, but the free software from Aix only covers one camera. So we can only use one camera.

There shouldn;t be any excuse that "well, the school doesn't want to have to deal with trying to figure out who is at fault." It's not like it's hard to figure it out. Even without a video, depending on the individuals involved.

Actually it can be really hard, the strings of history that lead to fights can be astounding.

And a suspension is an even more unreasonable punishment then. Especially for the victim.

Again i was adressing suspension in general.

If the family is struggling financially just to make ends meet, and one of their children is getting bullied at school, you would have a suspension in place purely to punish a parent for financial reasons even though their child was the victim? Man, I feel even worse for the victim and their families then. Not only do they have to put up with bullying, they are not allowed to defend themselves without punishment, and any punishment would be designed towards the parents in having less hours to work, and having to pay out more money for outside care while they are away at work.

I dunno, this reasoning seems to be quite bad, and not so well thought out.

I made a general statement about suspensions and why they happen, it was not specific.

Did you know that corporal punishment is legal in close to half of US states still? Schools are afraid of lawsuits, so there are school policies in place,, banning corporal punishment. (I am a supporter of corporal punishment. Especially for parents.)

I work in a school where we have two staff members who are licensed specifically to restrain a child when they are throwing some kind of tantrum. (And yes, teachers most certainly are allowed to restrain a child during the course of violence.)

I meant restraint as a consequence, for suspendable behavior.

The principal and assistant principal does not have to attend to 400 students at any one time. For the most part, most teachers are more than capable of handling their own classrooms. It's not like there are 400 students who are all fighting at the very same time or anything. Usually, we get maybe one or two students out of the entire school who end up with a suspension every couple of days.

Must be a nice school, we usually have one to two students per hour who rise beyond teh class room management threshold. That is a bad day, good days only one or two the whole day.

Most are dealt with by the staff and sent back to class.

It isn't that big a deal to figure out whether a particular situation is a bully situation or not.

I have some stories that involve parents, siblings and 'cousins' that you need a score card to keep track of how teh fight started, some are clear cut , some are not.

Every teacher knows the history of every student quite well. We know who the bullies are. We know who the quiet kids are that never get into trouble. We see bullying happen practically on a daily basis, and it usually involves the same individuals.

Um both my schools involve subcultures where taunting and insult are considered entertainment.

So, taking history and we see everyday into account, I think it is quite easy to figure out how to dole out punishments, and whether or not someone was a victim. Plus, we usually have video tape of most incidents as well, as we have cameras in all hallways, and on all the corners of the building, as well as on a couple of the light poles in the parking lot, and playground.

Yeah, thats nice. Our board will not pay for that.

There are a few "dark" spots, and most of those include the bathrooms. But when it comes to the use of the bathroom, we have a formal "bathroom break," where we take the entire class in the mid morning, and after lunch. I only send 2 or 3 kids in at a time while watching all the rest outside the bathroom. You can easily hear from outside the bathroom what is occurring in there with only two or three kids. I don't allow ANY talking whatsoever. They also have two minutes to go in there, do their business, wash their hands, and come back out. Five minutes for those in the stalls.

I am familiar with that.

So I still see no excuse for punishing the victims of bullying in the same fashion as the bullies themselves. Indeed, I see no excuse for punishing the victims at all.

I never said that now did I?

 

[Dancing David]

I already covered this in my last post. But it was written quite badly. lol. I think most people would be able to get the gist of it though.

Basically, while there are 400 students in a hypothetical elementary school, there are not 200 fights going on all at once every single day, even in the worst of urban areas. (At that point, I think you could very easily call it a riot, and have the police come in to deal with the situation. lol.)

I think at both my schools you would find the assistant principal and principal would be happy if it was only the fights they had to deal with.

there are many forms of disruption that rise above a class room management issue.

What percentage of your school has free and reduced lunch? Mine are both at 75% , we also have a large number os students who have chaotic familes and absent parents, at one time last year one school had a student population of parents absent at 15% for just incarceration. Many of our students have loving and great families, many of them do not.

There is also the use of video cameras in every single school I have ever stepped foot in.

We have one over the front door that can be monitored.

Except for the bathrooms. (Usually the bathroom is the biggest problem area too. But most schools I have been to has one or two classrooms across the hall from the bathroom, and you can easily hear talking from the bathroom into the classroom. So there are probably two teachers who can know when something is going down in there pretty quickly.)

Actually the bath rooms are not much of a problem due to supervision.

Elementary schools have formal "bathroom breaks," especially for the younger kids. You march your entire class out to the bathrooms, and send two or 3 kids in at a time, while watching the rest of the class in the hallway. Again, you can easily hear from the hallway any fooling around inside the bathroom. And you monitor how long it takes each student to go in, do their thing, and come back out again. And I know who my classroom bullies are, and which kids are the ones that can usually calm a situation down, and which ones get bullied. Usually, I will send one bully in with a kid who has nothing to do with classroom politics at the same time. The quiet kids go in at the same time. The kids, in other words, are assigned "partners," which makes the process go as quickly and as smoothly as possible.

Great.

We also have lunchroom monitors on the staff as well.

We are lucky to find people who will do playground supervision, teh pay is low and only two hours, no hall monitors in grade schools.
The luch room is not a huge issue, except for verbal insults.

Their duties include babysitting at lunch time, and walking the halls once in a while throughout the day. They are of enormous help in preventing fights and bullying. We only need three of them.

So, between careful classroom and bathroom management, cameras, lunchroom/hallway monitors, it isn't nearly as difficult a task as you made it sound.

[in jest] Where do you teach Rock Candy valley?[/in jest]

Sorry we have had fights that happened because of family history, we have had fights that occur because of what one person did in a higher grade at another school, we have had fights happened because of what happened over the weekend.

Many fights are very clear cut and many are not.

 

[Dancing David]

Thanks.

The bolded bit is what worries me. Bullying (although why we can't just call this incident 'assult' like it is, I don't know) is bad enough, but if, as a victim, it can effect your academic record and therefore the rest of your life, then something is very, very wrong.

The rest of your life, no. It barely matters what you did last year. Most compound results are the consequence of 'this quarter', my goddess, at freaking middle school it would be impossible, if you get multiple suspension and do something really stupid it matters. If you don't do anything really stupid, it doesn't matter.

Seriously when you have a bad week at a medium size middle school and have 200+ discipline refferals, that record does not mean much.

If you have multiple suspensions for battery, that matters.

 

[3point14]

The rest of your life, no. It barely matters what you did last year. Most compound results are the consequence of 'this quarter', my goddess, at freaking middle school it would be impossible, if you get multiple suspension and do something really stupid it matters. If you don't do anything really stupid, it doesn't matter.

Seriously when you have a bad week at a medium size middle school and have 200+ discipline refferals, that record does not mean much.

If you have multiple suspensions for battery, that matters.

thanks

 

[Nihilianth]

My comment was more general and not about self defense, we have parents who think it is good for their children to be rude and disrespectful to other students. They think that there child taunting other children is acceptable and that the random nature of their child's assault is reasonable.

I thought we were talking about the victim defending himself getting punished.

Well, certainly bullies need to be punished. Usually the kids who are the bullies are the ones who are raised worse than the other members of the classroom.

I was addressing suspensions in general.

As was I. I ws sort of speaking on bahalf of having some sort of tiered punishment code....I think. Or was that another conversation? I forget. lol.

I was reffering to violence in general, not self defense.

Now I'm getting a bit confused. We are jumping around, I think, and misunderstanding one another.

If the fight started verbally on the bus two days ago, it can be very hard.

All the busses in my school district had cameras on them at the top of the windshield in the middle. But even so, it can still be hard.

Even if a verbal fight broke out on a bus or elsewhere, there is still no excuse for anyone to just walk up to someone and start punching them in the face.

Um lets see, no video first off, , it is all digital now. It takes lots and lots of moeny to have lots and lots of cameras, my two grade schools have only cameras at teh front or exterior dorrs.

then there is licensing.

One school has four camera, but the free software from Aix only covers one camera. So we can only use one camera.

How expensive is the software in a live-feed system? I assume it is probably pretty expensive.

See, one of the reasons why the education budget in this country is not nearly to the level it needs to be. For fear of sparking an off-topic discussion, I find it rather wasteful is idiotic that we can spend trillions of dollars bailing out banks, and bombing tents in the middle of deserts. And yet, the education budget doesn't even top a trillion. Why is that? Why is our priorities not placed on the future of our nation?

And the whole idea of taking away funding from poor-performing schools is seems to be exactly opposite of what we need to be doing! We should be increasing spending, so schools can afford such things as better security equipment, better materials, better teachers, better administrator, better sports equipment, and better cafeteria food. My school is talking about cutting the morning breakfast program for children who come from families that are on the poor side, and cannot afford to feed them more than once or twice a day. Ridiculous, if you ask me.

anyway, another rant. Sorry.

Actually it can be really hard, the strings of history that lead to fights can be astounding.

Yes, but each incident must be punished on its own. Obviously, the more one particular student gets punished, the more increasingly severe the punishment must be, up to straight-up expulsion. So if someone walks up to someone and punches in the face, and stays in their face the whole time, the history between the two is not such a huge deal. The immediate incident takes precedence over anything in the past.

If the bully and/or "victim" is shown to already have a history, you can take that into consideration for how to handle any punishment for this particualr incident. The "bully," in this case, should still get a more severe punishment than the "victim," if the victim is also shown to have a previous history of violence. If there is nothing on that student's record, then the victim shouldn't be punished at all.

It all depends on each individual involved, and their histories.

Again i was adressing suspension in general.

I made a general statement about suspensions and why they happen, it was not specific.

I meant restraint as a consequence, for suspendable behavior.

I guess I realize that now. But you still cannot have one "general" punishment for every single incident that happens. That's my problem with the idea of just handing out suspensions like they are candy. The actions which are punishable loses the purpose of the punishment itself when a bully assaulting an innocent bystander for no reason ends up with the same punishment as the innocent bystander. In other words, the punishment loses quite a bit of credibility.

Must be a nice school, we usually have one to two students per hour who rise beyond teh class room management threshold. That is a bad day, good days only one or two the whole day.

Or just a nice year? It is my first year of teaching. Although, I will say my four years of high school, I have only seen two fights break out. I only saw maybe a handful of bullying incidents. Of course, the years I was in high school, all the teachers always talked about how those were the "glory years" of their career up there. It just happened that between the years 1998, and 2003 (I was the class of '02) we were pretty much on top of the world at that school.

Now, going back to 8th grade, I was a victim of bullying on a near-daily basis at a rich Catholic school. There was almost always a fight breaking out somewhere or other. Before I got to Neumann, fights were practically unheard of.

So I guess it just all depends on the class makeup of the individuals and how they interact.

Most are dealt with by the staff and sent back to class.

I have some stories that involve parents, siblings and 'cousins' that you need a score card to keep track of how teh fight started, some are clear cut , some are not.

Um both my schools involve subcultures where taunting and insult are considered entertainment.

I have yet to see a situation myself that wasn't clear-cut yet. Of course, I am only 27, and my first full year of teaching. I student-taught for the previous three years while in college. Last year I hopped between two classrooms of the second grade. One of the second grade classrooms was a complete disaster, and the other one was completely under control. But even with the disastrous room, I quickly found out who all the trouble-makers were. Took me about a week to figure it out.

So far, I have yet to run into a "tough decision" as to who is at fault. Of course, I am sure that middle and high schoolers wise up quite a bit by that time. So I shall see if I can land this high school job next year.

Yeah, thats nice. Our board will not pay for that.

I guess it's probably because my school district is one of the best in the state of PA. It seems to be flush with cash, compared to most other districts. It could also be because my hometown has declared itself the "Energy Capital of the World" recently, and there seems to be even more money flowing around since even when I graduated.

I am familiar with that.


I never said that now did I?

Which is where I think I am confused. You were speaking about suspensions in general, during a conversation about the victim getting punished the same as the bully. I dunno, maybe you wren;t a part of that conversation. I'll probably have to go back to reread the this page and the previous one.