Mika
もえじゃないも
- 1,036
- Posts
- 19
- Years
- Seen Feb 11, 2013
So as many of you know, tomorow's the 10 year anniversary of Columbine. If you don't know what that is, I recommend wikipedia. ;p
Anywho, this brings up the topic of things like metal detectors and other zero tolerance policies in schools as well as the topic of maintaining control in the classroom [which includes topics like corporal punishment in schools.] and what the line is between abuse and discipline in a schoolroom setting.
For those of you who don't know, Corporal Punishment has existed as long as the United States has existed and is still a form of 'proper' school yard punishment in some schools in today's word. been an accepted form of discipline in our schools. The definition of Corporal Punishment is very simple and to the point. Corporal punishment, by definition, is the infliction of pain or confinement as a penalty for an offense committed by a student and includes, but is not limited to, paddling, excessive time outs, including the entrapment of a child in a small enclosed dark spaces and forcing children to consume foods they would not otherwise digest. (this includes things like tobacco sauce or soap.) Many states in the Union have outlawed this practice as a form of acceptable punishment in schools simply because there are people who cross the line from discipline to abuse however it didn't really stick around too long in some areas. As of 1990, (and none of these rulings have been overturned) several schools, mostly consisting of Midwestern and Southern States, have yet to come up with a rule or law of some sort outlawing corporal punishment as an acceptable disciplinary practice despite law suits over over-battered children and media attention to the growing problem. Want an example of how these things slip through the cracks of the law? In an article the long time author of the Arkansas Times David Koon wrote in the case of forced exercise as a form of punishment, a student forced to run laps or do push ups may come to loath physical activities that, had they not been used as punishment, he might have enjoyed had they been taught In a different setting. They had these kids running up and down stairs for literal hours for things that, in another circumstance, would just get them detention.
The basic mindset behind such programs is that corporal punishment allows a teacher to maintain control in the classroom and, in the "world of today" where kids are ridiculously violent, being able to make the first strike could 'prevent further violence' from occurring. If fear of being forced to stand for tipping back a chair or falling asleep or being retained in the classroom over recess is her primary weapon, no child will dare to question the rules for fear of being put through the ordeal they don't want to go through. It's simple psychology. When a child associates pain with something they don't do that something so as to avoid being hurt. They will not repeat the action that caused them pain after a certain amount of time and trial and error because the pain is not pleasing to the child. This then allows the teacher to go on with her plans uninterrupted. The idea comes from the old fasioned proverb of 'Spare the rod Spoil the child." In more basic terminology, by not punishing the child with something that will make them obey, you spoil them. People point at unruly children who come from undisciplined homes and say if they'd simply been smacked around a little they wouldn't be so naughty, what's the point in stopping that now? There's also the argument that kids listen when there's physical consequences involved. Most of you probably know what suspension and expulsion is and you can probably agree that many kids don't give a flying hoothoot about getting one because it's an excuse to skip school. To combat this, many schools implemented the in-school-suspension idea which has the same context as suspension, it's just served in the school. Problem with this is supervision and space. Often kids have to wait for it in some areas or it just turns into a hang out of sorts so some teachers argue that it's just not worth it regardless. Kids hate in school suspensions because often times they're only given enough work for an hour or two and after that they're just supposed to sit there [which in and of itself can cause problems] so many schools, that can get the legal paperwork to do so have started offering paddlings as an alternative to suspensions expulsions. The obvious problems that can occur with this include 'paddlings' that go too far and end up with the child being seriously injured etc.
If this wasn't enough, after Columbine and things like it schools started implementing Zero Tolerance policies which pretty much meant that both parties in a fight, regardless o f guilt receive the exact same treatment. At the highschool I graduated from we were told point blank if we so much as raised our arms to shield ourselves from an attack we'd receive the same punishment as our attacker. There was girl in the Iowa area who was strip searched because they thought she had tylenol on her person which was against the zero tolerance policy. Carrying a spork, in some schools, is the same as carrying a knife. Yes, it makes the school 'safer' but what does 'safer' mean?
My debate questions I guess are as follows
Anywho, this brings up the topic of things like metal detectors and other zero tolerance policies in schools as well as the topic of maintaining control in the classroom [which includes topics like corporal punishment in schools.] and what the line is between abuse and discipline in a schoolroom setting.
For those of you who don't know, Corporal Punishment has existed as long as the United States has existed and is still a form of 'proper' school yard punishment in some schools in today's word. been an accepted form of discipline in our schools. The definition of Corporal Punishment is very simple and to the point. Corporal punishment, by definition, is the infliction of pain or confinement as a penalty for an offense committed by a student and includes, but is not limited to, paddling, excessive time outs, including the entrapment of a child in a small enclosed dark spaces and forcing children to consume foods they would not otherwise digest. (this includes things like tobacco sauce or soap.) Many states in the Union have outlawed this practice as a form of acceptable punishment in schools simply because there are people who cross the line from discipline to abuse however it didn't really stick around too long in some areas. As of 1990, (and none of these rulings have been overturned) several schools, mostly consisting of Midwestern and Southern States, have yet to come up with a rule or law of some sort outlawing corporal punishment as an acceptable disciplinary practice despite law suits over over-battered children and media attention to the growing problem. Want an example of how these things slip through the cracks of the law? In an article the long time author of the Arkansas Times David Koon wrote in the case of forced exercise as a form of punishment, a student forced to run laps or do push ups may come to loath physical activities that, had they not been used as punishment, he might have enjoyed had they been taught In a different setting. They had these kids running up and down stairs for literal hours for things that, in another circumstance, would just get them detention.
The basic mindset behind such programs is that corporal punishment allows a teacher to maintain control in the classroom and, in the "world of today" where kids are ridiculously violent, being able to make the first strike could 'prevent further violence' from occurring. If fear of being forced to stand for tipping back a chair or falling asleep or being retained in the classroom over recess is her primary weapon, no child will dare to question the rules for fear of being put through the ordeal they don't want to go through. It's simple psychology. When a child associates pain with something they don't do that something so as to avoid being hurt. They will not repeat the action that caused them pain after a certain amount of time and trial and error because the pain is not pleasing to the child. This then allows the teacher to go on with her plans uninterrupted. The idea comes from the old fasioned proverb of 'Spare the rod Spoil the child." In more basic terminology, by not punishing the child with something that will make them obey, you spoil them. People point at unruly children who come from undisciplined homes and say if they'd simply been smacked around a little they wouldn't be so naughty, what's the point in stopping that now? There's also the argument that kids listen when there's physical consequences involved. Most of you probably know what suspension and expulsion is and you can probably agree that many kids don't give a flying hoothoot about getting one because it's an excuse to skip school. To combat this, many schools implemented the in-school-suspension idea which has the same context as suspension, it's just served in the school. Problem with this is supervision and space. Often kids have to wait for it in some areas or it just turns into a hang out of sorts so some teachers argue that it's just not worth it regardless. Kids hate in school suspensions because often times they're only given enough work for an hour or two and after that they're just supposed to sit there [which in and of itself can cause problems] so many schools, that can get the legal paperwork to do so have started offering paddlings as an alternative to suspensions expulsions. The obvious problems that can occur with this include 'paddlings' that go too far and end up with the child being seriously injured etc.
If this wasn't enough, after Columbine and things like it schools started implementing Zero Tolerance policies which pretty much meant that both parties in a fight, regardless o f guilt receive the exact same treatment. At the highschool I graduated from we were told point blank if we so much as raised our arms to shield ourselves from an attack we'd receive the same punishment as our attacker. There was girl in the Iowa area who was strip searched because they thought she had tylenol on her person which was against the zero tolerance policy. Carrying a spork, in some schools, is the same as carrying a knife. Yes, it makes the school 'safer' but what does 'safer' mean?
My debate questions I guess are as follows
- Is Corporal Punishment an effective tool in schools?
- Does Zero Tolerance work or is an impeachment on student rights?
- What should be done to keep kids in line in the classroom?
- What is the line between discipline and abuse in the classroom?
- Do students have rights to even complain about things like ZT or CP
- Any experiences with either policies?
- For those outside the US, do you experience anything like this?
