School Dicipline

[Jim Reeves]

Doesn't matter if it is effective or not, this should not be considered a viable way to punish middle schoolers. The US military used humiliation against Iraq prisoners and got in trouble for it, why should it be allowed with children. Whoever came up with this should be reprimanded at the very least. My wife is an educator, and I know how disruptive and delinquent kids can be. But if you ridicule kids in public, while at the same time allowing their peers to do the same, you are asking for some violent repercussions. Doesn't matter what the intent was, it should be stopped. Kids should most certainly be punished when they break the rules, and I'll never be considered for the executive staff of the PC club, but that's ridiculous.

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Again, Walter, others, was the INTENT of the punishment to humiliate, OR are other circumstances (the bad apples that taunt) and an inappropriate execution (allowing the others to taunt) adding to the humiliation factor?



I agree humilation should not be used as a form of punishment. But I still am not convinced that the intent was to humilate. I agree that it sounds like humiliation may have occurred, but that is simply another problem to deal with, IMHO.



TJR

 

[Michelle Widell]

...what's the difference between sticking a dunce cap on a kid, and facing him toward the wall in front of his peers?

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Michelle asks "......what's the difference between sticking a dunce cap on a kid, and facing him toward the wall in front of his peers?"



Facing them in front of the wall is less humilating than the dunce cap.



What about informing a student that they have noon detention in front of their peers, or having them escorted from their last class before noon recess in front of their peers...that's humilating too, no?



There is a reason certain punishments are public, and that public nature leads to shame which we are confusing with humilation. People these days need a little more shame in their lives. Shame is a good thing.



Ever read the local paper for the police blotter to see who is getting DUIs and frequenting prostitutes? Ever find a name of someone you know?



Are those entries in the police blotter listed as a form of news, a form of punishment, or a deterent to others (or all of the above).



TJR

 

[John Mastrocco]

Let's bring back the stocks!!!

 

[Thomas Rogers]

We have the stocks today....it's your local paper's "Police Blotter".



TJR

 

[John Mastrocco]

No, I mean literally. Public square. Offense posted right on them. The whole 'scarlet letter' deal. Put it where it can't be ignored or missed.



And let cats and dogs urinate on them!

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Can we throw rotten tomatoes at them?



Tell them they smell of eldeberries?



TJR

 

[John Mastrocco]

Sounds good to me.



Let's start with people that abuse their power at the expense of those below and work our way down to the petty criminals from there.

 

[TrainTrac]

The consensus of responses to this thread so far seems to be that the form of punishment that Walter's daughter's school is using is wrong. Yet, there haven't been too many alternative or better suggestions offered up. What do you expect the staff at this school to do? There should be a zero-tolerance policy towards the kids who are taunting and jeering the kids already being punished. If they do this, march their @$$es right up there with the others.



That sad fact that is really pointed out by all of this is that many of these kids aren't being taugh any kind of decent behavior or discipline at home, so school officials are having to do the job. Everyone says, that this isn't the "good old days", where things like dunce camps, corporal punishment, or other discipline methods deemed "too harsh" were used. You're right, this isn't the good old days. But, I'm sure kids were much more well behaved also. My junior high biology teacher kept an two-foot long, inch thick wooden paddle on his desk. He even drilled holes in it for less wind resistance! I never saw him use it, but the very sight of it on his desk put the fear of God into us kids. How about the nuns in parochial schools? Anybody who went to one was probably was probably deathly afraid of the nuns, because if knew if they got out of line, they'd get whacked with a ruler. (See the Penguin in "The Blues Brothers"). Not to mention the fact that if we got in trouble at school, we knew that we'd face the wrath of our parents when we got home. Sadly, many parents just don't care anymore, they'd rather leave the discipline to the schools. My wife's an educator, and she sees this all the time.



As for this punishment being humiliating, I think that TJR hit the nail on the head. The punishment isn't meant to humiliate, but to induce a feeling of shame and repentance in the offender. You can in no way equate or compare this to Abu Gharib. Those are two entirely different situations. With that said, most forms of punishment are intended to make the offender feel shameful for having committed the offense. There have been cases where a judge has sentenced someone to stand on a street corner wearing a sandwich-board sign for a certain amount of time declaring what crime they commited. How about roadside work gangs wearing striped or brightly colored prison uniforms? How about publicly available sex offender lists? I'm sure there are other examples. , Do these make the offenders feel ashamed? Most of the time, unless they're just truly evil and have no morals or conscience whatsoever.



And we do have these types of punishment in the military as well. In the Navy, Captains hold a type of non-judicial punishment called Captain's Mast, which is similar to a hearing or trial. Oftentimes, it's an open mast, and anyone in the ship's crew can come to it and watch. One of the punishments that's handed out is called restriction. Basically the offender is restriced to the confines of the ship for a certain period of time. Even if the ship's in home port and they live out in town, they can't go home for that period. And the restrictees are made to muster in formation several times throughout the day. This usually takes place right out in the open, such as on the flight deck or in the hangar bay, right in plain view of the rest of the crew. Are they embarassed and ashamed? Sure, but most aren't repeat offenders and go on to have successful military careers.



Then there's Maricopa County, AZ Sheriff Joe Arapio. Many of the things he's instituted might be considered "humiliating" to the PC/Sensitivity police. But, y'know what? His recidivism rate is down, and he keeps getting re-elected. Heck, at one point he even had a web cam running in the jail. But I think some bleeding hearts in the ACLU sued to have it shut down. If you don't know who Sheriff Apapio is, Google his name.



I think that in today's day and age we

 

[user 62394]

The only problem that I would have with this is that you mention that the other kids are allowed to mock them. I agree with those who say line them up right next to the rest of them.



On a similar note, a friend of mine has been going through classes to adopt a child (There are a series of classes and tasks that you must complete to get on the list). She recently told me that one of the things they make you do is sign a form stating that you will never spank your adopted child. I find that to be complete BS. Speaking as one who got spanked as a kid, I pretty much always deserved it, and it worked for me.

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Thanks Andy H....another voice of reason. ;-)



Punishment will cause shame; shame in public will humilate, yet shame in private can't humiliate. Punishment in private can't deter others.



Factor all that together and all you are left with in today's PC culture is that you can't effectively punish, PERIOD....which I tend to disagree with.



Kids should be taught respect, and that that feeling of shame that hits you in the pit of your stomache when being punished IS SUPPOSED TO BE THERE. We are not supposed to feel good about punishment...it wasn't meant to be a pleasurable, easy to tolerate experience.



TJR

 

[John Mastrocco]

When I was a kid stuff like this wasn't necessary. All they had to do was call my Dad and tell him he had to come to school because of it for a 'conference.' Lose a day of work because I f'ed up? Yep, that was good for the soul. (If I did something really minor a simple threat to call my Dad was enough to stop it.)



The last thing I needed then was to get my Dad angry. To paraphrase a TV show...



You wouldn't like him when he was angry.



I'm not sure what to do to replace parental discipline, something I wish wasn't even necessary, but whatever it is I don't think allowing the other kids to humiliate them like this is the answer. I also think the number of chances anyone is given should be limited. Going to school is a right AND a privelege. Abuse it often enough and you should lose it. Period. Add to that the parents should be required to pay back the school district for all the wasted time when the child is a chronic problem. Hit them the only place where it apparently hurts. They sure as hell don't care about the child.

 

[Fred]

Well said Rocco.

 

[John Mastrocco]

Thought I might clarify a little: I see no problem with lining them along the wall - or some other method of making their violations public. But I see a lot wrong with allowing anyone to razz them while it is happening. That is the part I didn't think was the answer.



In most places that used the stocks, when they were in vogue, the good people of the town even avoided looking at the person being punished. The exposure of the violation was the real punishment and everything else was frowned upon.

 

[Johnny O]

Why is it that everyone assumes that in the good ol days when we beat em and did alot of other stuff (dunce cap) things were better???? Crime, Proverty, and Igornance were prevolant then just as today you just didnt have CNN to tell you about it 24 hrs. a day.

However in the "good ol' days" we were leading the world in education and technology. Today, China and India are kicking our ass.

I belive that if it has gotten to the point that the school has to dicipline my children for poor behaviour or not meeting work standard it is my fault as a parent. I have failed to instill in my kid the proper motivation and drive to behave in a civilized mannor and to push themselves to excell.

Too many parents don't feel that way. They don't care, or are too busy, or both, and if the kid screws up, it's the school's fault. Or the parents are idiots themselves. BTW, your spelling needs some work.

 

[Dale Carter]

Walter - do you really believe that crime was as bad in the past as it is today? That it was just as dangerous to walk downtown at night as it is today? I must have missed the stories of the drive by shootings in the 50's and 60's. Granted there was Mafia violence in the 30's, but it was so sensational and unusual that it made national news. I wonder if a gang drive by in LA or Detroit makes national news thes days?

 

[Bill V]

Dale--



I can't speak for Walter--but yes, I believe that crime was as bad back then as it is now, and perhaps even worse. Granted, the nature of crime was different then--less gang and gun related, but far more race/hate crime--as was enforcement, with far more things getting handled by "looking the other way". (My grandpa often tells of the things that he and his friends did as kids--stuff that was seen as everyday kids-will-be-kids stuff then, that now would get you 10 to 20 years per instance. The authorities knew it was happening and who was doing it, but ignored it.)



Is it more dangerous to walk down a street at night now than it was back then? That depends on who you are, what you look like, and where the street is. But on the average--my sense is that no, it is not.



--Bill

 

[John Mastrocco]

Dale,



It wasn't the Mafia in the 20's and 30's (prohibition/depression). It was equal oportunity gangsterism. Just as many Germans and Irish and Jews as Italians.



:lol:



But depending on which city you lived in at which time, it could have been more dangerous then than it is today, about as dangerous or less dangerous. Location and population had a lot to do with it. There were plenty of 'drive by shootings' that didn't make the national news - but they were in Chicago and New York, not L.A. Plus, the national news was a lot 'smaller' then than it is today. A lot less immediate.



Where I grew up during the 50's and 60's I actually saw plenty of stories of 'drive by shootings' (or the equivalent) and personally knew of several people found slumped over the steering wheel of their car with a small hole in the back of their head in my own neighborhood (And those were Mafia, BTW.) There was a story that didn't get a lot of national press that was all over the NY newspapers in the mid-sixties where a couple of button men gunned down three (four?) people in a Manhattan bar. Turns out they were businessmen from the midwest and not the intended targets. (ooops!) Not technically a drive by, but the same result.



And in HS I knew three guys that hung a teacher out of the fourth floor window (this was in 1967) holding him by his ankles. Also, a teacher had to be careful who he pissed off or he might find his tires flattened (if you owned a vehicle) or find himself behind a mysterious beating on the way home one night.



Was it as dangerous then as now? I honestly can't say for 100% certain. But my memory says 'yeah it was, or at least it was close. And at times, more dangerous.'



As for walking downtown at night - once again - today (as then) it depended on who you were, where downtown you were walking, how many were together and what time of night. There were always parts of NYC a middle aged white guy should avoid - and they weren't all black or hispanic back then than any more than they are today.



There is a line in Casablanca (1941) where the German Major asks Rick (Bogart) what he thinks of Nazi's in NY. The reply?



"Well there are certain sections of New York, Major, that I wouldn't advise you to try to invade."



Sounds pretty dangerous to me...

 

[Tom Schindler]

I completely disagree. Crime is more rampet now then it ever has been. Drugs, violence, murder, rape...just to name a few.





Tom