| 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: |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
| Parents Gone Wild | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Nov 7 2007, 08:36 PM (873 Views) | |
| Post #1 Nov 7 2007, 08:36 PM |
|
|
Two Hugs Get Two Days Dear Mrs. Coulter: Get over it! Your daughter broke a rule--twice, and got punished for breaking rules, not for hugging. It's detention, FCOL, a few minutes after school. This ain't national news-worthy, nor is it worth making a mountain out of a mole hill at a school board meeting. It is actually over-reactive parents like you who have created the exact problem you are bemoaning. What you are doing is teaching your daughter that rules only need to be followed when you agree with them and that huge battles over minor stuff are not just warranted; they are mandatory. Knock it off. Tell Megan to ###### it up, serve the detention, learn the rules (they are published), and follow them. Then, if she continues to break the rules, no matter how silly you think they are, be a parent and add to the school's punishment. ___________________________________________ It used to be that teachers and administrators were adult professionals whose judgment was trusted. Much like parents, in whose stead they were acting, they did not need detailed, printed rules. They knew when students did something wrong (duh) and used their judgment to determine the best consequence. This worked well until over-reactive parents, lawyers, and judges got involved. The result of all this scrutiny was extraordinarily objective discipline systems, designed to prevent second-guessing and lawsuits. Unfortunately, the baby (reasoned and flexible discipline) went out with the bathwater (occasional differences in judgment between parents and teachers). Rules tend to be stated simply to eliminate any disagreements as to meaning or consequence. They tend to be blanket, zero-tolerance rules, with fixed consequences, like rules prohibiting any public displays of affection as opposed to rules barring inappropriate public displays of affection (which require the use of judgment, which will be questioned, possibly in court), or as opposed to no rule at all, just pure judgment (which is guaranteed to end up in court these days). As long as schools are public schools, subject to over-scrutiny from all quarters, objective, blanket rules and zero-tolerance policies will be the norm. This is just one more reason that I think the public school system is dead (and just doesn't know it, yet). It needs to be replaced with government-funded, privately-run schools that allow families a high-degree of choice, so that they can choose high discipline, anarchy, or anything in between. In any event, parents who over-involve themselves, being ridiculously over-protective of the children whom they hardly ever see, are really beginning to annoy the bejeebers out of those of us who do spend a lot of time with their kids, kids who need someone in their lives setting standards for them and holding them to those standards. I wish they'd work with us instead of against us. |
Administrator
  ![]](http://z2.ifrm.com/static/1/pip_r.png)
|
 
|
 |
| Post #2 Nov 7 2007, 09:14 PM |
|
|
I am confused. So to clarify, you are just as angry at the schools for creating blanket zero-tolerance policies as you are with the parents who go to school board meetings and throw fits about the rules? |
Civilian
|
|
|
|
| Post #3 Nov 7 2007, 10:42 PM |
|
| Not angry. I realize why they do it. I would prefer they wouldn't have to, but it is the logical and, unfortunately, necessary reaction to incessant and pointless attempts at control. |
Administrator
|
|
|
|
| Post #4 Nov 7 2007, 10:46 PM |
|
|
I can understand your point, Eye95. Parents should either back up the school and it's rules or put their kid in another school. My daughter went to private school or I home schooled her. I never wanted her in the public school system where the rules seem to be "whatever will protect them from being sued". Our friend here in TX has a little girl (6 at the time) that was talking about what would happen if all the teachers were dead. She got in trouble - a terrorist threat. She didn't talk about killing the teachers. She was afraid of all the teachers being dead. But kids do need to learn to follow the rules - plain and simple. Whenever my kid had something happen at school, her school knew I'd do my own investigation into what happened. If my kid was at fault she got in trouble at school and at home. These situations were usually handled before leaving the school so there was no chance of things being forgotten. And all parties where there to talk to. There was a situation where a teacher got rough with my daughter because she did not understand what the teacher was saying - I filed a complaint and spoke to the teacher about it. She had to apologize to my kid. It works both ways. At one of my daughter's private schools they had a no sugar policy during school hours. But at school functions they could eat the sugary treats. At a PTA meeting I spoke up about how that wasn't right - if the rule is no sugar, then it should be no sugar anytime. The principal argued with me until another parent joined me - his family was a no sugar family same as mine. The school didn't want hyped up kids during the day. I didn't want a hyped up kid after a late evening function as it was nearly past bed time. |
Civil Servant
|
|
|
|
| Post #5 Nov 7 2007, 11:44 PM |
|
| Then after school the kids go to activities that the parent pays for - which those parents think means they have bought your support of whatever their kid does. Punishing a kid for inappropriate behaviour is even harder on a pool deck! |
Civil Servant
|
|
|
|
| Post #6 Nov 8 2007, 12:40 AM |
|
|
Common sense has gone out the window in a big way... It states: "Displays of affection should not occur on the school campus at any time. It is in poor taste, reflects poor judgment, and brings discredit to the school and to the persons involved." I do however question what constitutes a display of affection. They probably intend to ban the boys and girls making out on school property as well as sexual harassment. So if that is the case, then there should be a specific policy pertaining to sexual harassment and sexual attention. But if a friend is crying because her feelings are hurt or she got hurt on the playground or maybe her parents are divorcing then a friend who puts her arm around her to comfort her is also guilty of breaking the rule. Sad. And while I agree that kids do need to learn how to follow rules, there are unjust rules that could still be in effect had Rosa Parks not broken them. The rules that are meant to be broken are the ones that never should have been made. |
Civilian
|
|
|
|
| Post #7 Nov 8 2007, 06:47 AM |
|
|
Ditto what Nikki just said. Sometimes society needs a good whack across the head. |
Civilian
|
|
|
|
| Post #8 Nov 8 2007, 06:51 AM |
|
What constitutes a display of affection? Anything that the common meaning of the words conveys, which clearly includes hugging. As at the school where I teach (which has the same rule), it includes hand-holding, hugging, kissing, making out, groping, and sex. One might argue that we ought to list only the specific activities at the high end of the spectrum. The problem with that is that if we only list kissing, making out, groping, and sex, we will get Clinton-like arguments that oral sex is not sex. It is precisely the argument that you are making that prompts the blanket rules that do away with common sense. Lawyering up and Clinton-speak trump common sense in court. I wish we did not have to have the rule. But, we do. And, if I see a "side-hug," I will tell the students to stop. If they do not, or if they repeat the behavior a second time, the action is no longer side-hugging, it is defiance (mild defiance, but defiance), and it will be rewarded with a detention for the defiance. When mild defiance is punished, it reduces the instance of major defiance. Finally, I would say that the comparison of this students actions to Rosa Parks is inapt on several grounds. 1. The law that Rosa protested was unjust. This no-PDA rule is just. You may disagree with its necessity, but it is just. 2. Rosa Parks was willing to serve her punishment as part of the protest. This girl served the detention because she did not want to suffer more severe consequences, a wholly less altruistic motive. 3. Rosa Parks had no other way to protest the rule. She had virtually zero civil rights at the time. Mom can still go to the school board and request the rule be changed. If a parent did so at my school, I would be there to speak against repealing the rule. Year after year, I have been asked to edit and update our school handbook. I strive to make sure the no-PDA rule is there. Every time I have gotten input from other teachers, there has been zero disagreement with keeping the rule and keeping it as a blanket rule. As I said earlier, I wish we didn't have to have the rule. I wish we didn't have to enforce it as a blanket rule, ignoring some of the more minor infractions. But, having parents and kids constantly lawyering our decisions leaves us no choice. This just in as I am typing: Contrary to implications in previous reporting, these two hugs were not the first instances. The young girl had been warned before and has ignored those warnings. As I said I would do above, the school warned first and then gave detention for willful defiance, not just for hugging. Good for them. Bad on Mom. |
Administrator
|
|
|
|
| Post #9 Nov 8 2007, 12:08 PM |
|
| As much as I hate rules having to go this far, I totally agree with eye95 on this. Rules are rules. Students and parents receive a handbook at the beginning of the year. If you see something totally ludicrous, then go to the admin, school board, whoever, and ask for an explanation. If you still don't agree, try to get it changed, but don't complain about it after your child got caught doing something. At my son's private school, we have to sign an agreement before the school year starts that says we have read and will comply with the handbook rules and regulations. Public schools don't have that luxury. Everyone must be allowed to attend. Eye95 is correct that personal responsibilty and descernment has been over litigated and ties the public schools hands in these matters. It's not a case by case basis any more. What's good for the goose is good for the gander, in ALL cases now. It's not nice, rational, and in many cases may not be totally correct. However, it is totally FAIR for everyone. Fair, even it is very sad... |
Civilian
|
|
|
|
| Post #10 Nov 8 2007, 04:40 PM |
|
|
Yeah. And "fair" is a horrible thing. Professionals should be trusted with their judgment, trained (if they are inexperienced), or fired. Instead, courts substitute their judgment for that of the professional, making him act in a way to avoid litigation, rather than in a way best suited to the unique person and situation. Constant complaining and lawyering result in fairness. Then people complain about the fairness. At least with fairness litigation is not a fear. So no one gets to hug. What a shame. _____________________________________ I had an interesting conference (or, should I say, "confrontation"?) with a parent today. She came to the headmaster to complain about me harassing her daughter. Her daughter had told her that I had told the daughter to wear white socks. I hadn't. I told Mom that I hadn't. I never have told a single student to wear white socks. It is not in the handbook (which all of our students and parents certify that they have read). I know what is in the handbook. I wrote most of it and typed the rest! I kept (in a non-judgmental way) telling Mom that I hadn't said that and that her daughter must be mistaken. She kept reminding me that her daughter had told her that I had. I pointed out that I never even use the words in disciplining a student that I was being quoted as saying. (I am very precise with my language to avoid any misunderstanding whatsoever.) Mom kept telling me that I wasn't recalling correctly or that I had said the words, but just wouldn't own up. She further went on to say that I correct something about her daughter's uniform every day. Her daughter's dress is usually not a problem, so I would be surprised if I have said anything to her more than five times. In most cases, I'm sure, it was something that could be corrected on-the-spot (such as tucking in the shirt or removing a non-uniform item) or something that could be corrected the next day (such as wearing shoes with closed toes and closed heels). It's no big deal. I say something and ensure the minor infraction is corrected on-the-spot or the next day. Nothing further need be said. No record need be made. It is minor. But it is a rule. Anyway, Mom did not want me correcting her daughter's dress code anymore. I advised her that the only remaining option would be to send her daughter to the office for even a minor infraction, where the headmaster would correct her. Of course, the means a conduct check point, and 10 of those are a suspension! I recommended against that course of action as it would be making a mountain out of a mole hill. Mom was insistent. OK. Office referrals will be the remedy. What a shame. I offered my hand to Mom at the end of the conference. She refused it. The headmaster (who had been watching my Aerospace Science class for me while I chatted with Mom) and I switched places. Mom remained adamant. Somehow (I wasn't there, so I don't know), another teacher became aware of the conflict. She related that it was she who had asked the daughter to wear white socks! What she had said was that if the young lady could not wear conservative socks (she had worn striped green, yellow, and orange striped knee socks a few times and been corrected on that), maybe she should wear white socks. The truth coming out did not change Mom's mind. I was still not to ever correct her daughter again. Finally, the headmaster wondered to Mom whether this school was the right school for her daughter. That was a bold question. The headmaster owns this school and it is a for-profit school. If the Mom takes her up on the suggestion, that's thousands of dollars out of the headmaster's pocket! Anyway, Mom and daughter left for the day, without daughter having attended a single class for the day. Maybe she'll return. Maybe she won't. I hope she does. I hope she realizes that she acted foolishly and that Mom foolishly backed her up in a very harmful way. I hope she tells me to forget what Mom said, to quietly tell her anytime she is violating the dress code, and that she intends to just as quietly correct any future problems without any ridiculous escalation. I don't think she will. But, I hope so. This story so illustrates the very problem that I am decrying in this thread. It is an amazing coincidence that it happened today. |
Administrator
|
|
|
|
| Post #11 Nov 8 2007, 04:59 PM |
|
| It takes a special person to be a teacher. Not just teaching kids, but putting up with the parents as well. I don't envy your profession, eye95, but thanks for doing it. God bless the teachers that try to help our kids see their potential. I just don't get some parents that think their kids can do no wrong. I love my boys, but they are far from flawless. It's more damaging to the child in the long run to cover for them or keep them from taking personal responsibility, make excuses. I don't want to set my kids up for for a rude awakening. The real world doesn't take excuses. |
Civilian
|
|
|
|
| Post #12 Nov 8 2007, 05:03 PM |
|
|
Thank you. Everyone ends up taking responsibility for their actions eventually. If it is while they are young and innocent, the consequences may seem painful at the time, but will be laughed off years later. If it is after they are completely legally responsible for all of their actions, many of the consequences will never be laughable. Mom is setting daughter up for a huge fall. Pity. |
Administrator
|
|
|
|
| Post #13 Nov 8 2007, 06:27 PM |
|
|
Is mommy going to go talk to her boss if he corrects her work? I'm getting that this girl is not under the age of 10 and can handle her own dressing situations. These types of parents do such a dis-service to their children. |
Civil Servant
|
|
|
|
| Post #14 Nov 8 2007, 07:56 PM |
|
|
Yes, Eye, I admire your professionalism and your patience. Thanks for being such a good example. I am sure that I came off as one of those difficult parents in my earlier post. The whole no hugging rule just seems so ridiculous. Yet, I see that schools are left without the ability to make these kinds of judgments because of parents like the sock mother. The sock mother is a bad mother. And what's more, the sock mother knows that she is a bad mother although she would never admit it to anyone, even to herself. Giving you a hard time was her way of covering up for herself to make her feel like a good mother. I have witnessed this type of behavior in a former friend of mine. Her son did something very bad, broke a law, and she turned into Mother of the Year, very defensive of her son and very much in denial of the gravity of her son's situation and how she helped contribute to his bad behavior. |
Civilian
|
|
|
|
| Post #15 Nov 8 2007, 09:52 PM |
|
|
Sometimes ya gotta let your kid fall. If you let him fall early enough, he learns not to fall and has not paid much of a price. Mother-of-the-Year protected her son until the price was so high that her efforts to protect him had to fail. It's a shame. I see this all the time. And, it is not the kid's fault. It is the parents'. Unfortunately, at some point in time, it becomes the kid's responsibility, even if it is not his fault. We try to reach the kid and teach him some personal responsibility. Most of the time, though, we are tilting at windmills. |
Administrator
|
|
|
|
| Post #16 Nov 8 2007, 09:55 PM |
|
The girl is 16. She will eventually be in a situation where Mom is powerless (actually, Mom was powerless in this situation), such as at the girl's work. Will she know how to do the right thing? To take care of herself? To do what is expected of her? I am not optimistic. |
Administrator
|
|
|
|
| Post #17 Nov 9 2007, 12:02 AM |
|
|
Discussing taking responsibility for her actions, where is the follow up for the student having told her mother that YOU made the white sock request? Either she was mistaken and should own up to that and apologize (and Mom of course should be setting an example by apologizing herself), or she was lying, in which case there should be some coansequence. Sadly, I often get an earful from parents. Not that long ago, one of my coaches sat a middle schooler out for repeatedly talking during directions and not doing what she was asked. Well, you guessed it, it was not her daughters fault and the coach should not have embarrassed her by singling her out for punishment. I couldn't even respond to being told we are supposed to punish everyone or no one. Also I was asked what my "coaches are thinking... this isn't school" the kids shouldn't have to follow rules. Yet, I'm guessing she would be the first to threaten to sue if her child got hurt because someone else wasn't following directions... |
Civil Servant
|
|
|
|
| Post #18 Nov 9 2007, 12:31 AM |
|
|
These examples are why I taught my daughter the "hard knocks of life" at home. At least she learned and had loving arms to fall into. My daughter hated rules - yes, I don't much care for them either, but you MUST learn to live by them. I'm not a big fan of stopping for a red light at 2 AM when I can see in all directions that I am the only car on the road. But I still do it because that's the rule. My daughter did eventually get "you MUST follow the rules". It's a battle. Some of us parents win if were doing the right thing. And some parents loose. And when the parents loose, the kid pays for it. And that is the sad part about the mom with white socks. And the mom that didn't want her kid to follow rules while playing sports. Which can get me on a whole tangent that I could turn into a comedy routine. But I won't. I think you all can figure out what I mean. |
Civil Servant
|
|
|
|
| Post #19 Nov 22 2007, 09:39 AM |
|
|
Here we go again. It seems Fox & Friends is on a kick to promote kids breaking rules and parents griping about the consequences rather than supporting the school's efforts to run an orderly place where the kids are safe, pick up social skills (like the ability to follow rules), and actually learn something! I really am beginning to despise Friends' weekend crew. It seems the parents of a 5-year old had someone cut a Dallas Cowboy's star into his hair. It really looks bad, like a mohawk gone wild. According to Fox, the school suspended the boy for two days for having the haircut. I doubt that. The details on TV were sketchy (the hosts spent most of their time bellyaching and not relating those details) and I cannot find an article on the Net. However, based on my experience, I'd be willing to wager that the child was sent home to get the hairstyle fixed and will be allowed back as soon as that has been done. Of course, the parents are getting publicity by not fixing it, so they haven't. If the student was suspended, I am sure it is for willful defiance. The school would have no choice but to suspend the student if the parents indicated that they would simply not take the boy home to fix his hair. Were I the administrator, such a refusal would have resulted in the boy being suspended for that day and the next. The parents would be told to fix the haircut, or upon his return, the process would be repeated, with potentially more serious consequences. Anyway, another set of parents has sent a horrible message to a child, one that, no doubt, he will learn well. Some poor 11th-grade math teacher will have to deal with the end-product. I know that I deal with the results of that kind of thinking on a daily basis. I shouldn't have to. That message was that, if someone doesn't like a rule or if they think it is "stupid," they can break it and should not have to suffer the consequences. I am constantly dealing with that notion--and for much more serious infractions than haircuts. One purpose of rules is to (duh) teach kids to follow rules! However, I am sure that this rule about haircuts exists for a much more serious reason. We have the same rule, and it is reasonably enforced K3 through 12. Designs may not be cut into the hair or eyebrows because this is one way gang members identify themselves. Yeah, it is unlikely that a 5-year old is a gang member, but trying to pick a grade level at which to implement the ban is way too difficult. Gangs are recruiting every younger kids. It is just so much more practical and reasonable to implement the rule for all kids. I wish parents would stop making our job more difficult and that the media would stop glorifying this particular style of horrific parenting.[/I] |
Administrator
|
|
|
|
| Post #20 Nov 25 2007, 03:41 PM |
|
| I agree. I often told my children that rules we thought were pointless probably have a reason we don't understand and that unless they cuase an unsafe situtation, are discriminatory or somehow else are clearly unethical, there is no reason not to comply. Sadly, a lesson I learned the ahrd way... |
Civil Servant
|
|
|
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
 Join the millions that use us for their forum communities. Create your own forum today. |
|
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Education · Next Topic » |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
3:05 PM Feb 6