The bill does not preclude schools or local law enforcement agencies from taking criminal, civil, or administrative actions against a teacher who acts improperly.
posted on May 9, 2001 08:16:17 AM new
There is no excuse for "little johnny" to be mistreated in any school
or to assume that that because there may be frivilous lawsuits that therefore
we should put a limit on all lawsuits so that teachers can hit children with more
peace of mind.
Corporal punishment in 27 schools is illegal and breaking that law is a
serious matter. It should be handled in a court of law without a predetermined
outcome based on the notion that the complaints may be "frivilous."
It sounds like a John Ashcroft idea to me.
I just want to restate that hitting a child, wheather by a teacher, a mailman,
a parent or a priest is WRONG.
Parents sometimes don't have adequate experience or knowledge about how to control
behavior but teachers have NO excuse.
posted on May 9, 2001 08:16:42 AM new
Well I will say no more and respectfully disagree with you. You trust the school to be reasonable and administer it fairly.
I don't.
If you can't sue for your child and must rely on the prosecutor or administrators of the school system to act for you I wouldn't hold my breath.
That is like expecting the authorities to act against a policeman.
It does not happen until the wrong is so public and notorious that people riot in the streets.
posted on May 9, 2001 10:20:05 AM newGravid I wouldn't say that I give implicit trust to all teachers or school administrators. Rather, I just don't believe that this bill is intended to encourage or protect abusers within the school systems. To the contrary, I think it is intended to protect teachers, administrators and taxpayers from unwarranted abuse from parents who want to sue at the drop of a hat. In reviewing this amendment, it is clearly not intended for matters of legitimate abuse.
But, I also respect your differing opinion. I will also concede that it’s possible that a teacher will attempt at some point to use this as a shield in a case when it isn’t warranted. After all, it will be as open to possibilities of being abused as any other law.
I agree wholeheartedly with you and Helen in that physical abuse has no place in our schools - for any reason.
A 1999 survey of secondary school principals found that 25 percent of the respondents were involved in lawsuits or out-of-court settlements in the previous two years – an amazing 270% increase from only ten years earlier. The same survey found that20 percent of principals spent 5-10 hours a week in meetings or documenting events in an effort to avoid litigation.This is time that our educators should spend counseling students, developing curriculum, and maintaining order -- not fending off frivolous lawsuits.
"Gravid.I wouldn't say that I give implicit trust to all teachers or school administrators. Rather, I just don't believe that this bill is intended to encourage or protect abusers within the school systems. To the contrary, I think it is intended to protect teachers, administrators and taxpayers from unwarranted abuse from parents who want to sue at the drop of a hat. In reviewing this amendment, it is clearly not intended for matters of legitimate abuse."
Maybe you missed my comment on this issue
so I will repeat it.
There is no excuse for "little johnny" to be mistreated in any school or to assume that that because there may be frivilous lawsuits thattherefore we should put a limit on all lawsuits so that teachers can hit children with more peace of mind.
Corporal punishment in 27 schools is illegal and breaking that law is a
serious matter. It should be handled in a court of law without a predetermined
outcome based on the notion that the complaints may be "frivilous."
It sounds like a John Ashcroft idea to me.
I just want to restate that hitting a child, wheather by a teacher, a mailman,
a parent or a priest is WRONG.
Parents sometimes don't have adequate experience or knowledge about how to control
behavior but teachers have NO excuse.
I did not say only that I disagree with
abuse of children in school.
I disagree with this effort to reduce the
liability for such abuse. That is the Purpose of this Bill.
Helen
[ edited by Hjw on May 9, 2001 10:31 AM ]
[ edited by Hjw on May 9, 2001 10:37 AM ]
posted on May 9, 2001 12:41:13 PM new
I can tell those who would jump at the chance to file suit against a teacher for allowing their child to get hurt at recess.
We got schools scared to send kids home with lice and scared not too. Either way someone is going to sue.
posted on May 9, 2001 01:37:57 PM new
I AM glad that we can disagree without calling each other names and making the moderator lock down the thread. I think there is still value in being civil when you have a different view than others.
I have even been wrong a few times in the last half century, but I don't intent to list them in that thread on what's the dumbest thing you have done as an adult. I'm not sure the statute of limitations has run out on some of them.
posted on May 9, 2001 06:29:19 PM new
Yeah I'd rather laugh than cry. Just started taking Hydrocodone yesterday and finding they tend to mellow you if you take a few with bourbon and 3 or 4 Ultrams.
My doctor was reluctant to give me anything that strong but the last week when I was in he said why are you crying when he came in the room and I explained the knees AND the foot and a couple other parts hurt today and
I can ignore them and do anything I want but when the pain level is that high the tears are an involuntary reflex. I told him it does make it hard to drive as it blurs the vision and I have got stranded a few times. That seemed to convince him.
I am pretty bad about going off topic sorry.
I have to think if pain meds would make a good thread.
posted on May 9, 2001 07:22:30 PM newGravid I had no idea you were in that kind of pain. And, you still manage to be so even-tempered... Hang in there and I hope your new combination helps ease the pain. Please be careful mixing it with alcohol... (I have to say that cause I'm a mom and moms always have to lecture - at least I do)
posted on May 9, 2001 08:06:00 PM new
I think that what MyBidness and others are missing is that the Republicans pass no legislation that is good for people. That is not what their party has been about since the early 1900's. The Republican party only passes legislation that is for the Corparations, the rich and powerful in this country.
So, when you see this stuff coming from them, showing how they care so much about mere public school principles and teachers, you have to realize that there is something wrong with that. Ask yourself: Who benefits monetarily from these protections? The answer: the Insurance Companies.
Ah! Now it should connect with you! You should see that any material coming from the Republicans concerning the welfare of the masses is pure nonsense. Look into the bill, and you'll discover what I am saying is true. If the Insurance companies were not involved, the Republicans wouldn't be there at all. And if you think about it, the solution to lowering these lawsuits is to hire more reliable people and administrators -- giving more money to do so, because you have to scrape the bottom of the barrel to reach a full complimnent if you're under-funded.
posted on May 10, 2001 03:49:28 PM new
Mybiddness - I am even tempered?????
And no smiley after it?
My wife seems to think I am pretty grumpy but she still loves me. She did say my medication made me smile for the first time in months.
I can't get all excited about either party being a refuge of the average man. They are smart enough to know they can suck a little more out of us if we are motivated instead of like some other countries where they keep everyone in such poverty there is no middle class to tap. It is not from any sense of charity. It's all about money. If our freedom becomes too expensive we are in trouble.
posted on May 10, 2001 06:23:03 PM newGravid Yes, I think you're very even-tempered. [and look - no smiley] I'm sorry you're going through all the pain. I couldn't agree with you more about politicians. Neither party is pure... but both have excellent qualities. If each side would stop the insane accusations against the other we might have some real progress in this country. Just look at everything "good" that has been stalled because Democrats think Republicans are evil and vice versa... everything "must" have a hidden motive. Sometimes, yes. Always - not likely. I've always leaned Democrat but can't say a pledge to either party... both have their strengths and weaknesses.
Borillar I know you're sincere in what you've said. We just don't agree. I have spent a great deal of time studying representatives and issues from both parties as I'm sure you have. We've reached different conclusions... that's one of the great things about being an American... best to you.
posted on May 10, 2001 09:50:27 PM new
Point well taken, MyBidness.
Hello, NearTheSea. I am not trying to argue with you about your remarks -- I just want you to know where and why I made such "political bigotry" as inside feels.
"Both parties are into Big Corporations "
Traditionally, Republicans have always been the party that represents the interests of Big Business, the rich and the powerful. These factions DO need to be represented in our government -- I am not against that! What I dislike is when the interests of their party rolls over the rights of citizens and jeopardizes the health and welfare of people. It used to be that the Democratic Party balanced out the Republicans by representing the needs of ordinary people. NearTheSea, I just can't believe that you weren't aware of the history of these two parties.
In the 1990's, with the re-election process changed, all political parties now have a devilish alliance with the rich and powerful or else they won't get elected -- so the story goes. And yes, the Democrats have also made thier bed with the Big Corporations of late. So much so, that they couldn't pull off a Presidnetial election against an imbecilic Republican presidential candidate. At this time, no party represents the interests of the American people in our government.
"I see it as 'less government' in your face with Republican, and 'more government' with Democrats."
You can see it however you want to. However, if you'll check the facts, Republicans traditionally raise taxes higher than the Democrats do, spend more than the Democrats do, and make government bigger than Democrats do.
"And if its going to come down to those Big Corporations they are they ones giving people jobs!"
Wasn't this supposed to be the Land of Opportunity? How about starting up your own little business? Say, a small Mom & Pop down at the city center? Then, have the Republicans come and pay YOUR TAX MONEY to have a *huge* multi-department chain store come into your town and undersell your products and drive you out of business. What's that? Oh! Sure! Then you can go work for them! Too bad the REPUBLICAN PARTY doesn't represent SMALL businesses -- just the rich and powerful ones and what they want and to Hell with the Little Guy!
"Has a poor man ever given you a paying job?
Yes. When I was a teen, a poor man, a simple parking lot attendant in his late fifties or sixties, paid me 50-cents per day to go run and get his lunch for him. My first paying job.
Back durning the Depression, when the Big Corporations weren't hiring out and even the small ones weren't and ther was not work, who offered whatever jobs there were? It wasn't FDR (until later). It was poor people sharing what they had -- shared their job so that two familes might eat, if not well, at least at all. They gave jobs cutting lawns and sweeping pavements -- anything to give a guy a break.
posted on May 10, 2001 10:53:25 PM new
First, I guess I have to disclose I am from Texas where corporal punishment is not an alien concept.
When I thought I wanted to be a teacher, I took a job as a teacher's assistant. It took me less than a year to decide, I did not have the the "endurance" to be a teacher. There was a student (9 years of age) who was extremely disruptive in class. Whenever, he was asked to please remain quite or to pay attention he would began cursing. He especially liked calling the teacher a B!@#h and he could put the F word into more phrases than I had ever heard an adult use.
Our school had corporal punishment only with prior parental approval. Each parent had to sign a paper at the beginning of the school year stating exactly under what circumstances if any, it could be done. They also had the option of being called to the school to administer it themselves or it could be forbidding under any circumstance.
Of course, this boy's parents refused it under any circumstances. When they were called about his disipline problem, they would not come to the school. They wanted to know why the school hired teachers who obviously could not control the class. They maintained that a good teacher would not have such problems.
Eventually, two years later (age 11) the boy spit in a teacher's face and she slapped him. The teacher lost her job and the school district was sued by the boys parents. After spending 10 minutes with the parents you knew why the boy was the way he was. Sad but true.
What would you do with such a student? Don't think that this is an isolated case. If you spent several days monitoring a classroom you would be very surprised at what goes on in them.
Students learn very quickly what can and can not be done to them. They use that information to their advantage.
I also worked for our police department as a dispatcher for awhile. It would really upset me to watch teenagers stand up toe, to toe, with an officer and smirk "I'm a juvenile, there's nothing you can do to me". They were right. All we could do was call the parents. Again, after listening to some of the parents for 5 minutes you knew why the kids were the way they were.
Lessons of respect and acceptable behavior should begin at home. Unfortunately many are never taught.
Perhaps instead of corporal punishment, schools should be allowed to just refuse to have these students in their classes at all. I personally believe an education is a priviledge not a guarnateed right.
Least you think I was a child abuser, I never had to lay a hand on my child because he knew from a very early age I would if I thought it necessary. He never had to be deciplined in school either for the same reason.
posted on May 10, 2001 11:49:15 PM new
>>CLAP!<< >>CLAP!<< Great account, Sulyn1950!
I think that the first line of discipline is the usual -- detention after school or other non-violent means. If a student does it a second time, then they are removed form the class. Now whether that spells suspension or expulsion, it would depend upon the case, I suppose. But certainly, there are many kids who are in school and enjoy it. Those kids are there to have fun and to learn. They don't need to be harrassed by other kids, pushed around and beaten by bullies, and sit through classes where some kid obviously has a problem with authority figures.
I disagree that schools should be in the discipline business at all. Kids should arrive at school already disciplined enough to sit respectfully in a class and learn or they're out of that classroom. I can suggest that they eventually be sent to more rigid classroom structures. Alternatively, parents ought to be fined for student infractions or would have to perform community service in lieu of a fine. That would get their attention quickly, don't you think?
edited for sp.
[ edited by Borillar on May 10, 2001 11:51 PM ]
posted on May 11, 2001 03:57:32 AM new
Absolutely the school should be able to remove a disruptive student. For not only the teacher but the other students also.
They may also use that ability to get rid of a few who simply don't suck up to them as much as they would like but it is less dangerous than allowing them to beat students.
When I was in my Senior year we had a science teacher who taught us material on evolution and in discussing it in class I said I felt that the probability of life starting spontaneously was so low that I still felt there was a need for an outside source to start the process although I could not believe the fundamentalists anymore than I could believe him, and that in any case the specific ideas of how evolution might have worked he was telling us were so out of date that if he presented them down at the university he would be laughed off stage.
This petty little facist worded our final test so that you had to personally affirm that you believed in evolution or you would get at best a D on the test.
Some of the other teachers were as outraged as I was by that but it was scary that some saw no difference between testing if I knew the material or if I believed it.
Actually one time in 7th or 8th grade we got a new teacher and this guy that was the class clown started giving her all kinds of trouble with wierd and suggestive questions and interruptions from the minute we started in the morning. I spoke to him privately and asked him to ease off a bit but he just got huffy and asked "what are you going to do about it tinkerbell?" So I punched him one straight to the snot locker before he could twitch and knocked him on his butt. That would have probably been the end of it but he had to get a nose bleed on his white shirt and keep wiping with his hand so it got all over his hands and face. It even looked to me like I tried to kill the kid. So I was the one got sent home that day. What's worse my Mom thought it was so funny she laughed untill she gave herself hiccups.
posted on May 11, 2001 05:38:18 AM newLatest News on this Issue
Today, The New York Times reported that the
wording in the bill, designed to protect teachers who are guilty of using corporal
punishment, has been changed !!!
"After intense lobbying by opponents of paddling in schools, the Senate on Wednesday changed the wording of legislation protecting teachers from lawsuits to say explicitly that it was not intended to affect policies regarding corporal punishment."
Nadine Block of the Center for Effective Discipline, an anticorporal punishment group in Columbus, Ohio, praised the Senate's action, saying....
"it sent "paddles one step closer totheir rightful place in the Smithsonian Horror Hall of Fame."
posted on May 11, 2001 09:22:31 AM new
Borillar-I'll just have to agree to disagree with you.
Those were the 'good old days' your talking about. Times have changed. Our town, a lot of people work for that big corporation; Boeing, not all of course, but a lot, or Microsoft. Not everyone can start that small biz. We do need those big corporations, car makers, etc.
Yes I have read and done more than read, I worked for the Republican party. My dad was a Senator for 24 years, and a big business owner in Seattle, who hired a lot of men, back in the day, but even he, was driven out by the likes of Home depot, Eagle etc.
I'm just upset now, damn dog died last night, but felt I did need to try and answer you.
posted on May 11, 2001 11:32:07 AM new
OK NearTheSea, we can agree to disagree abut politics. I am swayed by the facts, so if you ever present any facts to your case, I'll really reconcider my positon. Until then, the facts are on my side.
Your dad must have been what I call "The Old-Time Republicans". Those are the Republicans before Bush, Sr. announced The New World Order and most of the old Republican establishment retired rather than participate in it. The Republicans of old had a sense of shame and practiced dignity towards their adversaries, unlike the Republicans who came afterwards who have no sense of shame whatsoever and are absolute bastards towards their opponents. The Old Republicans would never have made a scandal out of Clinton and Monica, would have been horrified and revulsed by the idea of dumping Clinton's testimony onto the Internet, and would have greater pride in the US Constituion and a higher sense of Patriotism that they'd never SHAME IT by using Impeachment as a mere political ploy to embarrass an opponent.
posted on May 12, 2001 09:44:33 AM new
Borillar-sorry I didn't see this
Yes, he was what you call 'the Old-Time Republicans'
In office from late 50's to the mid late? 70's. He started out and ran as a Democrat, and changed parties somewhere in there.
What I remember, and maybe people don't know a lot about is all the 'perks' politicians do get, both Democrat and Republican alike.
Lobbyiests and businesses 'court' them bigtime.
When I was younger the things that were delivered to our home was unreal. We would get free trips and free hotel rooms, cases of wine from the winerys, tickets to games, events, you name it, he got it. And he was not alone. They all did it, or got this stuff. He got these things when his party was Democrat also.
We, on a rare occasion that my dad did go on vacation with us, were going somewhere in the car. He got pulled over. All he did was show the officer his 'Senate Pass' or whatever they gave them back then, and the police officer let him go.
I believe a lot of reforms have been made since, he's been retired for quite some time.
The one thing that is 'allowed' is he got to keep the title, so he still uses 'Senator' on everything.
I think until there is a third party that can get into the White House, which I don't see in the near future, the 2 parties will always be at odds with each other.
(and I do not mean Ralph Nader or Buchannan )
posted on May 14, 2001 08:41:36 AM new
That would be true of any failure to get help such as ignoring the asthmatic kid who is having an attack.>>>>>
I remember being in 6th or 7th grade. After PE I had an asthma attack, I couldn't breathe at all! The health teacher came in and took one look at me and started screaming "What's wrong? What's wrong with you? Say something" for about two minutes, when I finally got enough air in my lungs to answer her she said,"Oh well if you can talk, your just fine. Go back to class" I stayed in school the rest of the day not being able to breathe. Now when I have an asthma attack, I WILL NOT talk and finally realized that the reason may very well be (subconsciously) that I am afraid no one will believe me because of that incident. This can be a real problem since I regularly have attacks so bad that require an ER visit. It is lucky for me my husband realizes what is going on and can usually get my inhalers or get my nebs ready.
