Showing posts with label law. Show all posts
Showing posts with label law. Show all posts

Monday, January 16, 2012

Both Ends Against the Middle


[Johnathan Clayborn]
Okay, so I know that two posts in the same day is a rare treat, but hey, I have the day off and my homework isn’t due for 6 more days, so why not. I was reading a very well-written article by a journalist, Chris Hedges. http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/why_im_suing_barack_obama_20120116/ I recommend that everyone read it, but in case you can’t I’ll summarize. Hedges has filed his lawsuit in an effort to overturn the recent legislation that was passed granted the US military the power to police and detain US citizens without trial and for an indefinite period of time. He postulates that many of the bills terms and definition are not defined or delineated in any official capacity and as such they are too vague to make the bill useful or just.

Now, this bill has a lot of people up in arms. There are many who are upset about this bill, and rightfully so. We’re taking freedoms that US citizens have been accustomed to for a few hundred years and flushing it down the drain. But, there are right ways to bring about change, and wrong ways to do it. The wrong way would be to advocate or organize violence in an effort to change the laws. While this technique may be a catalyst for change, historically it has not brought about the changes that people have hoped for. The right way to bring about change is to speak publicly (and peacefully) about it. The right way is to start petitions to repeal the law, or to file court proceedings to block it, or to run for office yourself and attempt to get the bill overturned from the inside. 

Normally, at least in politics, I tend to be kind of “middle of the road”. Don’t get me wrong, on some topics I’m very conservative, but then on other issues I’m quite liberal. With everything else I tend of fall into the middle of the road. I’m not a Democrat or a Republican. I’m not a conservative or a liberal. And yet, interestingly, I’ve been called a Democrat, a Republican, a Conservative, and a Liberal depending on who I have pissed off that week and how much they try to undermine or dismiss my viewpoints. 

Now, a lot of people go through life completely oblivious to what’s going on around them. And that’s their choice. However, it’s a dangerous choice to be sure. Those of you who know me well know that I’m an advocate for self-defense and survival. I believe in being prepared. As such, I often visit the FEMA website and take many of their online trainings (http://training.fema.gov/). FEMA, contrary to popular conspiracy theorists, is not the end-of-the-world doom-bringer that many suspect. They’re a real-world, pragmatic organization that at least tries to help out in disasters. Admittedly, like many other organizations FEMA isn’t perfect. They’ve made some serious mistakes, but their aim seems genuine enough. 

Now, this comes into play because most “Survivalists” advocate that people should keep about 2 weeks supply of food and water on hand at all times. This is a view point that FEMA itself supports and recommends (http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/f&web.pdf). But, this is bad because, because according to new legislation that’s been passed having more than 7 days of food “stockpiled” can brand you a suspected terrorist in the eyes of the government (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iD1T61oTrR8). 

This isn’t really all that surprising, sadly. The government has a long history of having one organization say something that completely contradicts another one. Although I can’t seem to find the exact documentation at the tip of my fingers like usual, I do recall there being a law passed in 2009 that branded anyone who had zip-ties, duct tape and rope together you could be arrested by police for having an “assault kit”. These are common household items that are found in probably every other garage in America. As with everything else, I encourage you all to pay attention to what’s going on around you. It’s very easy to find yourself breaking the law even on accident. And, as any judge will tell you, ignorance is no excuse.  



Reference:

Monday, January 9, 2012

Armchair Hypocrisy

[Johnathan Clayborn]
Author’s Note: This particular posting may offend some people, especially those people who are not able to be honest with themselves.

About a month ago I was a discussion with one of classmates from school about the so-called moral tests. Many people have heard of these tests. The test has questions that go something like this;
you work in a trolley terminal as an engineer. You notice a runaway trolley careening down the track at more than 50 miles per hour. If you do nothing and the trolley continues on its course it will run into a group of five construction workers who are repairing the track and they will all die. They’re too far away to shout to, but you could save their lives. The track has a switch in the middle. If you throw the lever in front of you it will change the switch and make the trolley go down the other track. The only problem there is that there is an inspector walking along the track that will be caught unaware and will probably die as a result of your actions. What do you do?
Now, this classmate of mine was very upset by this question. I pointed out that a major university had just conducted a survey of several thousand people and more than 90% of them said they would throw the lever. My classmate said that these types of studies “annoy her”. She said “Sure there is a third choice. Your choice doesn't have to be the man or construction workers. There are several things that you might be able to do depending on the situation. I would need more information before I would be willing to give my choice. I can almost guarantee that I can come up with a third solution that would save everyone.” Really? You have about 3 seconds before the trolley smashes into everyone and kills them. You’re telling me that you can come up with a third choice in less than three seconds but you’re not even able to articulate what that other choice would be in a response to the question? Interesting. ..
I tried explaining that these tests have a very important purpose as they measure our “moral reflex” as a society. When faced with an impossible choice, what would most people choose and why? Sure, there may be alternative options available, but not always. These studies are designed to be hard, emotionally and mentally challenging questions. They’re designed to test our animalistic instincts. In this particular study 90% of people threw the switch. However, when they altered the scenario and they made it so that you physically had to push the other man onto the truck to save the others, then only 50% of people would do it. And then, back in the control room if the person on the other end of the switch was their child or other family member then only 33% of people would pull the lever. This isn’t at all surprising if you’ve ever studying social or evolutionary psychology. But, by understanding how people react in these impossible situations, we can develop trainings that will be better tailored to achieving the most desirable outcome when these unfortunate situations do occur.
My classmate’s response was classic. “I understand the point of these studies, I just think that they’re pointless”. She also said “Most of them don’t take reality into consideration. Who can say what choice a person might make? If the man was a crimal [sic] or someone the person hated they would most likely push him into the bus to save the unknow [sic] construction workers. However if the construction workers were tearing into a beloved building, the person might choose to save the single man.  By not taking into considerations all the different solutions that might be available no one can truely [sic] say how they would react. There are never just the few choices the survey offers. Human minds are limitless. No one can predict what solution the person might come up with to save everyone or they may choose to save no one. I have to disagree that these surveys can gives an idea of how people can react, it just isn't possible to know.”
My response to her was thus; “I respect that your opinion is what it is. I can understand how you have reached your conclusion. It is true that humans will react differently in different situations and that there may be many different people who can think of alternative solutions, but that's not the point of these exercises. While you may view these exercises as pointless, I actually find a lot of value in them. I can think of numerous situations where I can apply this type of study in a pragmatic fashion to "the real world". I think that you may be overanalyzing these surveys. It's not designed to force you into picking one of these two options when other options exist, it's designed to test people's emotional and psychological reflex in situation where there are only two obvious solutions. There may be other ideas or other solutions, but the problem is that you don’t have the time to think about the situation and arrive at those conclusions.  Take the portrayal of the movie Captain America for example. They picked who would be Captain America by one test. They called the unit to attention and then threw a dummy hand grenade on the ground in front of them. You don’t have time to think. Most people run away, but one person threw himself on top of the grenade to save their squad. That's how they picked him. The military and police departments of the world have been known to use tests similar to that in real life. Furthermore, psychologists can use these tests to predict human behavior. There are plenty of situations where there are people who are face with fast-paced, dangerous situations and they have 2 seconds to make a decision like that. Take the SWAT team for instance. They are thrust into these types of situations every day and they don’t have hours and hours to mull over their choices. These tests can help people predict how people will react when faced with situations like that.”  (more on that last sentence in a second).
Her final response before I gave up arguing with her: “I guess we will have to agree to disagree. I don't see how you can apply these studies to any "real world" experience or to predict how people might react. I agree that in a situation of life and death you don't have time for logic. Even in those situations there (are) thousands of options in every situation. There is no way a survey of only two choices can predict how people might react.”
Okay, now for the potentially offensive part. Suppose you are a police officer. You get called to respond to a call. The suspect has a handgun. He’s fired shots into the air already. Other witnesses have reported that he’s going to kill everyone. This information comes from one of the senior administrators at the building where the incident is taking place, so you have every reason to believe it’s accurate. You see the suspect and tell him to put the weapon down, but he refuses. He’s waving it around at you. He turns and runs away from you, but then suddenly stops and turns back around to face you like he’s about to fire. Do you let him shoot you, or do you pull the trigger? I would argue that most of us would pull the trigger.
And yet the fascinating part is that society is condemning the very people who were faced with this very same situation last week in Texas. “But, he was only 15!” And? A 15 is just as capable of pulling the trigger as a 30 year old. Twelve years ago it was perfectly just for police to shoot and kill the “monsters of Columbine”, a 17 year old and an 18 year old. Or has society already forgotten that teenagers are just as capable of committing atrocities as adults? “But he was the drum major and danced in his church!” Again, I say, and? What’s your point? He took a gun to school and threatened the lives of the students. Don’t let his past behavior cloud your judgment for what he did on the day of his unfortunate death.
Let’s review the facts:
1.       Police received a call from the Assistant Principal of the school saying that the student had a gun, had fired the gun, and was threatening people with the gun.
2.       Officers arrived on scene to find people scared and hiding and other eyewitnesses corroborated the information the police had; the student had a gun, said he was going to kill everyone, and had shot the gun.
3.       The officers confronted the kid and told him to put the weapon down, he refused. He pointed the weapon at the cops and threatened them. He then ran away, but turned abruptly and acted as if he was going to shoot the officers.
Nothing else is relevant to that. It doesn’t matter what race he was. It doesn’t matter what religion he was, or how much good he did, or what he had for breakfast. The facts remain that he threatened the officers and they responded as they would in any given situation. “But he only had a pellet gun you bastard!” Okay, true. But let’s talk about that pellet gun, shall we?

Pictured here is the actual pellet gun used in the Brownsville incident. 

And this is a Springfield XD handgun.

Quick! The crazy gunman who’s threatening to shoot people is waving one of these around pointing it at you. Hurry up and tell them apart! Oh, by the way, he’s flailing his arms and screaming at you so it’s hard to get a really good look at what he has anyway. Better to err on the side of niceness and hope that’s just a “harmless toy”, right?  For Christ’s sake, I think that anyone who had seen a person waving around a gun like what the student had would easily mistake it as being a real weapon. The officers involved certainly aren’t to blame for that. For all the police knew they were preventing another massacre and protecting their lives from an armed attacker. (And let’s not even get into the legal can of worms that although this type of pellet gun is usually sold at Wal-Marts and is legal to shoot in the city it also meets the legal definition of a firearm and from a legislative standpoint can be treated as such).
I think people need to wake up and really re-evaluate what happened here and who are the real victims here. Sure, the family of the boy is grieving and dealing with their loss. And so are the boy’s friends, and his community and his church. But what about the officers? They never asked to be put in this situation. They were thrust in it because it’s their job. I have no doubt that no one wanted to shoot that boy. One person I know of on Facebook said that she hopes the officers lose sleep over this. Well, unfortunately, she’s right, they will, I’m sure. That decision will probably follow them for a long time to come, long after all of these armchair hypocrites have forgotten about this incident, those officers will still be reliving that day in their heads.
A lot of people give the police crap. A lot of them fear the police, hate on the police, etc. But let’s be real for a minute, the police are just people, just like you and I. They’ve sworn an oath to protect their fellow citizens. When we’re too afraid to handle a situation, like an armed gunman in a store or a school, we ask them to go and take care of it for us. If the police hadn’t shot the boy and he killed other students, then the police would be wrong. But they did kill the boy involved, and they’re still wrong.  If you ask me the police deserve a little respect and consideration too. This certainly isn’t an easy situation for them. They have 2 seconds to make a decision and society has hours and days and years to scrutinize that choice and rip it apart.

Sources:
http://healthland.time.com/2011/12/05/would-you-kill-one-person-to-save-five-new-research-on-a-classic-debate/



Friday, December 23, 2011

Free Advice

[Johnathan Clayborn]
Okay, so this particular posting is part informational, and part rant. If you can stand it through the rant part there may be some useful information for you. 

As some of you may know, my ex -girlfriend and I have a son together. For privacy’s sake I’m not going to mention either of their names, but I will tell you that we have split custody of him. Although our parenting time is split 50/50 right down the middle final educational and medical decision making authority rests with me. This particular part of my custody situation has been an ongoing battle for the last three years and I finally got tired of it, so I started asking around to get some legal advice as what I had been doing up until this point had obviously been ineffective. 

I should probably pause here for a moment and explain some background. I’m not wealthy. Hell, I’m not even “well off”. I make enough money to cover my expenses and, on occasion see a movie or go out to dinner and that’s about it. Hiring a lawyer to represent me isn’t exactly feasible. It’s something that would take a lot of thought, consideration, planning, and shopping around to find the right lawyer for the right price. It is due to this situation that I decided to poke around the internet and try to find some answers. I can usually get the gist of the situation if I understand what the rules and limitations are. So, I decided to ask for some free advice. There are many websites out there where you can ask for free advice. There are sites like www.askthedoctor.com if you have medical questions, there’s www.lawyers.com, www.askalawyer.com, www.avvo.com and others. I saw one particular page on Google called www.freeadvice.com and the caption said “post your legal question on ask a lawyer to receive a reply from an attorney or a legal professional”.  It sounded like just what I needed. But, I forgot the old adage about “free advice”. And no, this didn’t cost me any money, but it sure cost me some time. 

Somehow, I’m not even sure how, instead of posting my question to an attorney on this site my question was posted to a community forum. I asked my question and I had the first few responses within hours. The responses that I was receiving however started to raise flags as they were highly unprofessional.  The nature of my question was how do I go about getting my son’s mother stop her shenanigans and obey the court order and stop authorizing medical treatments without my knowledge or consent. The first reply was logical and polite; the response was asking me to state, word for word, what the custody agreement said. But the next few comments were something along the lines of “oh, this is going to be good” and “I’m so glad I woke up for this”. At this point I was thinking to myself, “wow, pretty rude for professional lawyers to talk like this”, but I could really use the advice so I pressed on with my conversation. 

The main premise of the conversation centered on the fact that my son’s mother has been secretly taking him to a counselor’s office for the last 4 months without saying a word about it to me. Now, some background here; we had been taking him to a psychologist earlier in the year and after a few months he improved and we agreed that a counselor was no longer needed. And yet, about a month later, she started taking him on her own without saying a thing about it. The people offering advice didn’t ask about that.  His mother told the first therapist that she wanted him seen because he did things like bang his head on the floor, acts all wild and crazy and she can’t control him, and just generally runs amok. He doesn’t exhibit this behavior at my house. His teacher at school says that he sometimes has trouble with talking out of turn and staying in his seat, but I’m really not all that surprised by that. But I digress, once I found out that his mother has been secretly taking him to these appointments I wrote a letter to the clinic telling them to cease and desist all treatment. They ignored my letter and continued treatment anyway. This is not the first time that my son’s mother has pulled this stunt either. In 2009 she did exactly the same thing with the exact same clinic. I met with the counselor then, we chatted and then I told them to stop seeing my child. When I posted that I was trying to get the clinic to stop seeing my child and I wrote a cease and desist letter to the clinic I got some very interesting responses. One user said that it seemed “fishy” that I would want to stop treatment. Another user asked who told me that a cease and desist letter would work and that I should “hit that person with a clue by four”. 

Now, at this point, I think that I should pause for a moment and explain further. I work in the Behavioral Health field. I work for one of the largest Behavioral Health organizations in the state of Arizona. We employ more than 800 people spread out across over 75 offices throughout the state. When we get a cease and desist letter, we’re compelled by law to follow it. I explained all of this to the forum. They tried telling me that my company was operating illegally and that they didn’t have the right to do that; that we didn’t understand the law. Really? Well, that’s good to know. I’m sure that the lawyers who sit on Board of Directors probably aren’t aware of that. Thanks for clarifying, I’ll be sure to point that out to them. I was beginning to get a little flustered at this point because I know how the situation works here. We’ve been served with these letters countless times before at work. If we have truly been operating illegally as this user suggested then surely the parents involved would have sued us or enacted legal action against us by now. I tried to brush the comment off and stay focused on my main question: what do I do now? What’s the best next step? 

Instead of just answering my question, the people on this forum felt compelled to judge and condemn me. They don’t understand the entire four year case history. They don’t understand the personalities or motivations of the parents involved in this case. All they understood is that the mother was taking my son to a counselor and I wanted to stop it. Gosh darn it I’m such an evil person who is overreacting. One person even went to so far as to say that I’m going to “cause more harm than the mother will by interfering”. Excuse me? What makes you qualified to make that statement? How much do you know about me or the mother? How much do you know about her general level of medical ineptitude? How much do you know about me for that matter? How much do you know about my son and his medical needs? I was offended that someone who knew very little about the overall case would make such a statement. 

Rather than just answering the legal matter at hand the users continued to judge my decision to try to cancel treatment. I tried informing them that the mother is feeding incorrect information to the counselors and therapists and that their decisions and information is only as good as what they are being told. To demonstrate this point let’s do an exercise. Suppose that you are a clinician. A child comes in to see you brought in by his mother. The mother says that the child is unruly. The child displays unruly behavior in your office. The mother states that the child is unruly in school. The mother also alleges that the father has ADHD so the child is at a high risk for being predisposed to having it. As a professional therapist, what is the most logical conclusion that you can draw on based on these facts and these facts alone? That the child probably has ADHD, right? Of course you would; that’s what the data is suggesting. However, now consider these new factors; the child does not display unruly behavior while in the father’s care (and other family members besides just the father and step-mother can vouch for that, so it’s not an issue of confirmation bias), the father does not have ADHD as the mother suggests, but instead suffered from emotional abuse (whose symptoms can mirror those of bi-polar and ADHD) and he produce medical records from two different psychologists that corroborate this story. Now, understanding that one of the classic signs of ADHD is that it will manifest itself across the board in all situations and environments if it is truly present what conclusions would you draw? Are you as likely to be convinced that the child has ADHD? Or could it be possible that the child’s unruly behavior is the result of poor parenting skills? Further, take into consideration that the child has an atypical environmental situation going back and forth between two households every week, and that he was ripped out of one school and placed into another part way through the school year, and that he attended Kindergarten without any formal “preschool” experience. Is it really unusual that his behavior in school is atypical? Would you still automatically assume that his atypical behavior is caused by a neurobiological condition, or could it be the result of his environment? 

Instead of focusing on my legal question at hand I was forced to get into a long drawn out debate with these “experts” about the reasons behind my decision and defend myself to them. I had to explain to them that I was qualified and knowledgeable enough to make the decision that I felt was in my child’s best interests. But, from here, the argument turned into one about ADHD and its prospective treatments.  The comments then became about how much harm I’ll be doing by pulling my child out of therapy. I’m curious how they know so much about my child’s particular therapeutic needs when they’ve never met him. One user said, and I quote “There's absolutely no reason to think that the professional is incompetent or has made an incorrect diagnosis, nor that he will prescribe unnecessary medication. OP (Original Poster) really needs to chill out a bit. He's going to do more harm with his frantic action than Mom is doing.” Excuse me? It’s obvious that this idiot doesn’t understand a thing about behavioral health nor how diagnoses are formulated. It’s not as objective as regular medicine, and there is, admittedly, some guesswork involved. With regular medicine you can see that a person’s arm is broken and treat it. With behavioral health things are not quite so black and white. You can identify a record a patient’s objective behavior, such as “patient is exhibiting signs of trichotillomania”, however, you can only guess at what’s causing that behavior. Are they hallucinating? Do they have a chemical imbalance? Do they suffer from anxiety, or paranoia? Etc. There are far more “behind the scenes” factors that come into play here.  And, for those of you who do not know, up until the age of 12 a child’s brain is still in a high state of development. Introducing a brain in that state to a Class II narcotic can have permanent damaging effects. For instance, one side effect of Ritalin and Dextroamphetamine, especially when used in young children, is that it can lead the patient to develop adult-onset insomnia in a high number of cases. Of course, wouldn’t you know it, I’m wrong about this too, apparently. 

One of the advantages of working in Behavioral Health like I do is that I get to take all kinds of training classes on all kinds of topics. I’ve taken no less than three different training courses on different kinds of abuse, including a free course offered through the CDC on preventing abuse. I’ve also taken several different courses on psychopharmacology, apothecary, medications, and common behavioral conditions, including specific courses all about ADHD. Another advantage is that I have a few friends who are doctors in the field. One of them is an MD who prescribes medications to behavioral health patients, and another is dual-doctorate holder who has a PhD and an EdD. This is where I get my information from; professionals who work in the field. I’m also on speaking terms and have easy access to about a dozen different doctors who work in my building. And you know what they all say? They all pretty much agree with each other; meds for ADHD children under 12 is a bad idea.
So, after trying to explain all of this to these people they begin attacking my credibility. One of them says “oh, okay, so you’ve taken a few classes and you think you know something about psychology. Good for you.” After I explained that I was a fully licensed Behavioral Health Technician he says “oh, so you cannot diagnose illnesses or write up treatment plans, thanks for clarifying that.”  At this point it became obvious that this person had absolutely no idea what he was talking about. The Behavioral Health Technicians, or BHTs as they’re called in the field, are the work horses of the behavioral health field. They do write service plans (they’re not called treatment plans in behavioral health), they read and interpret the Service Plans, they dole out medications, the write progress notes, they perform all kinds of similar functions. Service Plans are required to be signed off by a higher-level professional, but the BHTs are well-versed in how they work, what they mean, and how to write them. But, they’re also well-qualified in medication reactions, side effects, uses and the identification of common behavioral issues and conditions. 

It was at this point that I seriously began to question some of the advice that I had been given. I asked them, pointedly, how much experience and training they’ve had with behavioral health. I also asked them what makes them qualified to give advice on behavioral health issues when their specialty is law. The answers to these questions were shocking. One user said that “legal experience is more important than psychological training”. Really? That’s good to know. If I ever think that I’m having a breakdown I’ll run to my lawyer’s office, because, according to this guy, lawyers are better at psychological issues due to their vast legal experience. Several of the users posted very vague, evasive answers like “you might be surprised” and “enough to know what I’m talking about”. But the kicker was the person who clarified everything; “at what point did anyone on here say that their specialty was law?” I checked their profiles most of them don’t have their professions listed. One person said “What do you think my job is???” and under his interests he listed “smacking stupid people”. One of them was a business professional and another was a stay at home mom. And they’re giving out legal advice?  It was at this point I realized this whole thing had been an exercise in futility and deleted the thread. 

My friend Lee pointed out the Dunning-Kruger Effect, which explains the situation I just experienced perfectly. The Dunning-Kruger Effect is a paradoxical situation in which people either overestimate or underestimate themselves in relation to a particular area of expertise (the IQ counter-part for this is called the Downing Effect). But, without fail the D-K effect is quite fascinating and fairly reliable. Generally the more incompetent a person is the more they tend to overestimate their own skill, fail to recognize the skill of others, and fail to recognize the extremity of their inadequacy. The scholars behind this theory won the Nobel Prize for their work in 2000. I’ve certainly seen this in action firsthand before too, although I didn’t know what to call it. I’ve talked to people who lacked the capacity to understand what I was talking about so, naturally, I was the stupid one because I wasn’t making any sense to them. 

Another interesting thing that I ran into is that a few of these people, several of them in fact, exhibited clear signs of narcissist behavior.  For example, in his “about me” box one user has just one quote from another user; “It is our unanimous opinion that you are damn right and it should be obvious to any moron that your (ex) (SO’s ex) (boss) (landlord) (local police) should be immediately (jailed) (fired) (reprimanded) (arrested) (demoted) (shot) (evicted). In fact, you are so astonishingly correct in this matter, it will not surprise us one bit if you are offered a generous settlement, because, by golly, that’s just how it should be.” Not only is this on this person’s profile page, it’s also on their signature…for every single post. They took a compliment about one particular situation and adapted it to mean that they were right about everything all of the time. There’s no worse thing you could do for a narcissist. 

The moral of this whole story is this; just because the advice is free doesn’t mean that it’s necessarily good. Be sure that your sources are credible before acting on any advice that you’ve been given. As an example; I did get in a touch with a bona-fide lawyer and asked the same question. She says that my cease and desist order should be enough and that medical practitioners are required to comply with that. After all, that’s the whole point of denoting which one parent has the right to decide. If your child was on life support and was never going to wake up and one parent said pull the plug and the other said no, how do you know who to listen to? The court order tells you. But, according to these crackpots on this page, it’s just all meaningless drivel.  

I hope that you’ve learned as much from this experience as I did and that you take “free advice” with a grain of salt and always get to know where the information is coming from.


Sources:




Friday, December 16, 2011

Education, Legislation & Insanity

[Johnathan Clayborn]
I was planning on writing about this particular topic last week however I put it off a few times as I wanted to gather some more information before writing it out. I think I’m ready now, or at least I’ve delayed long enough.
There are some issues that occur that make we wonder if all logic and reason has completely dissipated from world leaving a sad, empty shell of humanity bereft of common sense and intellectually bankrupt. It’s a bleak outlook, I know. One of those issues is sexual harassment in the schools. Now, before you get all belligerent and self-righteous let me be clear; I’m not advocating that honest-to-goodness sexual harassment cases be ignored simply because they’re in a school setting. However, what I am suggesting is that some of social, political and legislative views on what constitutes and defines sexual harassment may need some serious revision.
Presently, I work as an Information Systems Analyst in a Human Resources department while I finish my college education. In my role here and at several previous jobs I’ve had to sit through countless hours of sexual harassment trainings and seminars. From what I know about the subject and I what I see reported on the news, there is a sad absence of reason and a proliferation of preposterous litigation surrounding this issue in our public schools.
To understand my frustration, allow me to bring to your attention a few noteworthy news articles from recent years.
As anyone who’s been around little kids for any length of time will tell you, little kids like to hug. They’re little huggers. That’s what they do. Not all kids, mind you, but enough. My own son is certainly no exception to this. Being a parent and being around small children regularly I can’t possibly imagine any child doing this with deliberate intent to harm someone physically or emotionally, and yet, there are those who would have you believe exactly that.

The first story that I remember really bringing this topic into the forefront of my consciousness was in December of 2006, December 8th to be exact. The story happened in Hagerstown, Maryland. A 5 year old Kindergartener was suspended from school. He was suspended on the grounds that committed sexual harassment against a fellow classmate at Lincolnshire Elementary. The nature of his crime, in case you were wondering, was that he pinched a female classmate on the buttocks. School officials said “fits the state Department of Education's definition of sexual harassment as "unwelcome sexual advances, request for sexual favors and/or other inappropriate verbal, written or physical conduct of a sexual nature directed toward others."” The boy’s father was outraged at the school saying that his son was unaware of the seriousness of this allegation and only knew it as playing around.

Surely this was an isolated incident, right? A momentary lapse of judgment on the part of the administration?  No, sadly, it wasn’t. Las Vegas, Texas. Four days later… December 12, 2006. A 4 year old boy attending La Vega Primary School was sentenced into in-house suspension. This student is a pre-kindergarten student. What did he do to earn himself in-house suspension?  According to the school, he committed sexual harassment. Allegedly he inappropriately rubbed his face into the bosom of a teacher’s aide.

Two years later another incident; 2008, Greer, Greenville County, South Carolina. A six year old child was sent home with allegations of sexual harassment because he told his teacher that one of his follow students liked looking at her behind. Mind you, the student who’s being accused of this wasn’t looking, he was ratting out the looker. Maybe the boy’s classmate had good taste, maybe the teacher sat on some tape, or had a hole in her pants, or maybe the informant was mistaken about what he thought was happening. Whatever the story was, the boy was suspended for sexual harassment because he insinuated that a classmate would look at their teacher like that.

But the insanity doesn’t stop there. Four days later it happened again. Apr 8, 2008. The Washington Post ran another story about sexual harassment. The alleged abuser in this case was another 6 year old boy. This boy (whose alleged crime actually transpired in the preceding November) was that he smacked a fellow classmate’s bottom. The girl told the teacher who took him to the principal and they wrote him up with “Sexual Touching Against A Student, Offensive” and put it in his permanent file. And then, as if to drive the message home, they called the police.
Fast forward to Feb 12, 2010. In 2006 a 6 year old boy from Brockton, MA was suspended for Sexual harassment against another student. The family sued. The case was finally settled in court four years later. The ruling? After paying out more than $50,000 in legal fees the court ordered the city to pay out $160,000 in damages to the boy and $20,000 in damages to the parents. They also had to pay the boy’s attorney $60,000 for his legal fees.
While this kind of rampant accusatory behavior is amplified in schools, it is not entirely an element found solely within public schools. Just a few short weeks ago, Nov 25, a news story broke about a family that was suing a 6-year old boy for first degree sexual assault. The basis of their allegations centers around the fact that this boy was “playing doctor” with their 5-year old girl. Curiously, the girls brother, who was also playing doctor with them is not being cited or charged with anything  even though he is the same age and committed the same acts. Developmental Psychologists are in an uproar over this case in particular as they cite that playing doctor is a normal part of the exploratory developmental stage of the human psyche.  They say that it often makes parents feel uncomfortable to know that their children are comparing privates with one another, but it’s how children learn what is different and the same between other people. They further go on to say that “so long as all of the parties are participating willingly, there isn’t any harm in this”.
Even more outrageous, On December 5th there were two separate and distinct cases of “sexual harassment” charged against children. First, on December 5th, a first grader was charged with sexual harassment after he kicked a bully in the groin (again, another topic for a separate post).  Here’s a summary of what happened. The 7-year old boarded the bus. The bully approached and demanded his gloves. The first grader refused. The bully began to choke him, so in response, the first grader kicked the bully in groin. The first grader was sentenced to suspension on grounds of sexual harassment. The bully was not cited or charged with anything.
Elsewhere in the country that very same day another first grader was suspended for sexual harassment for calling his teacher “cute”.  The school’s administration claimed the language violated the sexual harassment policy of the district. After an intense deluge of national media coverage the school district quickly performed an investigation and found that “no sexual harassment had occurred” and the following day the principal resigned over the incident.
I could have produced many more examples, but I felt that these were sufficient in number and nature to demonstrate my point. If you don’t believe me try Googling “sexual harassment” and “kindergartner” together. The craze isn’t just with very young elementary student’s either. There are many cases of sexual harassment or sexual abuse charges that may or may not be justified against older children (ages 6-17) as well. Some are outlined here.
And sexual harassment claims also exist in the college campuses as well. But we would expect that given the types of activities that sometimes happen at college. But even at the college level some of these claims are unreasonable, such as a claim filed against Western Nevada College because she had to write an expose on her masturbation routine and draw an illustrated interpretation of her orgasm. Why is this a little unreasonable? Because the class was “Human Sexuality”, and it was an elective course that she willingly signed up for. And it’s not as though this is some young, naive college student either, this particular student is 60 years old.
So where did the system go wrong? As far as I’ve been able to discover, it seems as though the sexual harassment craze went haywire in the early 1990’s.  By the late 1990’s this sexual harassment push was in a frenzied stage. In fact, it was so popular and out of control that the Comedy Central adult cartoon series, South Park, poked fun at the issue (and the results of the issue) with their portrayal of the character, Petey the Sexual Harassment Panda in 1999.
A whole series of new policies and directives were passed and aimed at schools turning them into a zero-tolerance zone for many things (more on that later too), sexual harassment among them. The entire system has been spiraling out of control since then.
Ted Feinberg, assistant director of the National Association of School Psychologists in Bethesda, said he had never come across a case of sexual harassment in elementary school in his three decades in the schools. To label somebody a sexual harasser at 6 “doesn't make sense to me”, he said. “Kids can be exploratory in behavior. They can mimic what they see on TV.'"
Proponents of the new policies will cite any number of studies like this one or this one or this one or this one or this one.   One study says 1/3 of middle and high school students feel that they’ve been sexually harassed. Others say that “48% of female high school students feel that they’ve been sexually harassed”. These are obvious concerns and these statistics are what is driving the blind push to enact a proliferation of new policies to stem the flow of insanity. However, I can’t help but wonder if they’re looking at this the right way.
As a result of these new policies, the Virginia Department of Education reported that 255 elementary students were suspended in 2007 for offensive sexual touching, or 'improper physical contact against a student.' In Maryland, 166 elementary school children were suspended during 2007 for sexual harassment, including three preschoolers, 16 kindergartners and 22 first-graders, according to the State Department of Education.  33.6% of all of their suspensions and allegations were aimed at children 7 years old or younger.

At least there are few champions of reason and logic. David Davis was the executive director of an Advocacy Center in Waco in 2006. He thinks that it’s absurd to charge children this small with sexual harassment allegations. He says assuming the boy has not had sexual encounters, or been inappropriately exposed to pornography, most four-year-olds are sexually innocent.

Another book, Promoting Social Justice for Young Children also heralds logic and reason as key elements when dealing with children and charging them with crimes of a sexual nature.
So what’s changed? Well, for one thing, with the intensity of sexual harassment awareness that’s been occurring in the last four decades our culture is more aware of sexual harassment as an issue than we have at any other point in our history. So, it’s not unreasonable to assume that higher number of cases of sexual harassment are being reported simply as a result of this awareness. Does that mean that we should allow it? Of course not. However, some reason has to be administered in the application and distribution of these policies.
Why is this such an issue? Well, for one thing, depending on the county or the state that this is happening in, many of these charges are a felony. In some states they are a Class B felony, in other states they are a Class 2 felony. In some of these cases state laws will require that, if convicted, these children will be registered on a sex offender watch list once they turn 18. This is completely ridiculous, in my opinion.
There’s an official guide to “sexual harassment” published for use by schools. This guide was written by the US Department of education (http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/shguide.pdf ). It’s rather long so I’ll spare all of the details, but I will quote page V of the preface. Under the “definition of sexual harassment” the guidebook states; “one commenter urged OCR to provide distinct definitions from criteria used to maintain private actions for monetary damages. We disagree.” They refuse to spell out and delineate exactly what constitutes harassment leaving it open to the interpretation of the individual schools. They cite a prior guidance in 1997 and a court case (Davis) that if “conduct of a sexual nature is sufficiently severe, persistent, or pervasive to limit a student’s ability to participate or benefit from the education program, or to or to create a hostile or abusive educational environment” it constitutes “sexual harassment”.
The problem with these laws is that even the EEOC and other federal government branches are vague about what constitutes sexual harassment and what doesn’t. However, most of us assume that “harassment” as a broad definition defines an action which has been repeated more than once. For example, going back to the first grader who called his teacher “cute”, that same behavior in the workplace would hardly constitute sexual harassment. If I walked down the hallway and said to one of my co-workers “you look very cute today”, that wouldn’t really constitute anything. However, if that statement made her uncomfortable and she said as much and I persisted in that behavior, then it clearly moves into the grounds of harassment.
The other serious issue that’s raising red flags for me is the complete and total breakdown of our judicial system. There is also a proliferation of court cases involving teachers or other faculty who have had sexual relations with their students. In some of these cases absolutely nothing happens to these teachers. For example, in 2002, 43-year old teacher Pamela Diehl-Moore was tried in a New Jersey court for sleeping with a 13-year old boy, a student who had just completed her 7th grade class. New Jersey Superior Court Judge Bruce A. Gaeta was assigned to the case. When delivering the sentence he said "I really don't see the harm that was done here, and certainly society doesn't need to be worried. I do not believe she is a sexual predator. It's just something between two people that clicked beyond the teacher-student relationship. Maybe it was a way for him, once this happened, to satisfy his sexual needs, people mature at different rates."  The initial sentence was five years of probation with no jail time. Two months later after an appeals court heard the case her sentence was changed to 3 years in prison.
On the one hand, we have judges who are being extremely lenient with teachers who sleep with their students, but then on the other hand we have lawyers and school administrators who are charging students with sexual harassment? When did we cross into the Twilight Zone, exactly?
Many of the litigators claim that their charges against 1st and 2nd graders are completely justified as the law does not impose an age restriction or definition. In my mind this is a grave travesty; to charge a child with a crime like sexual harassment when they don’t even understand the concept of sex and are physically incapable of even having sex is completely absurd. But it doesn’t end there. To me, charging kindergartners and preschoolers with these crimes is the worst travesty that a school can do to their students. In many cases it is the first time that these kids have been to school. It’s the first time that they’ve been exposed to so many other kids their age; it’s their first exposure to a school environment, etc. We teach them how to add and subtract and say their shapes and colors, but we can’t teach them how to be a student? At what point is a child supposed to learn that these behaviors are wrong? Sure, some people will say that it’s the parent’s job to teach their children, and I’m not arguing that point. But, the parents aren’t always going to have their children in the same situational context as the teachers will. Ultimately, the teachers should be teaching the students what to do and how to act in school. To punish the students for things that they don’t even understand is a grave injustice.
I ask you, dear readers, to ponder this the next time that you hear about plans discussing “education reform”. Many, many people are clamoring for education reform, and rightly so. However, almost all of the new proposals focus solely on academic reform. None of the address issues like this, or the violence in the schools that I addressed earlier in the month. I vociferously believe that in order for any kind of educational reformation to be truly effective it has to be a holistic plan that addresses all of the failings of the system. To use an analogy, it doesn’t make sense to me to replace one tire when the other three are still flat.
Sources:
  


Wednesday, November 30, 2011

Problems with Public Education and Discipline

[Johnathan Clayborn]
In my pursuit studying educational psychology and I have studied the modern public school system at length. There is a lot of focus right now on grievous problems within the academics of the school system itself.  However, there is one area that is consistently overlooked; the area of discipline. Sure, there are the occasional school shootings that occur. And when these events happen they receive widespread media coverage across the nation. Fortunately, these events are rare. However, there is a whole different side to the discipline problem in our schools that is far more rampant and widespread than you might think.
We’ll talk about how deep the rabbit-hole goes in a minute, however, first let’s touch on some of the reasons why the issues exist. First; students are out of control. They feel entitled by today’s society. They, in many cases, have little or no structure at home, and little to no parental involvement. The parents also fail to properly discipline their children (many of whom could use a good spanking and a serious grounding in my opinion). The teachers aren’t blameless either. They are often so fed up with the child’s antics that they just snap. In some cases the teachers are just irresponsible and what starts out as horseplay gets out of hand…but teachers shouldn’t be engaging in horseplay with their students anyway.
So, how serious is this issue? First, at any point that you’re bored pop over to youtube and do a search for “student attacks teacher” or vice versa. There are a plethora of videos. Some these videos involve teachers who are physically wrestling with their students, apparently in fun. Like this one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LqB8Ot4JmsE&feature=related or this one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tGb5VUuqGh4&feature=related or this substitute teacher who is teaching his class self-defense moves: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0F2hijMwMrY. Now, I’m a big proponent of self-defense and I think it’s a vital skill that everyone should know, but there’s a time and place for everything and in the middle of Algebra is not the appropriate time or place for this kind of discussion. There are much more disturbing videos, like this one, where it’s unclear who started the altercation but the teacher and the student have physically gone to blows: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fJ-M2DPr_ek&feature=related.
In many cases the children are clearly in the wrong.  In one case reported on by MSNBC’s Today show from 2008 a Baltimore art teacher was assaulted by a student who invaded her “personal space”. The school administration says that ultimately the blame falls on the teacher for telling the student that she would defend herself after the student threatened to hit her. This same school, Lewis High School, was put on probation by Maryland school authorities due to a high number of violent fights. In 2002 Baltimore school officials completely disbanded Northern High School due to its high violence level and created several smaller schools, including this one. Both of the smaller schools have been labeled as persistently dangerous which ultimately rendered the school district’s decision to break the violent school up as ineffective. This is not surprising to me. Simply moving a problem from one school to another doesn’t actually resolve the problem. So now instead of having one school with a violence issue, this district has two. But that’s exactly the type of thinking that’s plaguing our education system at the moment.
In another incident reported on ABC in 2009 in Colorado a teacher at Hinkley High School was beaten up by a student after the teacher took away the student’s cell phone. Apparently the teacher had already told the student to put away the cell phone once. After the student was caught with it a second time the teacher took it away and the student charged the teacher and physically assaulted her.
There was also another article, allegedly originally reported in the Eureka  Reporter (although this website seems to be defunct now).  This issue was reported in May of 2006. In this case a 15 or 16 year old student assaulted his teacher over a pot-leaf necklace. The student was arrested and charged with felony assault. Apparently the teacher confiscated the necklace after telling the student numerous times not to have it visible in the classroom.
Earlier this year a teacher in Plainville High School in Connecticut was assault by a student, according to NBC news.  There was no comment on why the teacher was assaulted by the student, however the article did state that the student was arrested and charged with assault on an elderly person and 2nd degree breach of peace.
And then another story from just a few days ago as reported in the Huffington Post; a 10 year old girl physically assaulted her teacher after the teacher confiscated her Halloween Candy.  This incident occurred in Zellwood Elementary School in Florida. In this case the student was arrested and charged with felony battery. The local news asked the girl’s mother if she thought her daughter should have been arrested and the mother responded with “no, no, no. I was shocked, devastated.” In this particular case, according to the police report, the teacher had confiscated the candy and put in her desk. The student then retrieved the candy without asking and began throwing pieces at other students. The teacher confiscated the bag again, putting it on a shelf behind her desk. She told the student that the candy would be given to her mother at the end of the day. The student then began throwing items from the teacher’s desk, at which point the teacher called for assistance in having the girl removed. While waiting for the help to arrive the teacher tried to blockade access to the candy bag and was hit repeatedly by the student who threatened to kill the teacher and her family.
In another report from CBS out of Chicago this past February a teacher was attacked by a student after the teacher told the student that he could not go to the bathroom. The teacher told the student that they he would have detention if he stood up again. The student then ripped the detention paper out of the teacher’s hands and a scuffle ensued which result in the student pinning the teacher to the floor and punching and kicking him repeatedly. The 14 year old was released to his parents and the school declined to comment, but the police department stated that they would pressing charges of felony battery against the student at a later time.
There are literally dozens and dozens of similar stories, but for the sake I time I will omit summarizing all of them. But then there are the fights on the other side of the coin as well. Incidents where a teacher marked students down a test for saying “bless you” to a classmate who sneezed because it violated his no-talking rule. To me it seems a little harsh to punish students for extending a common courtesy. It’s not as though a simple “bless you” is going to catastrophically disrupt the concentration of the students, nor is it going to empower the students with the correct answers to the test questions.  
There are also these teachers who, rather than taking the student’s cell phones, destroy them completely: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RYP50JyVxHI&feature=related and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JLjgDYyR0m4&feature=related . This is potential legal issue for the school. Just because a student is in your classroom does not give you the right to destroy their belongings. There’s a word for that; vandalism. Or destruction of private property works too.
But, apparently violence by teachers against students is not just a problem in America as evidenced by this video of this teacher in Japan: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zYsHIsAZsbY&feature=related and this one in China: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9x9nwAACBkY&feature=related and even this one from India: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=87Z6_klWMw0&feature=related. Some of the violence is senseless and is almost something that you would see in a cartoon: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D7uWMlyGbSE&feature=related.  And there are even the attempts at humor by students: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zmGPPVOWJz8&feature=related.
Some students deliberately antagonize the teachers: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7B4Yh2XDx_4&feature=related but other cases the teacher’s actions are inexplicable.  The most disturbing report by far comes out of Fox Houston where a private school teacher assaults and beats a 6th grade elementary school student. Apparently a mentally challenged student in the class was dancing and this student and several others thought it was funny. This touched a nerve with the teacher who beat the kid so hard that he had bruises for more than a week. The teacher was fired and taken into custody by the local sheriff’s office.
This situation, in my mind at least, plays no small role in why it is that teachers are rapidly leaving the education field. When I’ve had these discussions with others in the past some people have callously said that “teachers need to just suck it up and deal with it” or when I tried to argue that they weren’t getting paid enough to deal with these issues they said “if teachers aren’t teaching simply for the love of teaching children they need to find somewhere else to work”. To me this is an incredulous point of view. Sure, every teacher undoubtedly has a strong desire to teach children, but let’s be pragmatic about it for a moment. Teachers have lives and bills just the same as the rest of us. What if customers at your job were walking up and hitting you? Would you want a raise? Would you want to continue working there? I seriously doubt that there are many who would. I, for one, don’t blame the teachers for wanting to leave.
If you look into the epidemic of teachers leaving the field the statistics are alarming. 10% of all new teachers quit within the first year of employment. By the second year this number jumps to 40%. Within the first five years on the job half of all new teachers quit.  No other job that I am aware of has such a high turnover rate; save maybe people who work in a telemarketing call center. But I digress, something is seriously wrong the system if those are the types of turnover rates that we are experiencing. Everyone is resolutely focused on bringing about academic reform, which I agree is a much-needed thing, however, none of the plans that I’ve seen yet have any elements incorporated into them addressing this issue.
In looking at the data here are some of the reasons why teachers quit. According to the National Center for School Statistics new teachers who worked with a mentor or teachers who made a starting salary of $40,000 annually were less likely to quit. This seems logical to me. With a mentor there is someone to guide you and show you the ropes, and with higher pay you’re more inclined to put with more headaches. (As a comparison, the average starting salary for a teacher in the Phoenix Metro area is $32,000).
Another study by the General Teaching Council was part of an effort to bring disillusioned teachers back into the profession. In their study the teachers cited unruly students, bureaucratic red tape, heavy work-loads and lack of family time as their main reasons for leaving.  Almost 20% of these teachers cited both unruly pupils and lack of family time as their primary motivators for leaving the field. At to this a baby-boom in recent times and the education system is facing a crisis. Some education think-tanks estimate that schools need to recruit another 18,000 teachers over the next five years just to stem the tide. In my particular case I make more money with no degree training in the corporate world than I would as a teacher with a four year degree. That seems a little backwards to me.
A different study by the National Education Association cites the same reasons; low salary and poor working conditions. Today’s modern teachers are more educated than at any point in history. Almost 50% of all teachers now hold a Master’s Degree as compared to 23% of teachers in 1960. The teachers are citing that they are not receiving enough pay to pay back student loans and make a living as part of their reasons for leaving.
There are a number of people that feel that these are invalid reasons for people to quit, such as this blog here: http://www.soyouwanttoteach.com/why-do-teachers-quit-invalid-reasons . However, I’m with the teachers on this debate. Next time that guy wants to quit his job because his hours suck or his pay sucks or his customers are a jerk I’m tempted to tell him that he’s not allowed to feel that way and that those are not “valid” reasons for quitting. I don’t see where this guy gets off on passing judgment onto teachers in the first place, but I digress.  While I disagree with the sentiment of his particular article, I do have to admit that he may have some valid points, which I’ll cover in a moment.
And there are certainly those who agree with the teachers as evidenced by these very similar political cartoons:




Whatever their reasons are, and whether we agree with their choices or not, the evidence is clear; teachers are leaving faster than ever before. The result of this behavior is adversely affecting our schools in the worst way. People are always talking about how much more funding the schools need. According to the Alliance for Excellent Education teachers quitting the field were costing the education system $4.9 billion each year in 2005. And the problem has only gotten worse since then. Instead of new money going to improving the system, it’s going to attrition costs.
The problem is clear enough, the question becomes; how do we go about fixing it? Paying teachers more money is one answer that has been proposed. In my opinion this solution will only be somewhat effective. I do think that teachers deserve more money however, providing a higher salary in and of itself is not going to magically resolve these issues.
Another suggested solution is to create alternate methods for teachers to become certified that do not require a bachelor’s degree and the associated cost. Again, this may help in some situations, but I do not think that this in and of itself will solve the issue. For those of you with good memory you may have noticed that my post started with classroom violence, and now we’re discussing teachers quitting. I believe these are interconnected problems and that the only real way to deal with these problems is to provide teachers with training courses. I can tell you first-hand how this will help. Until 2 months ago I was enrolled in the Secondary Education program at my college. There were a lot of requirements and a lot of practicum hours involved in getting the certification, including one full semester as a student teacher. However, there was little to no pragmatic training built into the program. And it’s not just my school it’s every program that I’ve looked at. There are no classes for teachers on how to avoid burnout (whereas in the behavioral health field that I currently work there are seminars each quarter).  There are no classes on how to organize your classroom, manage your workload, or deal with unruly students. It’s very much a sink or swim attitude, and more and more teachers are sinking because they lack the skills and the training to resolve these conflicts.
Remember the blogger whom I disagreed with? This is the only point that he made that I concur with him on. Teachers, he suggests, are using the “too much workload” as simply another way of saying that they don’t have an effective system to handle the workload they’re expected to perform. To a point, I agree with this. However, when you factor in the impending teacher crisis, we’re facing a situation that is auto-catalytic; teachers are leaving because they have too much to do, which means that the remaining teachers have to do more, which causes them to leave, etc. New teachers who enter this cycle are not prepared and are shocked by the system. Even when working as the student intern you usually aren’t doing everything on your own, there is another experienced teacher helping you. But once you have your degree and your certification you’re just expected to magically know the missing pieces of information.
I stoutly believe that one thing that can benefit teachers greatly is a pragmatic conflict resolution training. Explain to teachers what they should and should not do. For example; putting tape over a student’s mouth is not an effective way of curbing the behavior of talking out of turn (which was another article I read about). Any basic psychology student can tell you that. And this proposed training goes for everyone who works in the school setting; nurses, school counselors, and even the police who visit the campus. I read an article about a 5-year old boy who was zip-tied and arrested, charged with felonious assault. The officer put his hands on the boy (a boy who had been diagnosed with mental disorders) and the boy responded by slapping the officer’s hand away. The officer then arrested him for assault. You don’t need to put your hands on the students to get them to cooperate.
My suggestion would be to increase the teacher’s pay, but also to stop giving them the summer off. They should use those summer months when school is out of session for implementing teacher skills development courses. Bring in business consultants who can teach the teachers who to streamline their processes and decrease their work load. Bring in counselors and psychologists who can teach them appropriate conflict resolution skills. Bring in legal professionals who can cover the ins and outs of the law, especially in dealing with harassment and abuse. The most ridiculous case I have heard of regarding this is a 5-year  old kindergarten student who was expelled for “sexual harassment”. Excuse me?  The child in this case pinched a fellow student on the butt, one time. Even in the corporate world a single act such as this hardly meets the definition of sexual harassment. And, in my opinion, you have to have some concept of what sex is in order for it to be considered sexual harassment. Granted, I’m not saying the boy should be allowed to go around pinching butts. However, this seems excessive on the part of the school. After all, isn’t our job as educators to teach students? Imagine if you were immediately arrested anythime you did something wrong, whether you knew it was wrong or not. You’d be scared to leave your house. This knee-jerk reaction in our schools has got to stop. It needs to be replaced with a level-headed system of handling these issues.
Now, keep in mind that I’m not advocating that teachers become fully trained behaviorists either. That would be absurd to expect them to do two full time jobs. And a “behavior manual” is also a ridiculous idea. As anyone who works in the behavioral field will tell you, while the behavior that a person is doing may be identical to that of another person, their reason for initiating that behavior may not be. For example; you have a student who’s talking in class. Great. You can’t use a cookie-cutter approach to dealing with this behavior. Maybe he’s talking because he’s bored and he’s under-stimulated. Maybe he’s talking because he’s overly kind and helping the student beside him. Maybe he’s talking because he doesn’t understand what’s going on but is too afraid to ask. Or, maybe he’s talking because he simply wants attention. There are numerous ways to curb this behavior, but if you took a blanket “one size fits all” approach to this then you would almost certainly make some situations better and other situations far worse. The teachers need to be able to leverage outside resources, such a school counselors or trained behavioral professionals who can observe the class either in person or via web-cam offsite and provide the teachers with specific techniques tailored to each child.
Whatever educational reforms lay ahead for the American Education System it seems clear that without provisions to include teacher training and skill development this problem will continue to get worse.



Sources: