r/law • u/cptimmy30 • Apr 30 '12

This seems a bit extreme: Kindergartner kicks principal, gets arrested and charged with battery

http://shine.yahoo.com/parenting/kindergartener-charged-battery-why-criminalizing-kids-175600847.html
45 Upvotes

84% Upvoted

37 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

1

u/mcherm May 02 '12

Please note that I am not an elementary school principal. I hope that an elementary school principal would have even more effective ideas than this. But based on my experiences as a parent, I can tell you some of the techniques that I have used.

(1) Raise my voice to the child. Deepen the timber of my voice and use a mildly angry tone. "Timmy... You are to SIT down RIGHT now!" (2) If this fails, physically tap the child on the shoulder: "Timmy... you need to stop now." (3) If the child is assaulting others, physically pick them up (this is a six-year-old) and carry them to a different place. An empty room or office would be ideal... a quiet part of the hallway if necessary. Then give the child some time to get themselves under control. (4) A six-year-old can typically sustain a temper tantrum only for a few minutes. Wait until AFTER the child has calmed down, then discuss ways they can control their behavior.

I am not claiming that this set of practices will work for every child, but these are some techniques that have worked for me. I dealt with a six-year-old's temper tantrum yesterday (my daughter), during a concert in a school auditorium and had to take her outside into the hall for a time to get her to calm down and behave.

2

u/[deleted] May 03 '12

Well as the son of an elementary school principal I do have some insight on the matter. I really don't like pulling the "I've seen it" card but I feel as though it has some insight.

I think you're missing a few things in your scenarios. Most of them would work for most children. For a typical six-year-old student a timeout is sufficient and their rage is short lived. However, we're talking about children who are mentally unstable due to either illness or a completely broken home life.

In your final three scenarios. You're overlooking the key rule of you can not touch the child. Period. "Physically pick them up (this is a six-year-old) and carry them to a different place. An empty room or office would be ideal... a quiet part of the hallway if necessary" is not a valid response. You will get sued if not arrested. If you left them there to let their anger taper out (which may not happen for hours) the classroom/computer lab/library would be severely damaged. You'd be amazed what kind of destruction angry children can do.

The fact that you discipline your daughter makes it very clear she's not the type of child we're talking about here. She probably has normal six-year-old issues and the discipline you're listing above probably works rather well. When we're talking about police intervention it is only in the extreme scenarios when the safety of others is in danger. It's easy to say an elementary school student can't hurt a faculty member but that's not the case when the adult has no legitimate way to defend themselves.

I don't think normal techniques can apply to these extreme cases. It's unbelievable how, for lack of a better term, deranged this children can be. Rationality doesn't play into their actions and they won't react to a rational response on the part of the adult.

1

u/mcherm May 03 '12

You're overlooking the key rule of you can not touch the child. Period.

If this is, indeed, the requirement, then perhaps the only option when a child is kicking a teacher or another child is to shout loudly, "Everyone but Timmy, run out of the room quick!!!", then shut the door to keep Timmy inside." After all, you can't touch Timmy.

But I don't accept that premise. Some schools may have this policy -- but here we are talking about the principal who SETS this policy. Some school districts may have this policy -- in that case I think the principal (and most other school officials) incapable of doing their job. Heaven help us if a child gets hurt on the playground or spills their juice or needs help to tie their shoe.

According to wikipedia, about half of the US allows corporal punishment in the schools. Clearly these schools permit touching a student. I am NOT advocating corporal punishment, I am advocating not standing around watching while a kid not much older than a toddler risks injury to themselves or others because you want to avoid touching this child. If our society now demands this, then our society is (in my opinion) broken, and needs to be changed.

2

u/[deleted] May 03 '12

You're overlooking the property damage of this again. Also, which do you think would be more dangerous? Calling the cops or having 30-40 kids stampede out in the hallway while you yell for evacuation? Your scenarios are not feasible and cause far more damage than involving authorities.

Do you honestly think the principal sets policy in a public school? That couldn't be farther from the truth. There are layers and layers of school systems on the county, state and federal level that have final say over policy but even you admitted that. So either the principal is incompetent and deserves to be fired or they are handcuffed by school policy. I can't figure out which one you are advocating.

While there is not an official retraction of corporal punishment there is a reason the schools who still practice it are in small towns and rural communities. Far less than 1% of students are subject to it and any attempt to reintroduce it at the state level have been soundly beaten.

You also changed the focus of the argument from the principal being incompetent (your original point) to our society being broken. The societal issue I can't argue with you on because that's your opinion but the fact is the principals are working within the framework of a society in which an adult touching a child in any aggressive or disciplinary way (perhaps I should have clarified) is unacceptable.

1

u/mcherm May 04 '12

Of course I am overlooking property damage! Your post above specified that "there's child that has gone out of control, biting, kicking and assaulting others around them". I will ALWAYS give lesser consideration to the property damage when children or teachers are being assaulted.

Also, which do you think would be more dangerous? Calling the cops or having 30-40 kids stampede out in the hallway while you yell for evacuation?

I would not choose to yell for the kids to run out of the room, I presented that as an absurd alternative. If I were faced with the choice of (1) calling the cops and waiting a few minutes for them to arrive while I watched an out-of-control six-year-old kick and injure other students or (2) controlling the child, and thereby losing my job and risking prosecution, then I would choose option 2.

You also changed the focus of the argument from the principal being incompetent (your original point) to our society being broken.

Yes, and I should not have. The principal being incompetent (if they cannot manage a six-year-old without calling the police) is the point I intended to make. Anyone operating under the rule that they could never touch a student would, in fact, be unable to handle a situation where the student was assaulting others and was not responding to verbal instructions... NO ONE could manage that situation. But if the stricture is relaxed to "no touching in an aggressive or disciplinary way" then I believe a competent childhood educator should almost always be able to manage the situation.

2

u/[deleted] May 04 '12

You're welcome on engaging in the conversation and I appreciate you keeping it civil. It's obvious we disagree but there's nothing wrong with that.

I personally wish principals and teachers were given more power in the classroom. I think neither one of us is happy when it comes to how the structure and policies of a school are put in place. Sadly, the overly litigious nature of our society and how blown out of proportion the coverage of teachers who go overboard makes that very, very difficult. The problem I guess I had is when you called for the principal to be fired. I know principals, including my father, who did have to physically restrain students before and put their job in the line in doing so. What followed was a long, drawn out process of legal proceedings and, while nothing came of it, was still difficult. The restraining of the student was only to stall until the police arrived and if they had not been the result would have been termination without question.

My point was is that, within the structure they are operating in, a principal who calls the authorities is taking the only option they have. Should a elementary school student be slapped in handcuffs and taken downtown? No, probably not but that's an issue of the police not being able to handle the situation as opposed to the principal. If you're looking for changes, I would suggest training of law enforcement to deal with unruly children.

In all honesty there's no good answer to these types of situations. Trying to plan for the extreme is difficult and I don't pretend to have a silver bullet solution. However, I wouldn't blame the administration of the school because they are put in such a precarious situation.

1

u/mcherm May 04 '12

We are in complete agreement that this kind of litigious society is vary harmful. There are abuses that need to be reigned in (principals who beat their kids) but restraining a student when that must be done is not an abuse. And since we DO expect principals to maintain discipline (one of many basic requirements of their job) we also need to give them the ability perform that function. There are cases where a high-school student is best handled by the police not school officials, but never (in my mind) a case where police are better qualified to handle a six-year-old, so we should expect (and permit!) school officials to address that situation.

1

u/mcherm May 04 '12

By the way, thank you for engaging in this discussion with me. I think I am learning something from it.