http://abcnews.go.com/US/classroom-beating-florida-student-pummeled-teacher-sits-back/story?id=12279310
The pummeling of a Palm Beach, Fla., middle school boy by another student has infuriated the boy's family who say the teacher did nothing but sit by his computer while the fight raged in his classroom.

...

The teacher's inaction was reportedly due to a school policy that staff can only intervene after undergoing training, according to the school district.

That type of "policy run amok" is a growing problem in schools across the country, according to Carol Kochhar-Bryant, a professor at George Washington University's Graduate School of Education and Human Development.

"In the past there have been many families, if the child gets injured in any way by an intervention by a teacher, there have been instances where the teachers have been reprimanded," she said. "Those policies protect the school, they protect the teacher, but we are realizing now they don't protect the child in those situations."

Palm Beach County school district officials insist the teacher followed procedure during the middle school fight, which took place last month, and that he was not properly trained per district protocol to break up such altercations.

"When the students would not stop fighting, the teacher went to the hallway to get help," read a statement released by the school district. "Assistant Principal Brent Higley responded and helped stopped the fight."

...

But there is the flip side.

According to media reports, a Florida teacher's jaw was discloated while he was trying to break up a fight this spring. And in June, according to the Boston Globe, a 65-year-old teacher collapsed and died after intervening between two high school students, a boyfriend and girlfriend.

Kochhar-Bryant said such hands-off policies have been building over the last several years, but the balance of liability concern and a zero tolerance toward classroom violence often conflict.

..
So the question is...should new policy be all teacher should be properly trained before they become a teacher?

http://abcnews.go.com/US/classroom-beating-florida-student-pummeled-teacher-sits-back/story?id=12279310

So the question is...should new policy be all teacher should be properly trained before they become a teacher?

Either that or force parents to sign a waiver of their right to sue the school for injuries caused to their child in the course of a school official breaking up a fight in which the child is involved.

Or parents could teach their kids how to fight and we could let schools distill down to a free-for-all.

Honestly, there is no way to break up a violent altercation (especially between young people) that is 100% safe for both the fighters and the person breaking up the fight.

An unfortunate sign of the times but my wife is a teacher and she has all sorts of stories like this. Teachers avoid any personal contact with students or even touching their property. For example, using cell phones is completely disallowed at her school and school rules even say that teachers may confiscate phones if a student is caught using one in class (I think they are allowed in lockers just not in class). A friend of hers confiscated a phone then when the student got it back at the end of the day they claimed that the teacher had broken it somehow and all hell broke loose.

The fundamental problem we have is that we've gone from a society where parents reigned in their kids and put the smack down if they stepped out of line, to a society where parents are too busy to actually "parent" and feel that the school should do it for them. Teachers and often times school admins are put in the tough position that parents want them to raise their children but don't trust their judgement when it comes to discipline issues. It USED to be that if you got a bad report from school, the parents would make sure their kids cooperated but now the parents start throwing accusations around and fling about lawsuits.

The system is broken. It is not considered acceptable for students to defend themselves, and the system will not protect students.

Did the teacher get help or just sit back?

Looking back, elementary and middle school was like being in a locked cage with violent people. There were always those kids who were certain to become criminals or degenerates.

Schools really need to separate the good and bad student.

The system is broken. It is not considered acceptable for students to defend themselves, and the system will not protect students.
You missed something. It's (in some cases) "the system will not protect the students because then people think that the system is at fault."

This wouldn't be a problem if there weren't precedent that somebody lending a helping hand got sued because they accidentally hurt a person involved. this doesn't only hold for breaking up fights, but also for things like helping people out of car accidents, preventing suicide, rescuing people from burning buildings, etc.

Looking back, elementary and middle school was like being in a locked cage with violent people. There were always those kids who were certain to become criminals or degenerates.

Schools really need to separate the good and bad student.
How do you know? Give up on a kid when they make one mistake at age 7?

How do you know? Give up on a kid when they make one mistake at age 7?

There are those kids you can tell from a glance are bad seeds. Minimally, they should be moved somewhere else, away from the non-disruptive student.

I would never associate with people like that once I finished school. Why did I have to be subjected to that during school?

There are those kids you can tell from a glance are bad seeds. Minimally, they should be moved somewhere else, away from the non-disruptive student.

I would never associate with people like that once I finished school. Why did I have to be subjected to that during school?
Sorry, but there are many, many stories of people who looked like they'd be bad seeds who turned out to be great. And the opposite. You're getting a littel Minority Report on us here.

The teacher let a child get injured because s/he didn't want to be reprimanded? I'd make that a very personal problem for the teacher that let that happen to my kid.

The teacher let a child get injured because s/he didn't want to be reprimanded? I'd make that a very personal problem for the teacher that let that happen to my kid.
A teacher followed school policy because sh/e didn't want to lose his/her job? Sounds like the problem lies predominately w/the school, not the employee who followed his/her employer's directions.

What if the teacher intervened and a student got seriously hurt or even killed? If I were a teacher I wouldn't risk my job or saftey over breaking up a fight. Imagine if the student that got hurt was a minority or something. Then I'd have a bunch of talking heads on cable news calling me a racist as well.

You missed something. It's (in some cases) "the system will not protect the students because then people think that the system is at fault."

This wouldn't be a problem if there weren't precedent that somebody lending a helping hand got sued because they accidentally hurt a person involved. this doesn't only hold for breaking up fights, but also for things like helping people out of car accidents, preventing suicide, rescuing people from burning buildings, etc.

Which is fine... As long as when someone teaches their child how to defend themselves, and really injure an assailant, the school stays out of it entirely then, too.

teachers shouldn't be trained to get involved in physical altercations, they're not the police. These are unionized teachers, if it's not in their original job description they can't do it. They can't even change a light bulb under their union contract, let alone break up a fight.

If Obama were giving a speech to school students and a fight broke out, would he himself jump in?

teachers shouldn't be trained to get involved in physical altercations, they're not the police. These are unionized teachers, if it's not in their original job description they can't do it. They can't even change a light bulb under their union contract, let alone break up a fight.
Link establishing that every union contract for teachers specifically prohibits them from changing light bulbs?

Or can we just chalk that up to hyperbole?

FWIW, it was management's rules (i.e. the school) that prevented intervening, not some red herring union rules.

Thank the trial lawyers. Covering your own ass is now the most important action for anyone that might be liable for anything.

Thank the trial lawyers. Covering your own ass is now the most important action for anyone that might be liable for anything.

It seems to me these children have a lack of respect for authority and each other. So why did they really do away with corporal punishment in schools? Maybe the parents didn't teach discipline or respect in the home? I don't necessarily blame the teacher for the inaction but the teacher could have walked out of the class room to get assistance. I wonder how their going to handle the discipline on this matter suspension,fine, maybe spend a little time in one of the special schools or maybe if it's a continual problem 90 days in county jail for assault?

If I recall same thing happened on school bus as well.

A teacher followed school policy because sh/e didn't want to lose his/her job? Sounds like the problem lies predominately w/the school, not the employee who followed his/her employer's directions.

:iagree::iagree::iagree:

Of course, what litigation may have caused the policy is another matter.......

It seems to me these children have a lack of respect for authority and each other. So why did they really do away with corporal punishment in schools? Maybe the parents didn't teach discipline or respect in the home? I don't necessarily blame the teacher for the inaction but the teacher could have walked out of the class room to get assistance. I wonder how their going to handle the discipline on this matter suspension,fine, maybe spend a little time in one of the special schools or maybe if it's a continual problem 90 days in county jail for assault?
And you could have learned in the OP that the teacher did just that. ;)
"When the students would not stop fighting, the teacher went to the hallway to get help," read a statement released by the school district. "Assistant Principal Brent Higley responded and helped stopped the fight."

There was a day when teachers were the authority figure in their classrooms and took necessary measures to maintain control. :prop::whip:

Those days are long gone. :sadwalk:

Remember the Middle Schoolers having intercourse in a Indianapolis school a couple of years ago, with the teacher present in the room.

Looking back, elementary and middle school was like being in a locked cage with violent people. There were always those kids who were certain to become criminals or degenerates.

Schools really need to separate the good and bad student.
I agree. Which is why I don't send my kids to public school.

How do you know? Give up on a kid when they make one mistake at age 7?
No, but if they have a pattern of disruptive and violent behavior they need to be in a situation where they don't disrupt the civilized children who are there to learn.

Sorry, but there are many, many stories of people who looked like they'd be bad seeds who turned out to be great. And the opposite. You're getting a littel Minority Report on us here.
Yeah, but should my kid have to be in a classroom with a violent child just in case that violent child might turn out well? I say they should get sent to the alternative school for kids with behavior problems until they can demonstrate that they can behave well enough to go back to the other school. It isn't giving up on any child, it is teaching them that there are consequences to bad behavior.

We need to dumb down the classes and put all kids in the same level, focus on creating high self esteem, and spend the most resources on the worst and the least able.

Oh wait!

In middle school one classmate got into a fist fight with another, and eventually a desk/chair was hurled across the room collapsing the collapsible wall. The teacher told the students that their behavior was unacceptable and to sit outside.

Apathy is part of our culture now. We are a hands off society where we expect action only from those who are explicitly paid for that action. It's no wonder the teacher didn't intervene, they weren't specifically trained and paid to break up physical altercations.

Honestly though, sometimes a fight just needs to be allowed to run its course and punishment be given afterwards.

School discipline nowadays is a joke. No wonder kids have no respect for the rules and do as they please. What's the penalty for breaking the rules? A "time out"? A "lecture"? If they gave ridiculous "time outs" as a penalty when I was in school, I'd probably be in prison today. We knew that if we broke the rules, it was going to hurt.

should the teacher have stepped in.? hell yeah! can I see why the teacher did nothing? hell yeah!

a catch 22 for the teacher, break the kids up and accidentally hurt them, or get yelled at for letting the wild banshees go all "2 men enter 1 man leaves".....

I agree. Which is why I don't send my kids to public school.
So that they can be around different "bad" students in private school? ;)

No, but if they have a pattern of disruptive and violent behavior they need to be in a situation where they don't disrupt the civilized children who are there to learn.
But who gets to determine what constitutes a pattern? It's not just semantic nit-picking, it's the criteria by which my children's future could be determined. I would not be satisfied leaving that up to the whim of personal interpretation.

School discipline nowadays is a joke. No wonder kids have no respect for the rules and do as they please. What's the penalty for breaking the rules? A "time out"? A "lecture"? If they gave ridiculous "time outs" as a penalty when I was in school, I'd probably be in prison today. We knew that if we broke the rules, it was going to hurt.
So a highly significant deterrent for you against engaging in a life of crime was the infliction of corporal punishment by your teachers?

I'd say my parents had far more to do w/me remaining a free woman today than any of the disciplinary measures undertaken by my teachers. But then again, thanks to my parents, I didn't need to have many disciplinary measures undertaken by my teachers. :dontknow:

So that they can be around different "bad" students in private school? ;) Actually, they are homeschooled--can't afford private school. If I were sending them to a private school you can bet I would choose one that would allow teachers to dicipline unruly kids, and, if necessary, expell those who were interfering with the safety or learning of other kids.

But who gets to determine what constitutes a pattern? It's not just semantic nit-picking, it's the criteria by which my children's future could be determined. I would not be satisfied leaving that up to the whim of personal interpretation.
Well, of course the administration would set up a framework of rules, but at some point there would have to be personal interpretation because every situation is different. Could that impact your child's life? Only if they were on the edge of being kicked out or not. The kids who aren't causing problems wouldn't have any cause to worry. And if your child did get kicked out for problem behavior they would always have a chance to change it and transfer back to that school.

What is the alternative? Do we just allow children to get away with anything because a punishment might impact their future? The system we have now punishes the "good" kids because we are too afraid to deal with the "bad". Do you think that maybe the reason our society as a whole tolerates so much bad behavior is because they learned that at school? Not only are the consequences not severe enough for violent behavior at school, but we are teaching our children to allow it to happen without helping the victim. After all, if they step in to help they will also be punished for participating in the fight, usually receiving the same punishment as the instigator. It is wrong, it is unfair, and it doesn't prepare kids for real life outside of school.

So that they can be around different "bad" students in private school? ;)

ahh the benefits of private school.. they're pretty quick to kick you out and send you to public school.

http://safety.lovetoknow.com/School_Safety_Policies_in_Private_Schools

Private vs. Public School Safety

In 2006, a joint report titled Indicators of School Crime and Safety, 2006 was compiled by the Bureau of Justice Statistics and the National Center for Education Statistics. This report released some rather disturbing information comparing violence and related issues in public and private schools.

Incidents Reported by Students Aged 12-18 in 2005

Student Experience Public School Private School
Victim of violence going to/from school 4.3% 2.6%
Fear being threatened going to/from school 5.1% 0.9%
Fear being attacked going to/from school 6.4% 3.8%
Fear being target of hate words at, or going to/from school 11.5% 6.9%
Fear presence of street gangs at, or going to/from school 25.4% 4.2%
Avoid certain places in school out of fear for their safety 4.8% 1.4%

ahh the benefits of private school.. they're pretty quick to kick you out and send you to public school.
They're pretty quick to kick *some* kids out. The ones whose parents routinely donate a few hundred thousand a year rarely seem to have that problem, despite whatever behavioral issues might rear their head.

http://safety.lovetoknow.com/School_Safety_Policies_in_Private_Schools
Considering that none of those numbers are at zero, it would seem that there are still "bad" students in private schools.

Yup considering these days when just touching a "child" (even tho he is a 200lbs teen) can land someone in jail..or FIRED
http://www.afro.com/sections/news/afro_briefs/story.htm?storyid=1237

I could see why the teacher decide to stay out of that one...

The teacher should just call the cops cause only they have some kind of given right to beat up teens ( child ) and not face any charges :mad:
http://blogs.app.com/saywhat/2009/01/07/lawyer-cops-beat-teen-for-saying-f-word/
http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=4837663n
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fsWTWRpIXBA

No, but if they have a pattern of disruptive and violent behavior they need to be in a situation where they don't disrupt the civilized children who are there to learn.


Yeah, but should my kid have to be in a classroom with a violent child just in case that violent child might turn out well? I say they should get sent to the alternative school for kids with behavior problems until they can demonstrate that they can behave well enough to go back to the other school. It isn't giving up on any child, it is teaching them that there are consequences to bad behavior.

Most students who are violent DO get sent to alternative schools, assuming the district has one...Suspensions or expulsions are also possible consequences.

but it's not willy-nilly. They don't get kicked out for having bad parents or whatever. They first need to demonstrate behavior. And they should have to -- unless you're a perfect psychic, you can't predict someone's behavior before they do something.

... The ones whose parents routinely donate a few hundred thousand a year rarely seem to have that problem, despite whatever behavioral issues might rear their head.
....

Link establishing that the ones whose parents routinely donate a few hundred thousand a year rarely seem to have that problem?

Or can we just chalk that up to hyperbole?

Actually, they are homeschooled--can't afford private school. If I were sending them to a private school you can bet I would choose one that would allow teachers to dicipline unruly kids, and, if necessary, expell those who were interfering with the safety or learning of other kids.
There is no accredited private elementary/middle/high school that will allow the use of corporal punishment as "discipline". So what exactly would you be looking for?

Well, of course the administration would set up a framework of rules, but at some point there would have to be personal interpretation because every situation is different. Could that impact your child's life? Only if they were on the edge of being kicked out or not.
Ah, how convenient that only such borderline "bad" kids would have to worry about the personal interpretation of school guidelines labeling them as "bad".

The kids who aren't causing problems wouldn't have any cause to worry.
Right. And people who aren't breaking any laws don't have any cause to worry about being hassled by the police.

:rolleyes:

And if your child did get kicked out for problem behavior they would always have a chance to change it and transfer back to that school.
Only if someone else's personal interpretation of vauge rules permitted him to do so...

What is the alternative? Do we just allow children to get away with anything because a punishment might impact their future?
Yep. If we can't immediately label students either "good" or "bad", then the only other alternative is to throw up our hands and do nothing.

Do you think that maybe the reason our society as a whole tolerates so much bad behavior is because they learned that at school?
As I indicated to nobama, I believe one's home environment to play a much bigger role in shaping the future development of children than their school environment. So no, I don't think public schools should be considered a scapegoat upon which we can pile all of our "problems" with today's youth.

Not only are the consequences not severe enough for violent behavior at school, but we are teaching our children to allow it to happen without helping the victim.
Guess what? Many instances of schoolyard violence don't have a "victim". They have two or more willing participants in violent behavior.

What methods do you suggest we employ in order to teach an 8-year old how to, upon discovering violent behavior, immediately determine who is the "victim" and how to best assist that victim in overcoming the "bad" students?

I suggest we simply teach them to seek assistance from an adult upon discovering violent behavior.

After all, if they step in to help they will also be punished for participating in the fight, usually receiving the same punishment as the instigator.
How exactly should school officials determine who is a "victim helper" and who is merely a co-conspirator in the fight?

Link establishing that the ones whose parents routinely donate a few hundred thousand a year rarely seem to have that problem?

Or can we just chalk that up to hyperbole?
You can chalk that up to my own personal experiences wrt attending private schools and the rich "bad" students who often go there.

I have no such link, just as DJPlayer had no such link for his claim that private schools are "pretty quick" to kick students out.

I find it amusing that the article and even the OP talk about teachers getting their jaw broken and dying because they tried to break up a fight and yet the responses mostly point to the policy being because schools are concerned with the students/parents suing them.

I find it amusing that the article and even the OP talk about teachers getting their jaw broken and dying because they tried to break up a fight and yet the responses mostly point to the policy being because schools are concerned with the students/parents suing them.
Don't forget about blaming it on the teacher's union. ;)

I find it amusing that the article and even the OP talk about teachers getting their jaw broken and dying because they tried to break up a fight and yet the responses mostly point to the policy being because schools are concerned with the students/parents suing them.
Probably because we don't usually hear teacher suing school over broken jaw and death

Probably because we don't usually hear teacher suing school over broken jaw and death
Probably because the teacher who got their jaw broken got workman's comp at the bare minimum.

Do you usually hear about teachers/schools being sued for breaking up fights?

Probably because the teacher who got their jaw broken got workman's comp at the bare minimum.

Do you usually hear about teachers/schools being sued for breaking up fights?

Before teacher / bus driver don't touch => get involve policy put in place...yes.

If I recall there was one case where a teacher's hug was misinterpret and got sued or threats of firing the teacher

Before teacher / bus driver don't touch => get involve policy put in place...yes
How many instances can you name without Google's help?

If I recall there was one case where a teacher's hug was misinterpret and got sued or threats of firing the teacher
... which would be completely irrelevant to breaking up a fight btw students...

How many instances can you name without Google's help?

I am not even going to bother to respond to that one...you are just being unreasonable nitpicking and setting up argument that only goes your way.

... which would be completely irrelevant to breaking up a fight btw students...

It does...teacher can no longer have physical contact with students...i.e. stepping in to stop a fight

I am not even going to bother to respond to that one...you are just being unreasonable nitpicking.
No, I'm seeking validation of your claim that you usually hear about teachers/schools being sued for breaking up fights.

I'm sorry if you consider substantiating your claim to be "unreasonable nitpicking".

It does...teacher can no longer have physical contact with students...i.e. stepping in to stop a fight
Except that the reasoning behind why teachers shouldn't break up a fight is quite different from the reasoning behind why teachers shouldn't hug their students.

Simply because they both involve touching doesn't mean they are analogous.

No, I'm seeking validation of your claim that you usually hear about teachers/schools being sued for breaking up fights.

I'm sorry if you consider substantiating your claim to be "unreasonable nitpicking".
The only thing I can tell you is what I saw on the news and news special years ago...if you expect me to name specific then you got better memory than I do.

Let's see you want me to substantiate my claim without google help...and you don't believe what I say...so no point for me to waste my time on this.

Except that the reasoning behind why teachers shouldn't break up a fight is quite different from the reasoning behind why teachers shouldn't hug their students.

Simply because they both involve touching doesn't mean they are analogous.
:facepalm2:

The only thing I can tell you is what I saw on the news and news special years ago...if you expect me to name specific then you got better memory than I do.
I never asked for specific names. I simply asked how many such instances you could name off the top of your head, since you claimed that you usually hear about them.

Let's see you want me to substantiate my claim without google help...and you don't believe what I say...so no point for me to waste my time on this.
Don't take it personally. I don't believe the unsubstantiated claims of most people.

Even with Google, how many instances of teachers/schools getting sued for breaking up fights do you believe you would find over any particular period of time?

You can chalk that up to my own personal experiences wrt attending private schools and the rich "bad" students who often go there.

I have no such link, just as DJPlayer had no such link for his claim that private schools are "pretty quick" to kick students out.What have we here? An unsubstantiated claim?

Similarly, you are free to hold the claims of others to whatever level of substantiation floats your boat. Or you can simply blindly believe what others tell you.I never asked for specific names. I simply asked how many such instances you could name off the top of your head, since you claimed that you usually hear about them.

Don't take it personally. I don't believe the unsubstantiated claims of most people.No, I'm seeking validation of your claim that you usually hear about teachers/schools being sued for breaking up fights.

I'm sorry if you consider substantiating your claim to be "unreasonable nitpicking".Do I detect a different standard? :nono1:

Thank the trial lawyers. Covering your own ass is now the most important action for anyone that might be liable for anything.

Indeed.

If I recall there was one case where a teacher's hug was misinterpret and got sued or threats of firing the teacher
... which would be completely irrelevant to breaking up a fight btw students...
It does...teacher can no longer have physical contact with students...i.e. stepping in to stop a fight
Except that the reasoning behind why teachers shouldn't break up a fight is quite different from the reasoning behind why teachers shouldn't hug their students.

Simply because they both involve touching doesn't mean they are analogous.
:facepalm2:
What do you think the training is for? How to break up a fight without touching anybody?

How do you think the assistant principal broke up the fight?

What have we here? An unsubstantiated claim?
What you have there is a claim substantiated by anecdotal evidence, which is all I was asking appleyum to provide wrt the frequency with which s/he usually heard about instances of the teacher/school being sued for breaking up a fight.

I can't blame the teacher for following the policy handed down by his supervisor. From that person's point of view it's really damned if you do, damned if you don't.

I don't think that teachers should be obligated to physically intervene in violent behaviour, at least as far as older kids are concerned. Instead schools should have either security or police to deal with such matters.

I don't think that teachers should be obligated to physically intervene in violent behaviour, at least as far as older kids are concerned. Instead schools should have either security or police to deal with such matters.

This sounds reasonable. I think that teachers should be able to break up an elementary school scuffle, but they should be required to have security guards/police on site for high schools.

I can't blame the teacher for following the policy handed down by his supervisor. From that person's point of view it's really damned if you do, damned if you don't.

I don't think that teachers should be obligated to physically intervene in violent behaviour, at least as far as older kids are concerned. Instead schools should have either security or police to deal with such matters.

Actually the one I went to did but as of the last decade there is at least 1 murder a year.
Blacks murdering whites and whites murdering blacks. this school is in NE Phila you know one of the "Good Neighborhoods"

Actually the one I went to did but as of the last decade there is at least 1 murder a year.
Blacks murdering whites and whites murdering blacks. this school is in NE Phila you know one of the "Good Neighborhoods"

This has exactly what to do with whether or not I think teachers should be required to physically intervene in fights between older kids?

This has exactly what to do with whether or not I think teachers should be required to physically intervene in fights between older kids?

You did post there should be police in the schools to assist the teachers? I pointed out it doesn't necessarily make a difference. Discipline is taught at home and should never be necessary for the school to have this sort of problems with our children. Teachers should never 'Have" to intervene in any violent out breaks but in the same token be able to defend themselves without legal ramifications. As I point outed in a prior post the teacher should have gotten another for help (witness) instead of doing nothing! On the other hand the teachers union caused this by removing parental intervention years ago. You know when they ask your child does mommy and daddy hit you?

You did post there should be police in the schools to assist the teachers? I pointed out it doesn't necessarily make a difference. Discipline is taught at home and should never be necessary for the school to have this sort of problems with our children. Teachers should never 'Have" to intervene in any violent out breaks but in the same token be able to defend themselves without legal ramifications. As I point outed in a prior post the teacher should have gotten another for help (witness) instead of doing nothing! On the other hand the teachers union caused this by removing parental intervention years ago. You know when they ask your child does mommy and daddy hit you?

First I didn't state any position w/r/t corporal punishment in the home, so you really don't know where I stand on such a matter. You are trying to rebut an argument that I did not make.

Second, even the most well behaved people sometimes get into fights, not knowing the specific circumstances that caused said fight, I can't really say who (which student) has what amount of fault in said fight in and of itself. In addition, I think the idea that simply because the parents enforce discipline at home means that there would not ever be a need for such intervention. I think that sounds a bit utopian to even make such an argument. Some kids misbehave despite their parents attempts to discipline them. (and no, that's not an argument against parents disciplining their children, only that no discipline is 100%, please refrain from reading into my argument something that it's not)

My statement was that the teacher should not be required to physically intervene in a fight, I'm opposed to it because it's requiring a person to take on a physical risk that they may not want to take. Especially if we're talking middle or high school teachers, many of whom are female, having to break up fights between boys that may well be capable of doing them great physical harm. That doesn't even take into account should a student pull out a weapon. The whole point of having security, is because not all children will behave and sometimes they will be needed.

As to the teacher doing nothing, re-read the OP, the teacher did go and get help. To accuse the teacher of doing nothing, is to ignore the facts laid down in the OP.

"When the students would not stop fighting, the teacher went to the hallway to get help," read a statement released by the school district. "Assistant Principal Brent Higley responded and helped stopped the fight."

Really? What evidence do you have that the teacher's union has anything to do with such a policy? If I were to hazard a guess, I'd be more likely to say that the school fears legal liablity from being sued from the parents. Even so, I don't think that if kids are fighting that teachers should be required to jump into fights, that they're really not trained to handle. That's why schools should have security, or at least a couple of resourse (police) officers, maybe more depending on the size of the school.

First I didn't state any position w/r/t corporal punishment in the home, so you really don't know where I stand on such a matter. You are trying to rebut an argument that I did not make.

Second, even the most well behaved people sometimes get into fights, not knowing the specific circumstances that caused said fight, I can't really say who (which student) has what amount of fault in said fight in and of itself. In addition, I think the idea that simply because the parents enforce discipline at home means that there would not ever be a need for such intervention. I think that sounds a bit utopian to even make such an argument. Some kids misbehave despite their parents attempts to discipline them. (and no, that's not an argument against parents disciplining their children, only that no discipline is 100%, please refrain from reading into my argument something that it's not)

My statement was that the teacher should not be required to physically intervene in a fight, I'm opposed to it because it's requiring a person to take on a physical risk that they may not want to take. Especially if we're talking middle or high school teachers, many of whom are female, having to break up fights between boys that may well be capable of doing them great physical harm. That doesn't even take into account should a student pull out a weapon. The whole point of having security, is because not all children will behave and sometimes they will be needed.

As to the teacher doing nothing, re-read the OP, the teacher did go and get help. To accuse the teacher of doing nothing, is to ignore the facts laid down in the OP.



Really? What evidence do you have that the teacher's union has anything to do with such a policy? If I were to hazard a guess, I'd be more likely to say that the school fears legal liablity from being sued from the parents. Even so, I don't think that if kids are fighting that teachers should be required to jump into fights, that they're really not trained to handle. That's why schools should have security, or at least a couple of resourse (police) officers, maybe more depending on the size of the school.

Well now that you got that off your chest I didn't say either way on your stand on corporal punishment. I went to private school up until 8 grade and there was NO physical violence in school period because we knew there were consequences for our actions there and at home thus respect for adults. Now I quote "The pummeling of a Palm Beach, Fla., middle school boy by another student has infuriated the boy's family who say the teacher did nothing but sit by his computer while the fight raged in his classroom" was the OP's post go back and read it. When I went into HS there were police there which was completely alien to me. Now why so entirely different environments? Well let me tell you our behavior was respectful to all adults both inside the home and outside the home/school. Whereas the public school school system teaches entitlement,entitlement,entitlement and does not ready the child for the real world like work and dealing with peers respectfully. So there you have it no proper discipline in the home and the entitlement mentality taught in the school = the me generation that we have now. eubie.com/genme.pdf

Well now that you got that off your chest I went to private school up until 8 grade and there was NO physical violence in school period because we knew there were consequences for our actions there and at home thus respect for adults.


What happened when/where you were in school doesn't necessarily apply to school everywhere else. I went to private catholic school for grades 1-5, and public for grades 6-12, and there were fights in both. They weren't a daily occurance but they did happen from time to time. It largely depends on the people involved. Even an otherwise good kid, will only be pushed so far before they fight back.

Now I quote "The pummeling of a Palm Beach, Fla., middle school boy by another student has infuriated the boy's family who say the teacher did nothing but sit by his computer while the fight raged in his classroom" was the OP's post go back and read it.


Try reading more of the OP's post, it clearly shows what I pointed out as well, before the on the flip side part. So the teacher did go and get help, according to the OP. You need to read the whole thing.

When I went into HS there were police there which was completely alien to me. Now why so entirely different environments? Well let me tell you our behavior was respectful to all adults both inside the home and outside the home/school.

There is respect for adults by some, and not others. I don't think it's changed that much, there has always been the need for prisons, both adult and juvenile. If it were true, as you say, why would we have ever needed a juvenile justice system? Probably because there have always been some kids who don't respect adults. Just as there are also some adults that are unworthy of respect.

Btw, when I was in school I didn't start fights with other kids, but I wasn't one to let them push me around either. That can result in the occasional fight, but it doesn't result in fighting all the time, really depends on how much an ass other kids are willing to act. My parents had a trouble in school equals trouble at home point of view, but they also said, if another kid hits you, hit them back. Some situational balance is required.

Whereas the public school school system teaches entitlement,entitlement,entitlement and does not ready the child for the real world like work and dealing with peers respectfully. So there you have it no proper discipline in the home and the entitlement mentality taught in the school = the me generation that we have now. eubie.com/genme.pdf

What does said entitlement mentality have to do with fights in school? Maybe if this was a thread on welfare, or giving someone a job that they're not qualified for, you might have an argument, however, that particular talking point really doesn't work for this particular topic.

What happened when/where you were in school doesn't necessarily apply to school everywhere else. I went to private catholic school for grades 1-5, and public for grades 6-12, and there were fights in both. They weren't a daily occurance but they did happen from time to time. It largely depends on the people involved. Even an otherwise good kid, will only be pushed so far before they fight back.




Try reading more of the OP's post, it clearly shows what I pointed out as well, before the on the flip side part. So the teacher did go and get help, according to the OP. You need to read the whole thing.



There is respect for adults by some, and not others. I don't think it's changed that much, there has always been the need for prisons, both adult and juvenile. If it were true, as you say, why would we have ever needed a juvenile justice system? Probably because there have always been some kids who don't respect adults. Just as there are also some adults that are unworthy of respect.

Btw, when I was in school I didn't start fights with other kids, but I wasn't one to let them push me around either. That can result in the occasional fight, but it doesn't result in fighting all the time, really depends on how much an ass other kids are willing to act. My parents had a trouble in school equals trouble at home point of view, but they also said, if another kid hits you, hit them back. Some situational balance is required.



What does said entitlement mentality have to do with fights in school? Maybe if this was a thread on welfare, or giving someone a job that they're not qualified for, you might have an argument, however, that particular talking point really doesn't work for this particular topic.

You didn't read this copy it to your browser

eubie.com/genme.pdf

And it will answer your questions on the why's

You didn't read this copy it to your browser

eubie.com/genme.pdf

And it will answer your questions on the why's

All I see on that pdf is some right wing jargon. When your link says things about minorites & women not being kept "in their place" it really doesn't engender any of my respect. A person's place should be where ever their talent and drive can take them, not their race or gender. The idea that some people should be able to be kept "in their place" could reasonably be said that some of the people who want to keep them "in their place" have an entitlement mentality, that by birth they're entitled to a higher position than others, one that may well be unearned.

All I see on that pdf is some right wing jargon. When your link says things about minorites & women not being kept "in their place" it really doesn't engender any of my respect. A person's place should be where ever their talent and drive can take them, not their race or gender. The idea that some people should be able to be kept "in their place" could reasonably be said that some of the people who want to keep them "in their place" have an entitlement mentality, that by birth they're entitled to a higher position than others, one that may well be unearned.

The pdf says it's good that GenMe doesn't keep people in a place, but it comes at the cost of eschewing politeness as well.

Twenge sums up the complexity of GenMe’s approach to diversity and equality in the following way. “GenMe
may have left behind some of the good social rules about politeness (this is bad), but, following in the footsteps of the
Boomers, we have also left behind some of the bad social rules about everyone living life in the same way, and
minorities and women staying in their ‘place.’ (This is good)We are less likely to believe in moral absolutes, so we are tolerant
and accept diversity in all its forms” (pg 181).

All I see on that pdf is some right wing jargon. When your link says things about minorites & women not being kept "in their place" it really doesn't engender any of my respect. A person's place should be where ever their talent and drive can take them, not their race or gender. The idea that some people should be able to be kept "in their place" could reasonably be said that some of the people who want to keep them "in their place" have an entitlement mentality, that by birth they're entitled to a higher position than others, one that may well be unearned.

Ok I get ya it's righties and lefties :lol: I understand where your coming from and why your so defensive now. Have a nice day:wave:

The pdf says it's good that GenMe doesn't keep people in a place, but it comes at the cost of eschewing politeness as well.

Twenge sums up the complexity of GenMe’s approach to diversity and equality in the following way. “GenMe
may have left behind some of the good social rules about politeness (this is bad), but, following in the footsteps of the
Boomers, we have also left behind some of the bad social rules about everyone living life in the same way, and
minorities and women staying in their ‘place.’ (This is good)We are less likely to believe in moral absolutes, so we are tolerant
and accept diversity in all its forms” (pg 181).

You got what I was getting at. Gen Me was my point that with each generation more and more respect and dignity are going by the way side.

The system is broken. It is not considered acceptable for students to defend themselves, and the system will not protect students.

:nod:

You got what I was getting at. Gen Me was my point that with each generation more and more respect and dignity are going by the way side.I can agree partly with that statement. I believe that with each generation, the level of unconditional respect probably diminishes, but at the same time I'm not sure that's such a bad thing.

When I tell my kids to do something and they ask "why?", if I come back with an answer of "because I said so" I'm bound to get resistance, but if I include in my request my reasoning for my directive, they are much more apt to comply. And this fits with common sense - people want to know that their feelings are being respected. Kids are no different.

And this is something I *want* to encourage in my kids. I don't want them to blindly accept any given authority (including me); I also want them to have an understanding of *why* they should respect those various authorities as authoritative.

I can agree partly with that statement. I believe that with each generation, the level of unconditional respect probably diminishes, but at the same time I'm not sure that's such a bad thing.

When I tell my kids to do something and they ask "why?", if I come back with an answer of "because I said so" I'm bound to get resistance, but if I include in my request my reasoning for my directive, they are much more apt to comply. And this fits with common sense - people want to know that their feelings are being respected. Kids are no different.

And this is something I *want* to encourage in my kids. I don't want them to blindly accept any given authority (including me); I also want them to have an understanding of *why* they should respect those various authorities as authoritative.
:iagree:

There are times, for my own sake, when I ask something of my students that I wish they'd just do it. But for their sake and for humanity, I'm glad when they ask the purpose (if they don't understand it). Except, of course, the ones that are questioning not because they care but because they want to be belligerent.

I can agree partly with that statement. I believe that with each generation, the level of unconditional respect probably diminishes, but at the same time I'm not sure that's such a bad thing.

When I tell my kids to do something and they ask "why?", if I come back with an answer of "because I said so" I'm bound to get resistance, but if I include in my request my reasoning for my directive, they are much more apt to comply. And this fits with common sense - people want to know that their feelings are being respected. Kids are no different.

And this is something I *want* to encourage in my kids. I don't want them to blindly accept any given authority (including me); I also want them to have an understanding of *why* they should respect those various authorities as authoritative.

There is a time and place for that sort of thing. There are also times where a child may need to listen to you and respond instantaneously, for their own safety. Which is why I am teaching my child to do what she is told now, and afterward I will explain my reasoning in great detail, if she would like to know the why.

Children push the envelope, in order to figure out their boundaries. Before one learns when to resist, they need to learn when to obey.

You got what I was getting at. Gen Me was my point that with each generation more and more respect and dignity are going by the way side.
So what you were "getting at" was trying to emphasis only the negative effects of that trend while ignoring the positive? ;)

There is a time and place for that sort of thing. There are also times where a child may need to listen to you and respond instantaneously, for their own safety. Which is why I am teaching my child to do what she is told now, and afterward I will explain my reasoning in great detail, if she would like to know the why.

Children push the envelope, in order to figure out their boundaries. Before one learns when to resist, they need to learn when to obey.

I have to agree with you young children need to unconditionally listen to their parents and show respect for adults period. Whereas if an adult should mistreat your child in any way they should be instructed to go to their parents ASAP and in the case of unavailability to notify the authority's. However their is a time to ask questions respectfully and a time they are being disrespectful in asking why they have do something because they don't like it. Respect/trust is earned not demanded as the "Me Generation" think