Treating All Children As Vulnerable and in Danger

Family and Consumer Science is a class that is supposed to strengthen students’ competence at everyday household tasks and engender independence. As a discipline, it’s more practical than most foreign languages, and more broadly applicable to the student body.
http://www.nysafcse.org/About-Us
http://www.nysafcse.org/Curriculum

(And those “Safe Zone” signs? Those are usually posted to indicate that intolerance, bullying, and abuse are not allowed or wanted – that school is a place for learning and growing without fear.)

Sounds like Nancy McDermott is invested in the right mindset, but she’s calling out the wrong things.

I have to agree with Remy here. In middle school, 7th grade we had Home Ec — cooking/household budgeting for half the year and wood shop the other half. In 7th we had a half year of Home Ec — sewing and wood shop the other half. Not sure about the “relationships” part of the class, but those parts, at least, seem perfectly normal to me, and presented at the same age they were when I was in school.

Yeah, I have to say the class sounds pretty useful to me. I wish my daughter’s middle school had had something like it – they learned a little of that stuff in Girl Scouts, but not nearly enough. I guess the relationships part depends on what’s covered, but given the age group, I bet it’s about friendships/bullying/dating between peers, not about stranger danger.

I had a course like this in high school – “Consumer Ed” – a one semester mandatory course.

It was semi-useful. We got things like how to balance a cheque book and how to read laundry labels, and a fairly extensive section on things like resumes and job interviews, with practical exercises. Some of the actual advice, resume-wise, was unfortunately total garbage. Attaching photocopies of swimming certificates and school awards to a resume screams “I’ve never actually had a job and have no clue”.

When my brother hit high school, they instituted something more like what is describe here – a career preparation type course, which covered three years and was attached to various elective courses. As a result, he had to take typing three years in a row to fit it in, as he was taking mainly academic courses. They meant well, but the course itself was pretty useless and was eventually phased out.

There are two problems with this concept. One is execution – it’s not easy to design a course that is effective and holds the students’ interest, and very easy to produce inane makework and bad advice.

The second is the fact that the schools gets the kids for about five instructional hours a day, five days a week, for nine months of the year. Teaching kids academics to a reasonable level and providing some cultural training (art, music etc) in that time is a non trivial task. When you add in the expectation that the school will provide basic socialization, discipline, sex-ed and personal relationship skills, nutritional training, sufficient exercise to keep them skinny, basic financial/domestic/intervew/practical skills, and so on and so forth you are giving the schools an fundamentally impossible task.

If you want the schools to take over all of this and do a decent job, make the school day 9 am to 5 pm, six days a week, 12 months a year, and double or triple the staffing and funding, and maybe they’ll have a chance.

I get the sense that the author was most troubled by the ‘personal relationships’ part of the class. It does sound odd, but I have no idea what instruction entails. We never had anything like that and my kids haven’t, so far.

I have to agree with Nancy, although she didn’t link her point and her example clearly enough. How much do you want to bet FACS class is filled with warnings about how unsafe it is to cook, never use the oven if your mom or dad isn’t home, etc. It’s also stuff that would be better learned through real life experience. I took home ec in 7th grade but it was once a week. The only thing I got from it was a recipe for whoopie pies, because by twelve I already knew how to cook! And balance my savings account for that matter. With our education an outdated relic that still prepares kids to work in factories (where else in real life do you have to follow a bell? Or go at the same pace as everyone else?), is it any surprise they are teaching skills that are ultimately the responsibility of the parent and should have been taught before the child is twelve?

I know no one wants me to say this, although others have already commented the same thing…this is home economics.

“Family & Consumer Sciences was previously known as Home Economics until the 1990s when the official title was changed[by whom?] to Family & Consumer Sciences, encompassing more aspects outside of home life and wellness.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_and_consumer_science

It seems really useful and practical and I and my parents and their parents had it too. My sisters didn’t because it was the age of budget cuts. Frankly I am glad it is back…

I agree with Andy that the title and the content don’t really match. Treating all children as vulnerable and letting middle schoolers learn independence seem contradictory.

On FACS, my oldest started middle school last year and had a family science class. I thought it was wonderful. He had an assignment where he had to write a paper on doing the family’s laundry (content required: stain removal, sorting, type of detergent and amount, drying, folding, storage) which he already knew how to do. He learned to cook mainly soups and simple dishes and they had kids bringing in some creations they made at home for extra credit(“Top Chef” type challenges). He also was assigned a fake job randomly for the year(he got accountant) and a family to support (he got 4 kids)and had to draft a budget based on his salary and dependents. He was pissed that he could only afford an apartment and a used car and didn’t have money for *better* things. He asked the teacher if he could take a second job!

Of course, if children weren’t kept in captivity all the time, they could learn things from relatives other than parents, or even from neighbors.

My parents taught me how to read before I started school, but one thing I had trouble with was tying my shoes. My father kept showing me by doing it very fast and I couldn’t follow the moves. I was going to be in kindergarten in a month or so and what would happen if my shoelaces came untied?

So a neighbor girl my own age showed me, very slowly, and I got it first time.

(Thanks, Kathy!)

I suppose these days I’d have to wait for an Officially Qualified Family and Consumer Science Teacher to show me.

Remy – We have a place where ‘intolerance, bullying, and abuse are not allowed or wanted’, it’s called Society. We shouldn’t need signs to indicate special places for it. All that does (at least to my mind) is make it okay to do those things elsewhere.

SOA – Who says people aren’t teaching their kids those things anymore? What percentage of them? I’m not meaning to pick on you, but it really bothers me when people make huge, sweeping statements with no facts or support.

In general, I agree with Lenore and Nancy on this. It’s great that FACS is available, but I can teach my child about home economics. I’m not able to teach them French. The school should do what the school is supposed to do. Otherwise, it’s just one more example of the state telling you what a bad parent you are, and how they need to take over for you.

Let’s get this straight.

Because some parents are too stupid or to lazy to teach their kids life skills, every student has to lose time in phys ed. and second languages?

Sure we had the old “Home Ec.”, it was an elective in high school. Take it if you want, don’t if you don’t.

Not a big fan of schools teaching things that should be done at home, even more so when they take away from more important courses and subjects.

The question is not whether kids need to learn basic life skills but rather whether this is a good use of school time and resources. Or kids have to learn LOTS of things that aren’t traditionally academic subjects — why sometimes we actually have to teach them those things ourselves. I disagree with the commenters who think this is a good use of school time. After all, I can teach my daughter to cook, sew, spot an abusive boyfriend and manage her money. I can’t teach her to speak French, so I rely on the school to do that.

If people prefer this class over French or another academic subject on the grounds of its “practicality” or broader applicability to normal daily life, where does it stop? I spend more time ironing than reading, so why did the pesky kindergarten teacher insist on teaching my child to read last year when she could have had my child helping me keep daddy in business shirts by now instead?

I believe that handing over this material to the schools to teach is of a piece with the very anti-free-range attitude that parents can’t be trusted to make decisions about the upbringing of their own children. I would object too.

@Chuck99
“We have a place where ‘intolerance, bullying, and abuse are not allowed or wanted’, it’s called Society.”

School is about the only place where defending yourself from those things is absolutely forbidden.

Link to what the ‘personal relationships’ bit seems to be: http://www.nij.gov/topics/crime/intimate-partner-violence/teen-dating-violence/documents/shifting-boundaries-all-schools.pdf

Topics include:
*) Boundaries
*) Personal space
*) Safe and unsafe parts of the school

The last bit seems to be age (and maybe gender specific) … so the 1st graders might feel unsafe near 5ther grade dominated parts of the school.

Boundaries and personal space seem to be focused on obeying the teachers and not groping/molesting/raping each other as the kids get older.

Sounds like Home Ec. Not sure what the big deal is here.

I would love for my daughter to have free home economics. Instead I paid for after school cooking. The teacher says most of the other neighboring schools have some form of home ecomonics.

Today is the first day of school. I reviewed the procedures for coming home alone. Have your keys, text me, have a snack and start your homework. We also do a fire safety speech because we live in a high rise. We didn’t need it last year but if we do she knows to get her body out of the condo, walk down the stairs and meet at our meeting spot.

I agree most of these should be taught by parents. The problem is they don’t appear to be.

In hiring new engineers, my problem rarely is technical skill, but they don’t have basic manners or outside life skills. There are 25 year olds I leave of of professional dinner invites because they eat like they just got out of prison.

Of give a presentation chewing gum with they’re mouth open. “So *chomp* the re*chomp*turn on in*chomp*vestment”…..

Or interrupting others.

By 7 I could hem my own pants, make basic sewing repairs, plan meals within a fairly limited budget, etc., and so could most of my friends. And this wasn’t the dark ages. It was the early 80s. I could also run copper tubing and wire a basic home circuit by my teens.

As an engineer, those practical skills make me better at my job. I don’t see them replacing academic instruction. Rather, they complement each other.

It really is amazing how our views of not just children but people in general has changed. We used to see adversity as something that made you stronger; today, we assume it destroys you. Sure, that may have sometimes led to being too callous in the past, but I think it was still far less damaging than today’s message that anything bad that happens to you–no matter how minor–will traumatize you and scar you for life.

I noticed when my son was in school last year how every instance of kid-on-kid meanness was considered “bullying.” That’s nonsense. Bullying is a serious, mostly one-sided, systematic behavior. Two kids getting into a schoolyard argument is not bullying; a kid calling you a name one time is not bullying. But kids are being told that anything any child does that makes them feel bad or upset makes them a victim of bullying, and that they always need adult intervention to deal with bullying. It’s nonsense, in my opinion. Yes, if we’re talking about genuine bullying, then kids may need adults to intervene, and they should; but most childhood conflicts can and should be resolved by the kids themselves, and we are doing them no favors by teaching them they are incapable of that.

What I tried to teach my son last year was the now-radical idea that sometimes you can just let stuff go. As popular as the long is, we seem to think we can never let anything that upsets us go. Somebody called you a name? Let it go. Maybe they were having a bad day, maybe you did something to upset them, maybe they’re just a jerk. Who knows? It doesn’t matter, so just let it go. Somebody looked at you funny, bumped into you (maybe on purpose, maybe not) on the playground, took your pencil? Just let it go and move on. We don’t have to elevate every slight and unpleasant experience into a trauma. And yet that seemed to be exactly what kids were being encouraged to do in the school, under the guise of “anti-bullying.”

@Jen P.: “It’s become commonplace to classify every childhood slight as ‘bullying’, which makes virtually everyone a victim and pathologizes normal childhood misbehavior.”

Yes! It is so frustrating. Honestly, it’s one of the things that makes me glad we’re homeschooling this year.

I have a lot of friends who’ve complained about this. Their kids are coming home saying they were “bullied” when, after being questioned by their parents, it turns out they just had a schoolyard spat where they were giving as good as they got. Or, in some cases, where they were the instigator. The way “bullying” is being addressed in schools seem to just convince kids that any time they get into it with another kid–even if they started the situation and were behaving just as badly–they are victims. I don’t know many parents who want that being the message their kids get.

And, yes, it’s not just kids. Adults too now seem to think that every slight they suffer or suffered as a child was traumatic and abusive. I’m now supposed to believe that catcalling is not simply rude and annoying, but sexually abusive and part of “rape culture,” and that every time a guy makes a comment when I pass a bus stop, I’m a victim. That’s not empowering, and it’s not how I want to live my life or teach my children–especially my daughters–to live their lives. I want to raise kids who know they will be able to get through whatever life brings, not kids who are convinced that every unpleasant experience is shattering.

Yeah, I don’t really see the problem with such lessons either. I had a subject like that in 9th grade (1x 50 minutes per week), about how to cook, how to eat healthy, basic sewing, doing the laundry, some first aid, but also sex ed (including STDs, correct condom use and putting one on a plastic penis (ahh, memories… 😀 )) and the effects & hazards of the most common types of (mostly illegal) drugs . First I thought it was nonsense to learn about the food and clothing stuff in school, until I discovered my friend couldn’t even sew a button back to a piece of clothing, so maybe it wasn’t such a bad idea after all.

I’m not sure what’s meant here with the lessons on relationships. As far as I recall, there was some talk about respecting each other and equality and that it’s always OK to say no/stop even during sexual encounters because it’s supposed to be fun for both parties involved, and the possibility of being gay or bi – is that what’s meant here?

But anyway, I don’t see the link between teaching basic household skills in middle school and a perceived vulnerability of children these days.

@Warren, re Safe zones being nonsense: Having seen a documentary on gay teens in the South who got basically puked out by their entire village (sometimes family too), I’m not so sure. Some states are still pretty… Russian in this respect.

I think the problem with this class is that these are skills children should be acquiring at home as they go through life. They are “life skills”–skills they pick up as they are allowed to do them, whereas French and other academic skills are the ones that need to be taught in school, which is the purpose of school. I think the point of this, that many here seem to have missed, is that in a world where children are so overprotected, they aren’t learning these life skills from life but having to be forced to take them as a class at school so they will be competent when they leave school and enter the workforce. Herein lies the problem.

At the same time we’re infantilizing all children under the age of 16, schools have taken on the task of teaching “grit”. Good luck with that.

I can’t help but tie the rise of high-risk X-sports to the trend of bubble wrapping our kids. Kids need an outlet, and they are turning to skateboarding down railings, snowboarding through half-pipes, and blasting through BMX motorbike courses to find it.

Years ago, when the Bravo cable network was young, they showed a strange movie which took place in a quiet, idyllic suburban subdivision. The plot centered on teenagers being bored out of their skulls and turning to high risk activities to break out of the dullness their parents had put them in. I’ve tried by have never been able to track that movie down since.

So people are actually okay with having their kids lose out on phys ed. and second languages, because other parents cannot take the time to teach basic life skills?

What’s next, let’s cut back on art and music to teach manners?

How bout we drop geography instead, hell everyone has gps anyway?

Would it not be better to let teachers actually teach subjects and let parents teach life?

1. Teaching Home Economics (which is what they used to call FACS), and Shop class in schools, is a good thing. If you do that while kids are young (maybe starting in grade six or seven), then they won’t be arriving at university not knowing how to do laundry, or why you shouldn’t eat chicken that’s still pink in the middle. Of course, this should be done properly, by actually letting kids try their hand at cooking/sewing/repair work/caring for robot babies/whatever, instead of just saying, “Don’t use the stove without an adult; it’s not safe,” but that’s worlds apart from saying that Shop and Home Ec shouldn’t be taught at all.

2. As for the anti-bullying thing, when I was a kid, bullying was pretty much ignored, and there was very much a culture of “What did you do to bring this on?” The pendulum may have swung too far in the other direction by now, but at least someone’s doing something. Finding the perfect balance won’t happen overnight, but in the meantime, schools SHOULD be “safe zones.” As long as the teachers and administrators aren’t just putting up the “safe zone” signs and assuming the problem is fixed, and saying, “We don’t have a bullying problem at our school,” I think it’s a step in the right direction. It’s not just LGBTQQ kids, and kids on the spectrum, who need to feel safe at school, it’s everyone–it’s the overweight kids, and the lower-income kids, and the kid who just got braces, the kid whose parents are getting divorced, the girl who’s feeling self-conscious in her new training bra, the boy who tripped over his feet yesterday in gym class, and fell on his face……and so on, and so forth. Adolescence is a difficult time, but adults can make it easier by modelling kind and compassionate behaviour. So, the “safe zone” signs are a good idea, as long as they’re backed up with actions.

3. Ideally, parents should teach kids about relationships, but a lot of parents don’t. Maybe they don’t have time, or worse yet, maybe they teach entirely the wrong lessons, because mom and dad are divorced, or they fight all the time, or maybe one parent is in the military or something, and hardly ever home. Maybe BOTH parents work long hours, and are hardly ever home. Maybe there’s only one parent to begin with, for whatever reason. Maybe that parent has to work long hours to make ends meet, or maybe that parent has a string of short-term partners. Either way, kids learn what they live, and given the fact that we can’t assume that every kid lives in a Leave It To Beaver (or even Brady Bunch) kind of family anymore, I think it’s a good thing that the schools are taking some initiative here.

4. There’s a right and a wrong way to go about this. Maybe the “safe zone” signs could be rephrased as “positive space,” with positive words, of things you DO want to see–kind words, sharing, encouraging, co-operation, trying new things, being inclusive, etc., instead of a bunch of negative things with a big red circle and slash through them. That’s kind of where I was going with my opinion on Shop and Home Ec, and the class about relationships (which should ideally be combined with sex ed, or V.I.P., D.A.R.E., or similar. So, basically, my approach, if I were in charge, would be to teach kids, “Be kind, be open-minded, work together, use your words to solve your conflicts, get high on life instead of drugs, wear oven mitts when you cook, safety goggles when you use power tools, and condoms when you have sex. If you have any questions, please ask me or another adult, and if you want to ask privately, find me after class, or write your question on a piece of paper, without your name, and put it in this box.” It’s nothing new–it’s pretty much what I grew up with, between home, school, various teen magazines, and the early incarnations of the Internet.

@Warren, “life skills” just sounds like what used to be called “home economics,” and was traditionally taught in schools. We had courses available in sewing, woodworking, cooking, basic money management, and other basic life skills. Honestly, I wish I’d taken the opportunity to take more of those classes–how I wish I’d taken an auto mechanics class!–because the basic sewing, cooking, and woodworking skills I learned have served me far more than my two years of French or my advanced math courses.

Now, I’m not saying that we should replace academics with life skills, but I think there’s absolutely a place for learning practical skills–which can, for some students, become professions–in school. Sure, students may learn some of these skills at home. But, you may not have access to the materials you need to learn sewing or woodworking or metalworking unless you have a parent who does those things as a hobby (or career), and even if your parent does know how to do those things, they may not be great at teaching them. One of my favorite things my son learned in school last year was gardening. I don’t know how to garden, and he was able to share his knowledge with me. And, he loved it! It was a great break from academics, and allowed the kids to create something tangible that they felt good about. That’s a skill they can carry with them all throughout life.

Plus, a good teacher will be able to make connections between practical skills and academics. Gardening can involve science, history, and math, if the teacher makes those connections for the students. I use math more for sewing, knitting, and cooking than I use it for anything else!

@Emily, the pendulum has absolutely swung WAY too far. We now have schools full of children who ALL feel they are victims of bullying. You see situation after situation with two kids both sure they are “victims.” The problem with framing all conflicts between kids as bullying is that 1) nobody is going to own up to being the bully of course and 2) in most cases that’s valid, because the vast majority of conflicts between kids are not true bullying situations but run-of-the-mill interpersonal conflicts that they both played a role in creating and sustaining.

One of the problems I have with “anti-bullying” campaigns is that they divide kids into two groups, victims and bullies. And bullies are the evil out-group that nobody of course wants to admit they are a part of. So you end up, again, with a school of all victims of bullying with nobody willing to admit to being a bully.

Reality is not that simple. Most kids engage, at some point, in bullying-type behavior. And most kids are, at some point, the target of bullying-type behavior. And certainly all kids, at some point, treat another child badly and are treated badly themselves. (I can remember times when I was made fun of in elementary school. I can also remember, with great shame, how cruel I could be, as well. I’m far more troubled remembering when I treated others badly than I am remembering the times I was treated badly.)

I think we’d do well to throw out “bullying” language altogether and simply focus on the fact that all kids are capable of both being cruel and being treated cruelly, that most interpersonal conflicts involve wrong choices on both sides, and that we should strive to treat others with kindness and respect and, when they fail to treat us that way in kind, most of the time we can simply shrug it off and move on. Cases of true, systematic bullying are much less common, and I don’t think we serve anybody by throwing the term “bullying” around lightly. It adds unnecessary levels of drama to everyday conflicts (as well as dissuading kids from taking responsibility for their part in them) and undermines the seriousness of actual bullying when it really does happen.

anon,

We had all those things available to us, in high school. Every course you could want, with room available in your schedule to select whatever you wanted.

In a time where so many kids do not get any exercise whatsoever, including the cutbacks of recess and such, do we really want to take away phys ed time to teach them how to sew, cook and the like………..that is insanity.

You don’t like second languages, then don’t take them in high school. But without them being taught before that, students won’t have been exposed and therefore have no idea whatsoever if they would like or be interested in a second language.

@John
“Now this was back when bullying was considered physical like when a bigger, stronger or tougher child physically harrassed a weaker kid. ”

Which is still what bullying is, and is considered, by anyone not deliberately trying to confuse the issue (such as accusing some kid of being oversensitive to name-calling when in fact he was pinned down and punched in the face).

@Anonymous Mom–Maybe the pendulum has swung too far, but I was legitimately bullied in elementary school; as in, beaten up on the way home from school every day in grade four, had things stolen from me in grade six, and I experienced “mean-girl” relational aggression pretty much constantly from grades four through eight, with a brief oasis in grade seven, because I had a truly gifted teacher, who promoted community, and co-operation, and kindness, and made those things seem SO MUCH COOLER than fighting and arguing with each other, by taking us on fun field trips, organizing class parties, playing with us in gym class instead of just watching/coaching. He also blatantly didn’t tolerate deliberate cruelty, but the actual phrase “bullying” rarely came up. That’s what I think we’re both in favour of–emphasize and model the behaviour you DO want to see, don’t focus on the “bully and victim” dynamic, and engineer things so that life is more fun when everyone gets along, stepping gradually back from that as the kids get older, and start doing it on their own:

@Warren:

“In a time where so many kids do not get any exercise whatsoever, including the cutbacks of recess and such, do we really want to take away phys ed time to teach them how to sew, cook and the like………..that is insanity.”

Well, to flip that around, one could just as easily say, “In a time where so many people don’t know how to cook, mend clothing, and do simple household repairs, do we really want to take time away from that, to teach the students how to play sports?” Ideally, both life skills and physical education (not necessarily sports), should be made priorities. I’ve said this before, but I think there should ideally be a “non-competitive” gym class offered alongside the traditional curriculum of basketball, volleyball, floor hockey, and soccer and baseball in the spring, that could include things like yoga, swimming, weight lifting, Zumba/aerobics classes, and nature walks when it’s nice out–basically, a class that teaches kids that exercise doesn’t have to be about winning, and losing, and humiliation. Better yet, maybe the school could partner with a gym or health club, and then just turn the students loose and say, “Pick something here to do for the next hour or so.” But, whatever the case, I think most adults can look back and say that they spend much more time cooking, mending, repairing, planning meals, and exercising than they do dissecting frogs or solving for X. Again, that’s not to say that academics should be scrapped entirely, but “life skills” should be promoted more, and not derided as a “bird course” for people who “probably aren’t going to make it to university anyway.” That kind of mentality is a recipe for students who can’t take care of themselves once they get to university…..or worse yet, OUT of university, where there are even fewer support systems in place if you mess up. So, Life Skills versus Physical Education shouldn’t be “either/or,” it should be “both/and.”

At any rate this post was bait and switch. Boooo.

I think all of us, children and adults, would be better off if we spent less time thinking about the wrongs others did to us and the ways in which they damaged us than we did about the ways that we wrong others and damage them. I find that unfortunately a lot of pop psychology encourages a kind of unreflective navel-gazing, where we all become convinced we’re victims (and, even worse, that we can’t really help our own bad behavior toward others, since after all we’re damaged) and that’s trickled down heavily into schools.

Again, I think people should treat each other kindly, of course. But, the emphasis must be on that–on individuals treating others kindly, not narrowly focusing on all of the times they were treated unkindly. My problem with the “anti-bullying” stuff I saw in my son’s school–and that my friends have also reported seeing in other schools–is not that it was emphasizing treating others kindly, but that it ended up doing the opposite, by leading students to identify as “victims” even when they instigated the situation or were engaged in mean behavior themselves.

SOA,
No one said emotional and verbal abuse does not exist.

But not being in the popular clique, being picked last for teams, not being invited to parties and such is not bullying. Never has been and never will be.

It is not bullying not being liked. It is life.

And I will tell you right now, someone that stands up to their bully, be it a physical or psychological bully, is far better off than someone that does nothing about it. Toughen up, deal with it, get past it and grow up. All sound advice throughout the generations.

@Emily Another problem with go and hit him strategy is that aggressive bullies are often physically stronger and better at beating others. Plus they have friends to back them up while the bullied kid is usually loner.

The whole “bullied kid suddenly hit the bully back and all bullies run away and everybody was happy ever after” is cool story that I am sure happened at least once. I am however also pretty sure that the kid who suddenly hit back was more often retaliated against afterwords by bully and his friends.

That strategy might work with some kids, but will not help shy physically weaker kids. It wont help slightly weird kids. It just makes them shut up until they finally go to high school or college and remember how much they hated they previous school.

“So people are actually okay with having their kids lose out on phys ed. and second languages, because other parents cannot take the time to teach basic life skills?”

Where are the kids losing out on phys ed or second languages? They are taking those as well.

I never had PE every day. We had it once or twice a week in elementary and middle school and for a grand total of one semester out of the entire 4 years of high school. That seems sufficient to me.

Personally, I would prefer to see this FACS class alternating with PE and foreign language meeting every day, but that is a completely different argument from this is not a class that should be taken at all.

@Andy–Good point about the “hit back” advice being flawed, because the instigator is often bigger, stronger, better at fighting, and has more friends than the other kid. Another problem is, well, remember the Columbine shooting? The ostracized kids fought back, in a BIG way, by shooting up the whole school, after so many years of being bullied and marginalized. Now, that’s an extreme example, but a lot of the time, kids who start fights are more popular than the kids they start the fights with, so adults are more likely to side with the popular kid, especially if said popular kid knows how to ingratiate him-or-herself to adults. Remember Eddie Haskell from Leave It To Beaver, or Angelica from Rugrats, or more recently, Holly J from Degrassi: The Next Generation? Even a kind, firm, compassionate, and supposedly impartial principal like Snake (or, more properly, Mr. Simpson) doesn’t see everything that goes on, and a smart kid can manipulate the story to their advantage. Now, throw in the fact that not every adult even tries to make things fair, for whatever reason–maybe they believe in teaching kids that “life isn’t fair,” or maybe they’re just overwhelmed with other things, or they can’t see the whole situation, so it’s just easier to side with the popular, bright, athletic, more convincing kid.

Emily,
I don’t know what reject school you went to, but team sports was not the only thing in phy ed. There was health classes, individual fitness, individual sports and team sports. Wow you are extreme.

And I will guarantee you that Columbine was not standing up for themselves. It was from years of being bullied and having to internalize it, building and building. If they had stood up for themselves and not been told they were wrong for doing so, they may not have gone the route they did. When you tell someone that they are just as wrong as the bully, for defending themselves, you are doing a a great deal of damage.
And I have seen it first hand when a smaller weaker kid stands up to a bully, and gained respect from others, that in turn are willing to stand with them.
In the end, you can choose to be a victim or you can do something about it.

Warren – This isn’t a “new course.” I had basically the same course in 6th grade in 1980. My mother had basically the same course in 6th grade in 1962.

Nor do we have any information whatsoever that this was even a new course for this school or that PE and foreign languages were being offered more frequently in previous years. Middle school orientation is something that you only go to when your child enters middle school, not something that you do every year, so Nancy’s son is an entering 6th grader. It is certainly possible that Nancy has older children who attended this middle school previously. It is equally possible that this is her only or oldest child and she has never stepped foot in this middle school before. We have absolutely no idea which. She doesn’t say that this is a change from previous children or give us any comparison information about what the school was doing previously.

But regardless, as you said, there are limited hours in the day. I don’t think PE needs to be a daily class and I am perfectly fine with it only being offered on alternating days. For that matter, I don’t really think ANY class NEEDS to meet every day. Most weren’t in my middle school. The only classes that we had every day were English, math and reading. Everything else was every other day.

@Warren:

“Emily,
NO NO NO. A bullied kid that stands up for themselves and takes it to the bully is not in anyway saying it was okay for the bully to hit them in the first place. That is the exact kind of crap that has things so messed up.”

No, but an adult telling a bullied kid to hit back, is essentially saying that hitting is okay. Even if the adult says “It’s okay to hit back, but never start it,” the message is that the solution to hitting is more hitting. When you extrapolate this to other forms of aggression, it can get really, really out of hand.

@Andy–I outlined in previous posts that the solution to bullying is to create a safe and positive community in the classroom/school/team/Scout group/whatever in the first place, like my grade seven teacher did. It was basically, “You’re all cool kids, you each bring something special to our class, and we’re going to have a lot of fun together. But, if I see any deliberate cruelty, I’m cracking down on it.” This wasn’t fake self-esteem either–there was one boy in the class who was amazing at football, a girl who was amazing at soccer, a boy who was great at art, another girl who did perfect impressions of Beavis and Butthead (circa 1996-1997, right at the height of their popularity), and I was the one who people always went to for help with schoolwork. Our teacher helped us see that in ourselves, and in each other, and he encouraged us to use our unique skills to work together to make our class a happy and productive place. It worked, we had a wonderful year, and then he was transferred to another school, and everything went back to the way it was in grade eight. So, kids want to do the right thing, but they need adults to give them the tools, at least at first. If that happens, then stuff like the Columbine shooting is much less likely to occur.

As for Shop and Home Economics crowding out foreign languages and physical education, we did all of those things in late elementary school (although Shop and Home Economics (called “Family Studies” at my school) weren’t regular courses; just a unit we did for a few weeks, either visiting another school, or they came to us with the equipment). In high school, French was mandatory in grade nine, as was Business, as was Technology–the latter was taught in short units to see what we might like to specialize in later. After that, you got to pick, but Technology and Family Studies courses were seen as “bird courses” that the “non-university stream” students took. I did fine without these courses, because I learned to cook and sew and things at home (although I’m not great at the Technology side of the equation–I was exposed to it, but I’m just not mechanically inclined). However, not every kid grows up with parents who are willing to teach them to sew (age five for me), or cook (around age six), or do their own laundry (age ten). So, fast-forward to university, or college, or their first apartment–at that point, it’s just good that SOMEONE taught the kids (now young adults) these basic skills, regardless of whether it was their parents, or the school.

P.S., Warren, I should have clarified about physical education courses–in elementary school, it was almost entirely team sports, or things that favoured the more co-ordinated athletically-inclined kids, like running, jump rope, or (briefly) gymnastics. When I was in high school, the program was much better. Boys and girls were taught separately, and the curriculum also included things like weight lifting, aerobics (although Zumba hadn’t yet been invented), and self-defence. At least, we took self-defence, and the boys took wrestling, but I think that changed after my year, when one boy broke his leg wrestling in gym class, so badly that he could only navigate the first floor of the school for about two months, and had to sit by himself in a small room, and have all his schoolwork brought to him for the duration of his injury. I think wrestling was phased out after that incident, and also, the year after mine had the option of taking dance instead of regular gym. So, by the end of grade nine, I hated physical activity slightly less, but I still stopped taking P.E., because it was only mandatory in grade nine, and the following years were co-ed again (terrifying for me when I was fourteen), and included a lot of competitive team sports.

If there had been a non-competitive gym option, I might have considered it, but there wasn’t. There are probably ways to make that work even in earlier grades. For example, Teacher A and Teacher B could be partners. Half the kids in each class sign up for competitive gym, and half for non-competitive (it won’t be mathematically perfect in real life, but work with me here). Teacher A teaches competitive gym to both classes on Mondays, Wednesdays, and alternating Fridays, while Teacher B teaches art to the non-competitive gym kids, from both classes, on those days. Then, on Tuesdays, Thursdays, and alternating Fridays, Teacher B teaches non-competitive gym, while Teacher A teaches art. That’s just one solution, but it doesn’t require any extra resources; just a bit of creativity.

Emily,
Listen to yourself. Sheesh, do you possibly think, now try hard but think, that in phys ed they teach these things and do these things to help growing boys and girls develope hand eye coordination, balance, strength and reflexes….all skills that no matter who you are are beneficial.

@Warren–I’m not saying that kids should never be exposed to competitive sports, but it surely doesn’t take from K-12 (or even K-8, or K-6) for a kid who’s completely hopeless at sports, to realize it. Also, it’s possible to teach skills like running, throwing, and catching outside the context of competitive sports. So, I could see teaching a general gym class for the early years (which would include the hand-eye co-ordination skills you described, as well as other things, such as swimming, Zumba, yoga, etc.), have some informal “scrimmage” type games, with teams picked by the teachers so they’re even, and then by grade four or five or so, split gym into competitive and non-competitive options. There’s no need to bludgeon kids with something they absolutely hate for twelve or thirteen (or even eight or nine) years of their lives, when that something is non-essential. I still can’t throw or catch very well, but I’m a good swimmer, I’m decent at Zumba, and I teach yoga–the latter of which I’m heading off to do pretty soon.

Warren – There wasn’t an announcement. The article stated that Nancy went to 6th grade orientation, saw the class on the schedule and asked what it was. I’d ask too since it isn’t readily apparent what Family and Consumer Science is all about. But a class being new to a new middle school parent is different than a class being new to a school.

Emily,
With emphasis on ducking and blocking? Are you freaking kidding me? Yes let’s teach a course on how to be a trained punching bag.

Traditionally I have found breaking the other’s nose to be far more effective. Even if you don’t break it, eyes tear up, nose bleeds, makes it difficult for them to hit you, if they can’t see you.

A lot of what you are preaching looks great on paper, but sucks in reality. When emotions are charged, adreniline pumping, a kid standing in the middle saying “Let’s talk this out.”, 99.9% of the time, gets hit.

Emily – All that culture stuff is great, but schools will likely have bullies and bullied. Much of that comes from home, so unless the parents of the bullies are willing to cut it off, it will still happen.

“I agree not being invited to the party is not bullying unless they invite the entire class except one kid.”

However, that negates the idea that there could be a very good reason why that one kid was not invited that has everything to do with that kid and nothing to do with bullying.

For example, at my last office, we had a great group of attorneys except one who was universally thought to be particularly unpleasant. We got together as a group outside of work occasionally, but we never invited her. We simply had no desire to be in her presence one minute longer than we had to be. Luckily, she lived in a different city from the rest of us so the exclusion was not as identifiable.

Taunting someone you aren’t inviting is bullying. Not inviting someone, no matter how many other people you invite, who would make the party unpleasant is not bullying.

FACS is just the new name for home economics. I would think free-range parents would be thrilled with the idea of kids learning to cook, sew, and budget. In my high school the FACS department also offered classes like: personal finance, parenting, cooking healthy, single living, and parenting. I never took any because they weren’t required for me and my parents had taught me most of that stuff.

“so you would not think it would be bullying for them to invite everyone in the class but the one black kid? Or the one handicapped child? Or the one fat girl?”

First off, what class has only one black kid and only one fat kid? But the real answer is it depends. If the one of whatever of those people is a person that the guest of honor genuinely doesn’t like for whatever reason than no. Just because you are a minority or handicapped or fat doesn’t mean that you must be included by everyone. Some people are just not going to like you regardless. Now if that one person is not being invited to any parties, bullying may be happening.

But even then, the fact is that some people are just not fun or particularly pleasant to be around. They don’t have to be horrible assholes. They could just be annoying or unpleasant or maybe even just very socially awkward. Those people are going to be excluded from gatherings. They are probably going to be excluded from many of them actually. Forcing everyone else to be miserable at parties to appease one person is not the answer.

Dolly,

If a kid lost a scholarship for standing up to a bully, I guarantee you other Universities would jump on the PR bandwagon, and offer ones at their schools.

We don’t have one fat kid per class here but we do have one black kid per class. Same for one Asian or Hispanic kid per class. Our school is predominantly white.

You might get one non white kid per classroom at our school. I wish there was only one fat kid per class but unfortunately we are seeing more and more chunky kids.

I was raised that you don’t have to be BFF with everyone but as long as someone is nice it is better to err on the side of inviting them rather than excluding them. I was always allowed to invite my whole class or at least all the girls. Sure I was not even that close to some of them but it did not hurt that they were there either. We all still had fun.

My main point it is a slippery slope to say it is never bullying or rude to exclude people because then you fall into groups like the one poor kid being excluded or the one black kid being excluded or the one handicapped kid being excluded just because they are not like everyone else and I don’t think we want to go down that road.

So I am never going to make an all in statement that not inviting someone is always okay and never bullying. It most certainly can be.

Warren: So a guy asking you out for a joke and then mocking her over it is not bullying? I can’t wait till a guy does that to your daughter and see how you feel about it.

SOA,
Really? You think I would actually have to do anything. My girls are more than capable of handling things themselves.

Let’s see, well if a punk did that to one of my girls, I would more than likely be explaining to his parents why my daughter broke his nose, tooth or gave him a black eye.

My girls don’t take crap from anyone, and as a matter of fact they stick up for those that are being bullied.

They both agree, that you can be a victim of bullying. How long you remain a victim is entirely up to you.

And let’s get something straight. People have the right to invite who they want to something they are planning. They are under no obligation to include everyone. And to invite people you do not want there, just for the sake of being nice, isn’t being nice, it is being pathetic.

P.S., About the party invitation thing, it’s fine to exclude the one child in the class who’s mean and nasty to others (logical consequences), but “just not cool enough” really isn’t a good reason. At the very least, if a small minority are to be left out, the decent thing to do would be to distribute the invitations outside of school. I was taught as a child not to talk about events I was planning to or around people who weren’t invited, and

Oh, another thing–Warren, you say that you’d allow/encourage your daughters to beat up a guy if he asked them out on a date as a prank, and then stood them up, right? Well, you asked me if I’d ever been in a fight, so…..have you ever been a teenage girl? I’m assuming not. These situations always seem to favour boys–if that situation actually played out in real life, it wouldn’t be “Billy asked Sally out on a date as a prank, and then stood her up, what a horrible thing to do,” it’d be “Sally went crazy, beat up Billy, and broke his tooth. She’s psycho.” That’s not even touching the (typical) size and strength disparity–the social scene is almost always going to paint the girl as an irrational shrew, no matter how justified she is.

@SOA
“Around here we have zero tolerance so if you fight back against a bully you end up suspended too and/or arrested and/or expelled and/or with a bad mark on your records.”

So … just let them knock all your teeth out? Crack your skull? Even kill you? All that can be done, and has been done, by unarmed assailants.

I don’t understand this “we have zero tolerance”. If you do, then the people who are running things are totally, completely, indisputably evil. Evil. I don’t care how common this is these days. Put them out of power. At all costs.

@SOA
“You are supposed to cower on the ground and let them beat you until someone pulls them off of you pretty much and then you still might get suspended.”

Suspended? So what? So your goal is to avoid being suspended at all costs? Oh, wait, you just said they’d get suspended anyway, so passivity doesn’t even help.

Why do you, or anybody, grant any legitimacy to the purveyors of zero tolerance? They’re just pure evil. Call them that and advocate action accordingly.

@Donna @SOA How big are classes in your schools anyway? In here it can be anything between 22 for youngest to over thirty for older. The situation where someone invites all kids from school does not tend to happen. Even if people do big party, they tend to invite few friend from school, few from club or church and add some neighborhood kids.

The “every kid in class except one” situation sounds to me theoretical.

I would consider it red flag if it would happen. It means that an adult should take close look at the relationships between those kids and help them re-integrated the lonely one. I do not even think it does matter all that much whether we call it group fault (bullying) or individual fault (royally annoying behavior of the shunned kid).

If it is later case, shunning that kid will not make him more pleasant to be around. The kid probably does not know what he/she is doing wrong or does not care. It is job of adult to teach him how to behave differently.

If it is former case, forcing them to take the kid in will not make them appreciate the kid. They will just bully him at the party.

It it is one off thing, the kid is temporary uninvited due to some this week conflict and otherwise integrated, then it is not bullying. Just a normal conflict.

Emily,
If my daughter was pranked in such and emotional way as the fake date thing, and she went in and gave him a shot, I would be damn proud of her. My girls would not go nuts, it would be one good shot to teach him a lesson.

We are also living in 2014 and they would not be seen as a crazy shrew. They would be seen as someone that doesn’t take crap, and as someone not to f— with. And that is never a bad thing.

Stacy,
If you allowed your kid to be suspended or punished at all for standing up for themselves against a bully……….then you are a weak failure of a parent. Allowing that only tells them they did wrong, when in actual fact they were right.

You have come up with a long list of excuses, and cop outs. Which tells me you haven’t gotten over it, or dealt with it.

And no one said taunting the uninvited wasn’t mean or bullying. But there is absolutely nothing wrong with not inviting people. That is life. Deal with it. Grow up.

“I also think it’s important to teach people to be empowered and not view themselves as merely victims.” Just how do you do that without them standing up for themselves?

“It is job of adult to teach him how to behave differently.”

It is the job of that child’s parents and possibly the teacher. It is not a job that Susie’s mom has to take upon herself at Susie’s birthday party. And until the child does learn how to behave expecting everyone else to just put up with it is ridiculous.

That is one of the problems with labeling everything as bullying now. Bullying automatically means that it is the other person’s problem. The parents of the shunned kid are excused from looking at their own kid’s behavior. After all that is blaming the victim.

“If you allowed your kid to be suspended or punished at all for standing up for themselves against a bully……….then you are a weak failure of a parent. Allowing that only tells them they did wrong, when in actual fact they were right.”

Really Warren, what are you going to do? Beat up the principal for suspending your kid? Stage a sit-in and refuse to leave until you are arrested for trespassing? Send your kid to school anyway until she is arrested for trespassing?

If your kid is suspended, your only recourse is to request a hearing before the school board. If the school board upholds the suspension, your kid is suspended. You can appeal to the state board of education and file a lawsuit, but these things will be resolved long after the suspension is over. Even if you unenroll the child from school, the suspension stays permanently on record.

So, while you can show your child that you will fight with every weapon you have on their behalf, you may very well fail in all your efforts and your child is still suspended. We see it on this blog all the time. Lenore has posted several stories about kids who were suspended for stupid crap with parents who take the cases to hearings, the press, lawsuits and STILL lose.

Personally, I wouldn’t even try to lift the suspension unless my kid was going to miss something important to her. I don’t care if she beats up a bully so she’s not in trouble with me. She can go have a fun on a few extra days vacation.

@Donna We had been in the same class of kids every year too, but we were always split into smaller groups of closer friends. You would invite your close friends group, not whole class, so anybodies mom did not had to solve anything.

There were lonely kids of course, I was one of them at elementary. I was not bullied, just shy and lonely. No one mocked me or made fun of me. Field trips, picnics and such were not different then usual school days, really. If you are without close friends in school every day, being without them on field trip is pretty much the same thing.

There are no parents on field trips, only teachers, so Sussies mom does not have to care about this one.

Although I came up with strategy how to find someone to talk with – I started to smoke. It was somehow easier to break the ice when smoking in hiding and they accepted me after that.

I became part of the group only after I went to academically oriented high school. None of my elementary school classmates went to academic school, all went for trade. I guess the whole problem was that I was somewhat different then them and it ceased to be problem after split. Given that they accepted me after I smoked and given that I had no problems later on, I think it was me being more academically oriented, not me being totally obnoxious.

I think that the word bullying ceased to have any meaning. It used to mean pattern of bad behavior towards someone, now it means just “any one time less then perfect behavior toward others”.

Stacey,
try answering the question. How do you empower them without having them stand up for themselves?

Since I have bumped into former taunters (not the worst ones but ones that did some bad behavior towards me) as an adult and they were super nice to me now and some even apologized for their behavior towards me now. I think that proves that adults typically don’t act like kids do when it comes to stuff like bullying. So we don’t expect or allow or tolerate that behavior as adults, but somehow accepting it in a school setting with children is okay? Yeah not so much.

Our school has about 19 kids per class. I invite the whole class for my twins birthday party so that is two classes of 19 kids PLUS all the other kids we know from other places. So I end up inviting around 50 kids. But in our area it is not common to expect many of those kids from school to actually show up. I might get 1 or 2. Just how it is here. A lot of parents are too busy on the weekends to have time to do the parties. Or the kids have sports on the weekends. Or they don’t wanna spend money on the present. Or the parents are working on the weekends. Or whatever. It is not just my kids, but it is like that for most people I talk to.

So I invite everyone and no where near everyone shows up. I invite about 50 kids and end up around anywhere from 15-30 showing up for two kids so that is pretty good. We invite kids from activities, church, my friend’s kids, neighborhood kids, school, kids from their preschool they used to know, etc.

“As for the “asking a girl out on a date as a prank” thing, if that happened outside of school hours, and the girl on the receiving end of the prank beat up the instigator during school hours”

That is criminal assault for which the girl can be prosecuted, regardless of where she beats him up. Punching someone who is PHYSICALLY threatening you is self-defense. Punching someone who pulled a psychological prank on you, but never touched you in any way is assault.

@Warren–Why would you want to defend me? You think I’m a moron, don’t you? Of course, the last time someone tried to beat me up was many years ago, so I don’t see myself needing a “white knight” any time soon, so it’s a moot point. That’s why I was just trying to point out that most adults don’t often find themselves in situations where they’re being assaulted, and the only course of action is to hit back, while that situation seems to arise much more frequently for kids, because of messed-up “zero tolerance” policies that punish the kid who defends him-or-herself along with the instigator.

@Donna–Good point about physical retaliation for a psychological prank being illegal, and cause for assault charges. I don’t know how I missed that obvious point. I think my friend Julie had it right–she retaliated for psychological meanness (teasing and taunting) with a prank that made things inconvenient, but didn’t cause any physical pain or lasting emotional trauma (taping the bully’s lock, writing a “revenge” message on his locker with lip gloss). He got the message, she didn’t get punished, and life moved on–vigilante justice enacted by a fourteen-year-old girl.

@Donna Dont the kid have to cause real damage and injury for cops to charge him in that situation? I do not think our local cops would bother too much with Warrens daughter punching some boy and the whole thing would go to nowhere. They would not be willing to bother with paperwork over something like that.

“Dont the kid have to cause real damage and injury for cops to charge him in that situation?”

Have to? No. Whether Warren’s daughter would be charged would depend on the jurisdiction. The jurisdiction where I work the most would without a doubt charge Warren’s daughter in juvenile court and suspend her from school. She would without a doubt be found guilty by the judge and the suspension would stand (I’ve been down similar roads many times). The jurisdiction where I live is more lenient. Warren’s daughter would definitely be suspended, but the school is unlikely to bring charges in juvenile court without an injury.

How often kids and teenagers physically fight in your schools (friendly boxer match does not count)? I remember exactly zero fights in our high school and maybe one or two fights during whole elementary school. Those elementary school fights were broken up and that was it.

I checked out how does assault works in here. If you cause injuries that heal for longer then 6 days, then it can be assault and crime. If they heal faster, then it is not a crime – just lower offense which can be punished by fine or “warning” e.g. warning in this case.

Donna,
And all those charges just goes to prove how messed up society and schools are these days.

Whatever happened to the fight being broke up and parents called. End of story.

Or in really harsh incidents the principal taking the two combatants into the gym, putting them on the mat, with boxing gloves and telling them to settle it once and for all.

Much better ways than arresting them.

Warren – I agree totally. It is part of the school to prison pipeline that is so prevalent in the underprivileged school districts in the US.

Further it exemplifies our really warped vision of childhood. On one hand, we don’t think that they are capable of functioning without adult supervision until they are teenagers … unless they do something that could be defined as criminal. Then they should be treated like adults and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

@ Remy. That makes sense. But I’m left wondering if most parents and teachers are thinking the same line as you.

Sure the class is suppose to strengthen students’ competence at everyday household tasks and engender independence. But is this teaching consistent? Yes they learn it at school, under direct supervision by the teacher. Now, will they be able to do the same things on their own, WITHOUT supervision. Especially being alone at home. If they can’t, or not allowed to, then this class is pretty pointless. Kind of like taking a kid to a toy store, telling them they can look but not touch. They can want, but you won’t buy.

As for the safe zones, I think most people would automatically think it literally. So if kids are getting bullied at school, they can go to these “safe zones” and they will be protected? The bullies will be reprimanded? Considering many schools are too afraid of litigation, and many don’t do much about bullying other than talk about, I don’t think these safe zones are very safe zones.

I find to many are talking and saying things, but not actually meaning it, or following through. People want kids to grow up independent, but don’t allow them to be independent. They say this and that is dangerous, but other “dangerous” things are mentioned, because it will only inconvenience the adults. ie. driving kids to school. Thousands of kids die or get injured in auto collisions every year, far more than kids getting abducted by a stranger in a park. Yet, no one talks about NOT putting their kids in cars. Double standards. And it only benefits the adults, less so for the children.

When I was in grade 2, all kids learned Home Economics. We learned sewing, cooking, woodshop, and pottery making. Teachers showed us HOW to do things, but it was up to us to do them. So we fired up the oven, and put and pulled things out of it. We used shears, needle and thread, and a sewing machine, by ourselves. We used hammers, nails, jigsaw, saw, etc… The only things the teachers did was to see if we were doing it correctly, and correcting us if we didn’t. And we weren’t allowed to use the table saw. Only because it was to high for us to use. Same with the kiln. Everything else was on us. THAT is Family and Consumer Science. THAT is how you teach independence and competence.

And when we got home, we would tell our parents, and they would insist on us doing things on our own as well. We helped cook. Used a knife by ourselves. Stir the pot. Fry that egg. Only this generation of kids seem to be removed from all of this. What past generations have considered childhood, is considered a death sentence to kids these days. Sad.

Andy – Cops don’t get called to the high schools in many of the areas where I work. Middle schools either. There is a school resource officer assigned to every school. This is a cop employed by the local police department whose post is the school.

Donna,
That in itself is just sickening, that their are cops posted to schools. Why? Is it that Lord of the Flies down there?

@Warren–My high school, where I attended from 1998-2003 (my year was the last year to have OAC), had police officers as regular fixtures in the school, beginning in September of 2001, so, early grade twelve. Most of the time, they were just there, and they didn’t intervene for anything short of criminal behaviour, but when coupled with a new pair of vice-principals who brought with them a “strict discipline regime” to “crack down on all the problem students,” it felt a little oppressive, especially for myself and my friends, who got mostly good grades, participated in extra-curricular activities, and stayed out of trouble. After a while, they sort of faded into the background, and things slowly went back to normal, but it was a tense few months.

@Warren–The teachers and administrators handled all the normal behaviour issues, but the police officers intervened for things like assault with weapons, drug dealing, repeated truancy, smoking in areas where smoking wasn’t allowed (we had two smoking areas that were technically off school property, but within view, and our school was open campus), and other things that constituted true criminal behaviour. I think it’s a bit of a stretch to say that a teacher “shouldn’t be teaching” if he or she can’t stand up to six-foot-tall fifteen-year-old boys with knives or brass knuckles. Anyway, I only saw these things peripherally (although, there was one girl in my drama class in grade twelve who was a known drug dealer), because I didn’t participate, but I think the administrators realized that they needed some outside assistance to deal with some of the more difficult students, rather than simply expelling them immediately. As for the rest of us, after a certain point, the police officers just sort of faded into the woodwork–they didn’t even speak to us, unless we spoke to them first, and we all just went about our classes, practices, games, meetings, rehearsals, friendships, and romantic relationships, as we’d always done. I mean, of course it felt strange, and yes, we spoke up about it in student council, but the administration wasn’t going to back down, so we decided to just make the best of things, and do what we could to make school as normal as possible for everyone, even with the cops there. One more thing–having police officers in the school on a regular basis made it easier to plan school dances, because we’d always had police officers there for those, because some people thought it was fun to show up drunk or high. So, having police officers right there meant that we could ask them before having to call and ask around at the police station, and chances were, at least one of them would be available.

@Emily Police intervened also for smoking and smoking constitutes true criminal behavior? I’m glad we did not had cops in our school to arrest criminal me back then.

Emily,
Your examples of why they need cops in the school, are just excuses to get cops in there, so that the school employees didn’t have to deal with stuff that they should have been, like the smoking, and truancy.

If some huge idiot is in there with weapons, the teachers back off and call the cops. There is still no need to have armed law enforcement officers patrolling the halls of our schools. You will never be able to make a good case for it.

@Andy–You know what I meant. Smoking isn’t criminal behaviour in itself, but underage smoking, in an area that’s not designated as a smoking area, while cutting class, could be construed as such. That’s the kind of thing the police were there to address; not just people smoking in the proper smoking area (sidewalk out front, or arena parking lot out back) during their lunch or free period.

@Emily If law allows to construct it as criminal, then the law is overly broad in what falls into criminal category. It is insane to use police for smoking in inappropriate area. That is really something teachers and parents should solve without force, arrests, cops and judges.

I’m ok with whole school being non-smoking area. Push to make students stop smoking is good for them, even if those students disagree. Criminalizing them for it makes more harm then cigarettes on unauthorized place.

@Warren–I brought up assault in the workplace as a parallel to school bullying, but it’s such a rare occurrence. That’s why I asked you if you’d ever actually been attacked by another adult at “work, play, church, or the grocery store,” as you said. You said that if that ever happened, then the instigator would be “badly hurt” by your retaliation. I know you’re probably capable of that, but have you ever had to? Like I said before, adults don’t generally engage in violent behaviour, because they’ve either outgrown it, they know they’ll be held accountable for their actions, or both.

See here we go, something happened to my kid yesterday and goes to show sticking up for yourself gets you in trouble. My son says he was playing basketball at recess and he was there first. He was playing with another kid. Then another kid came up and wanted to play too but wanted to play with dirty rules (whatever that means). My son did not want to play like that. So the other kids took the ball and would not give it back. My son asked them to give the ball back and they wouldn’t so he ended up throwing the basketball at them once he got it and hitting them with it or something like that.

My son is the one that got in trouble. Never mind the other boys were guilty too for not really playing fair and trying to take the ball when my son was there first and changing the rules of the game. So all those boys were probably equally responsible for the altercation. So they probably all should have had to be punished. They all needed better conflict resolution.

But only my son got in trouble. That is how it goes.

So I told him next time his only choice is to just walk away. That is all you can do without getting yourself in trouble.

These kids are brutal. My son with autism told me a kid tried to step on his hands and fingers as he was climbing up the climbing wall and trying to knock him off the climbing wall which was about a six foot drop to the ground. So was literally trying to cause a child with autism to be possibly severely injured.

My son said he just climbed back down and ran away. Which I commended him on because guaranteed if he fought back to that kid, my son would have been the one that ended up getting in trouble. That is how it always works.

SOA’s son wasn’t defending himself. He was venting his anger at kids who came into a game and then wanted to change the rules. Defending yourself is not the same as “you made me mad so now I am going to hit you,” which is essentially what was described by SOA.

I’m not saying that the other boys were in the right either, but 7 year old boys are not going to be well-versed in social skills. Which is why the common stance here of “I stay out of childhood disputes and let them work it out” has always bothered me. You don’t need to jump to intervene in every battle, but kids do need to learn social graces from adults. ALL the boys should have been talked to about the incident, not just SOA’s son but also not excluding SOA’s son (which is all SOA is asking for as well).

Donna: exactly. My son was absolutely guilty too. I talked to him about how that could have been handled better. But the other boys got away scot free and they had blame too. They should have been talked to about how if someone is already playing a certain game and there first, you either need to play the same game as them or ask them if it is okay to change the game and follow their lead. They needed some social instruction as well. But in the end my son should not have been violent with the ball and I made sure he understood that.

But the teachers don’t really see that. All they see is my son hitting one of the boys with a basketball. But there is more to the story than that. This type of incident happens a lot.
My son with autism was suspended for four days last year because what basically happened was some boys were calling him a liar about something he was not lying about, and my son got upset and attacked them. I don’t honestly blame my son. He was not lying, they were accusing him of something he did not do, they kept at him over and over till he got upset and so he beat them up.

Only my son got in big trouble though. In that situation I did go over to the school and raised hell about it. I said I wanted the other boys punished too. They should know better to name call and goad a child with autism. I do think one of the boys may have been suspended too. But they claimed they are not allowed legally to tell me exactly what happened to the other kids punishment wise.

I made sure my son got a talking to about how next time something like this happens to go tell the teacher and go away from the boys picking on him.

There are usually two sides to every story and it blame to go around on both sides, but the problem is schools don’t want to deal with actually interviewing witnesses and investigating and finding out what really happened. They just want to hand down a quick punishment so they can say they did something and say case closed. But that is not fair or just a lot of the time.

So sometimes it is just plain laziness on the part of the staff.

But they know now, that if they do something like that to my kids again and every time, I will be over there raising heck and they will have to deal with me. I let the little basketball incident go because nothing serious happened. But with the suspension they had to have 2 IEP meetings and people from central office got called down and everything. Next time they will think twice before unfairly punishing just my kid when other kids were picking on him.