| We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration will allow you to join in the discussion which is amazingly free of personal rancor and trolls! We are currently looking for posters from both the left and the right who have a demonstrated capacity to discuss fervently without letting personalities get in the way. Is that you? We need more staff. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Externalizing and "Lawyering up"; Some thoughts on the "No touching" story | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Jun 19 2007, 09:41 AM (598 Views) | |
| Post #1 Jun 19 2007, 09:41 AM |
|
|
Washington Post story on "No Touching" policy I watched an interview with Hal Beaulieu and his dad on Fox this morning. As usual, I spent some time yelling at the TV. It is an inanimate object, but I think it is now afraid of me. Anyway, young Hal related that he put his arm around his girl friend, "It wasn't a hug," and he "ended up in the office." He probably left out an amazing amount of detail in between. Having been in the situation of correcting a minor infraction thousands of times, I have a pretty good idea what happened in between. Here is a typical example of how a student ends up with the impression that he was sent to the office for putting his arm around his girlfriend: Teacher: James, please don't hug Sandra. Student: I wasn't hugging her. I put my arm around her. T: Please don't put your arm around her. S: It was just a few seconds. T: Please don't put your arm around her. S: That's just stupid. T: It may be, but it is the rule at this school. S: Well this school is dumb. T: I understand that you disagree with the rule, but it is still the rule. S: Well, I'm gonna put my arm around my girlfriend whenever I want to. T: If you do, there will be consequences. S: Do whatever you want. You can't make me follow your rules. T: We can't make you follow the rules, but you can be sent to the office and given detention or suspension if you repeatedly choose not to. S: Fine! Send me to the office! I don't care. T: I don't want to send you to the office. Just please stop putting your arm around other students. S: I'll put my arm around whoever I want to. T: I think you need to talk to the assistant principal about this. Go to the office. Of course, I cleaned this up a bit. But, I have had this conversation numerous times before. After the student is sent to the office, he is absolutely convinced that he was sent for putting his arm around his girlfriend and that it is not his fault, that it is the fault of the rule, of the teacher, or of the assistant principal--anyone but himself. He was sent to the office for defiance and argumentativeness, not for putting his arm around someone. None of what I have had to say is in justification of the rule. As Hal contends, the rule is stupid! But, having been there thousands of times before, I know where it comes from: lawyering up. "Lawyering up" is the name I give to the nit-picking at school rules by kids (and parents!) designed to emasculate them. The rule in the handbook at Hal's school simply says, "No improper touching." That, of course, raises the question, "What is improper?" Unfortunately, that leads kids (and parents!) to believe either that (1) they get to decide what is improper, or worse, (2) since the term "improper" is vague, nothing can be seen as improper. Reality is that we hire professionals as teachers and administrators because their education and experience gives them judgment. Reason demands that we allow them to exercise this judgment, that we should only question routine judgment when it is so out-of-line that students are endangered or the educational function of the school is impaired significantly. Unfortunately, students (and parents!) constantly nit-pick these routine judgments, getting unintended (and stupid) results. Here is another sample exchange: [Michael has been sent to the office for making a habit of hugging his girlfriend everyday after homeroom as they go to separate classes. He has not stopped, despite repeated warnings from his homeroom teacher. He has been assigned a detention. His dad thinks this is unreasonable and is in the office "defending" his son.] Principal: The rule is "no improper touching." I am tasked with determining what that means. Dad: So, what is improper? Making out? Hugging? Handshakes? High fives? P: From the list you have provided, I'd say making out and hugging. D: Why do you get to make that call? I'd say only the making out was improper. We should encourage friendly hugging. P: Well, it is part of my job to make those judgments. Hugging, at these ages, often leads to more, so we consider that improper. In another setting... D: That's stupid. Can't a handshake "lead to more"? P: Not in my experience or in my judgment. D: Well, because you are inexperienced, my son can't give a friend a friendly hug? P: [choosing to ignore the insult] That is the policy. D: That's stupid. P: I understand that you think the rule is unwarranted. However, it is the rule. D: No. The rule ain't unwarranted. It's stupid. You say, "no improper touching," but you don't say what that is. You need to say exactly what "improper touching" is. You need to list what the kids can and can't do! P: That would be impractical. We try to make the rules clear, but to respond to changing needs, we also need to exercise judgment. That is what our job is. D: Well, that just let's you make up the rules as you go. That's unfair! P: In this case, Michael knew that the rule meant no hugging. He'd been told many times to stop before he was sent to the office. D: That doesn't matter. You shouldn't even be able to tell a student, "no hugging," unless the hand book says, "no hugging." P: It is impractical to identify every exact action that is not allowed. We have to use some broad wording and some judgment. It is a fine line we walk between over-broadness and necessary flexibility. We make the rules as simple and clear as possible, but we don't want the handbook to be 2000 pages, requiring a lawyer to understand. D: Well, if you don't get specific, you will require a lawyer! [The principal has lost count of how many times he has heard this exact threat over what a parent thinks is too vague or too broad. He has actually gotten calls from lawyers who threaten to sue. There are two pending lawsuits over things like this.] P: OK, you're right. The rule is too vague! Tomorrow, I'll send out a policy letter. No touching. No touching AT ALL! Is that clear enough for you? Does that sufficiently strip the professionals here of exercising their professional judgment? Will that make you and your son understand that he cannot hug his girlfriend at school and that there will be punishment if he does it day after day after day despite warning after warning after warning? D: That's stupid. P: Yeah, well it's clear and the current rule is not clear enough for you. So, that's the way it is! D: That's stupid. P: Yeah, it is. My next appointment is here [a parent complaining because Susan's teacher gave her gum-scraping detention after the fifth time the teacher had to tell her not to chew gum at school to which Susan replied, "That's stupid."], so I'll have to end our discussion here. The memo goes out tomorrow. D: That's stupid. P: Yeah. Have a good day. When parents and students complain about rules, they are usually made more simple and clear. Usually, this necessitates sweeping bans. It is the only way to get language simple enough to remove judgment. And you know what I have to say about stripping professionals of their judgment? That's stupid. |
Administrator
  ![]](http://z2.ifrm.com/static/1/pip_r.png)
|
 
|
 |
| Post #2 Jun 19 2007, 03:34 PM |
|
|
There is a link in my original post to a news story. Different school situations are unique and one-size-fits-all rules won't work everywhere. Each school needs to look at their own situation and determine the rules that they need to (1) create an environment that is safe (2) promote an environment that is conducive to learning and (3) teaches kids that rules exist and need to be followed for society to function. Excessive numbers of rules are counter-productive in that they cannot be practically enforced and unenforced rules teach kids that rules tend to be arbitrary and that enforcement is a random and unfair act. Some rules are absolutely necessary everywhere. There has to be a rule against inappropriate touching. Without it, teens with raging hormones will act on them in both welcome and unwelcome ways. The former is inappropriate at school and interferes with education and undermines the morality that many parents are trying to teach their kids. The latter is illegal. Anyway, I am a huge advocate of school rules. However, having too many must be avoided. I always say, "if you aren't going to enforce a rule rigorously, don't have it." The rules need to be fairly specific, but cannot handle or define every possible situation. Generally, we need to trust our professionals to exercise their judgment. If they are exercising it poorly, they should be replaced. Nit-picking each and every decision that negatively impacts one's kid sends a message to that kid that he does not have to follow any rule he thinks is stupid or wrong, as long as he is willing to argue about it. |
Administrator
|
|
|
|
| Post #3 Jun 20 2007, 12:08 AM | Rongo |
|
Eye95, while your story made me giggle, having worked in a high school, I also see it as an example of the single most prominent problem in education (heck, in the culture at large): Lack of Personal Responsibility. I'd be curious to hear about what people think is the reason for the loss of respect for authority and the complete breakdown of personal responsibility. Was it the lawyers? Was it parental guilt? Was it the "self esteem" focus of the eighties and nineties? What brought this change from personal responsibility, self reliance and exercising judgement to blame, special treatment and following the letter of the law but not the spirit? When did we change from "here are the guidelines of expected behavior" to "here is the detailed list of what you cannot do" which is added to daily, it seems. |
Newbie
|
|
|
|
| Post #4 Jun 20 2007, 07:25 AM |
|
|
I think it started when families, to a large extent, stopped raising their own kids and allowed the state and the schools to do it for them. Parents have a tool they can use to raise kids that teaches them absolute respect for authority that the government (mainly because of lawyers) does not have: unreasonableness. Parents can be arbitrary and unfair. Government organizations cannot. Parents can say, "because I said so." Schools cannot. Schools have always been hamstrung when it comes to discipline. The ultimate basis for discipline was that, if the child did not respond to discipline within school, parents would become involved. There was a time when teachers knew that most parents, when they became involved, would help solve the discipline problem. Now we know that most parents, when contacted, will act like a lawyer for the errant kid (as in my example above). Many families are using school for "warehousing." It is a place to put the kids for 7 to 10 hours a day, where they don't have to concern themselves about the kids. When they get a call (or a note or a bad grade), now they have to be concerned. That bugs them and they lash out at teachers and admins. They don't want to discipline the kid because they see that as the school's job (again, unless that discipline gets the parent involved, hassling the parent, as in a suspension). The net result is that the person most able to raise the kid (the parent) has abdicated this responsibility to a nebulous entity, one least able to raise that kid (the school). That results in kids raised by a system, not a person, and systems can be gamed. Toe-tapping parents cannot be gamed. They just drop into unreasonableness, the most incredibly effective child-rearing tool ever. |
Administrator
|
|
|
|
| Post #5 Jun 20 2007, 02:24 PM | Rongo |
|
Wow--good answer. I believe you are correct. So when did parents decide to let somebody else raise their kids? I have a theory that isn't very popular so I don't think about it a lot. See what you think... Mom and Dad both leave the house every day. The child goes first to daycare, then to school for 8 to 10 hours (or more a day.) The child loses a sense of being a "part" of something larger than himself--family. He loses his place. The parents are told by Parenting magazine and their friends that their kid should be the number one priority (after work and parental lives, of course.) The child then becomes the CENTER of the family when it suits the parents, not a central part of it consistently. He becomes indulged so that the parents can feel like they're making the kid a priority. Then the parents have to defend that action of indulgence and when they see evidence of the wrongdoing, so they cast blame and threats to throw the focus on something else; thereby, not confronting their own defensiveness. Deep down, parents know when they're doing the wrong thing. I know I'm doing the wrong thing when I snap at my child because I'm tired and then continue to do the wrong thing when I let him watch a video to make up for it. I feel GUILTY. And if anybody were to enter my house at that moment and tell me that my kid shouldn't be watching a video when he could be outside playing, I'd likely jump down the throat of said critic out of defensiveness. Luckily--that doesn't happen very often (the snapping, the video watching or the throat jumping.) Nothing is absolute--if this doesn't apply to somebody reading it, then it doesn't. I'm only meaning to offend those to whom this theory applies--no others. So please let your slings and arrows of discontent be gentle. It's just a theory and I'm open to suggestions on change... |
Newbie
|
|
|
|
| Post #6 Jun 20 2007, 03:07 PM |
|
|
I think you have described a set of circumstances that happens all too often and contributes to the situation about which I complained. Oh, and we all experience small failures as parents. I wouldn't sweat it too much. However, it does seem to give us insight as to why some family situations are total failures. And, I think you are right; guilt plays a huge part. |
Administrator
|
|
|
|
| Post #7 Jun 20 2007, 03:27 PM |
|
|
Yeah teachers do screw up. Some more than others. However, I'd take events like that (usually they are isolated) and file them under "we all do foolish things." Let the teacher be the professional. If there is some pattern of unprofessional behavior or instances of grossly unacceptable behavior, then take action. Otherwise, let it slide. Your kid will learn from that situation that not everything goes exactly as it should, that we all operate within an imperfect system and should choose our battles carefully. |
Administrator
|
|
|
|
| Post #8 Jun 20 2007, 09:59 PM | dgs |
|
I read recently that a Virginal school district has banned all physical contact in their schools. This includes the expected improper contact, but also bans holding hands, hugs and even high-fives.
:huh: A story is located here: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19293872/ I haven't yet fully developed my opinion on that action, but at first glance, it seems to have the potential to become very extreme. I wonder, if two students accidently brush against each other while passing in the hallway, will they become subject to disciplinary action? I was rather intrigued by the greetings between students at my 2 youngest childrens' high school in the Chicago area. It was fascinating to see the very intricate and artful hand shakes exchanged between friends there. Their smiles, kind words and pleasant demeanors made me think that they were engaging in a very meaningful and friendly social interaction. I was dismayed when some of my kids' friends attempted to teach me some of their simple greetings because I just couldn't seem to get it right. They did enjoy a few chuckles at my apparant lack of youthful dexterity. Your observations will be much appreciated! [merged with existing thread by eye95] |
Newbie
|
|
|
|
| Post #9 Jun 29 2007, 03:13 PM |
|
|
I'm late to this party. And I am apparently completely out of touch with the rest of the world. When did schools put in a "no touching" policy??? And why did they put the policy in??? So, if your friend was out sick for a week and is now finally back at school - you can't give a welcome back hug? If you fall down, can no one help you up, since that would require touching? Wow, have schools become "prisons"? |
Civil Servant
|
|
|
|
| Post #10 Jun 29 2007, 08:16 PM |
|
|
I am all for teaching kids to respect rules. I am trying to teach mine that very thing. In fact, we just had a lengthy discussion about it just last night. Rules are needed to prevent chaos in our society and I make my rules with the expectation that they be followed. However, the other side of the coin is, what do we as a society do when rules ARE in fact stupid? We all regard Rosa Parks as a hero, but what did she do? She broke a rule, a law which was stupid and unconstitutional. It needed to be broken because it needed to be changed/abolished. Perhaps the line to be drawn here is that she made her decision as an adult with full knowledge and acceptance of her consequences. However, we still need to teach minors that most rules exist for their safety and to promote a good learning environment, etc... (forgive me, I am simply reasoning this out as I type... ) <_< I would definitely not be the parent who showed up to defend my kid when it was clear that he knew he was violating a rule. These things have happened once or twice, and each time I simply do my best to reinforce the school policies to him and hope for the best next time around. I would also think that a teacher would be happy to hear that a parent has lightened the load so as to provide more time to devote to the child. Three years ago my son was struggling in school (1st grade) and I was working full time and I was under a lot of stress. My hubby and I sat down and decided that he was finally making enough to afford for me to quit my job. I was so elated that this load had been lifted off of my shoulders that I ran to school (it was Valentine's Day and I was a room mom) and told my son's teacher thinking that she would be happy that I was able to support my son more in his studies. Her response to me was, "Be careful who you tell that to. You don't want to offend anyone because we can't all just quit our jobs and stay home." Talk about busting one's bubble. :angry: Incidentally, she had been teaching for 30 years. This year was my son's last year at the elementary school, and I volunteered for field day. I happened to be walking into the school with her and all she did was complain and moan about how difficult her kids were again this year. She gets all the trouble makers who don't care about learning and don't have any respect for authority or for eachother and have no discipline and are lazy etc etc etc..... And then, the kicker. She announced that she isn't retiring for 2 more years. She could retire now, but she wants the full benefits package. :unsure: I was never aware that there was a no touching policy either. I don't think there is at my son's school, although he only just finished 4th grade. The next 2 grades are in the Intermediate building. We'll have to see what the rules there are like. However, the girls at the 4th grade level are already becoming boy crazy. It's not a bad thing because I remember being in 7th grade and seeing boys and girls make out in the halls between classes. In the 11th and 12th grades I was one of those kids holding hands and kissing in the halls. And my high school sweetheart always had his arm around my shoulders. But, these days I hear about kids having sex in the stairwells and the bathrooms between classes. :blink: Last year at a school board meeting a parent chaperone described what could be called a sex party under the tables on prom night. They had the police take one young man away after he was caught with booze, and after the prom was over and they cleaned up, used condoms were found under the tables. The superintendent insisted to the audience that this kind of behavior isn't typical of dances at our school and that there is nothing to worry about. :blink: |
Civilian
|
|
|
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| « Previous Topic · Education · Next Topic » |
4:43 PM May 20