Acceptable Violence in Schools

I don't think this would exactly fit in another education topic, so new topic it is.

I'm starting this because after reading this editorial, I'm finding myself agreeing with a lot of it. Especially in regards to my own children's schooling.

The tl;dr of the article can be summed up thusly:

I find that this resonates with me because I do have boys, and I've had talks with their teachers. My kids, like many others, are fans of zombies, the Avengers, and watching daddy play games like Assassins Creed and inFAMOUS. They're perfectly aware that violence in a movie is not at all the same as violence in real life and we've even had discussions on how they do the special effects in movies for fight scenes.

At the same time, I've had to help my oldest child deal with bullies at school. No, he wasn't getting beat up at school, because then the teachers might have actually done something about it. Instead, he had to deal with a clique of mostly girls who liked to insult people and make jokes at their expense, and accidentally ruin things like books and art supplies. But because that kind of behavior doesn't fall under the umbrella of "violence" it's often ignored or accepted by teachers.

I'm curious what other people's experience and thoughts are on the level of violence that is acceptable to be in our schools and around our children.

I think the "zero-tolerance" policy is often quite unfair. Being the victim in a fight gets you in trouble as well, and I don't think that's the right message to be sending to our children, that defending themselves from the predations of others is wrong, I firmly believe it is not.

I also think the punishments are often-times too severe. I get suspensions, it's cool-off time, but I think expulsion at the drop of a hat is way too drastic, especially if the victim is punished too.

I don't know, maybe my opinion on this is colored by the fact that I went to a relatively rough public school, got in my share of fights, and don't feel terribly bad about any of that. Kids are evil little bastards sometimes, and fighting is one of those things that they do. I'd rather teachers took a more active role in identifying the predators in their classes and both watching them closely and punishing them before things get physical. I think most teachers are flat-out asleep at the wheel when it comes to that particular deal. Things don't have to get violent if the teachers get involved early.

First we have to define how violent are we actually talking here that counts as violence. Kids getting into a brawl? Ok that counts. But teachers hitting kids for doing something wrong? Not so.

The thing is, being violent is often not acceptable. Self defense is a special case, but even that has limits.

Never been a fan of "zero-tolerance" policies; they intend to do good, but they're often nothing but some token act that sounds good to the public at first but over-simplify complex situations and it's used just to appease voters instead of, you know, being an integral, rational solution.

I get it, violence isn't the answer, but is not a "all or nothing" topic: if a kid uses self-defense, let's investigate why did he/she do that, if it is somehow justificable and who really is the one to blame

edited 19th Aug '13 5:05:19 PM by Anthony_H

Well, and shit, I'm not saying don't punish kids for fighting, but kids will be kids, they always have, and always will. Kids fight, it's part of growing up. This whole "Throw a punch and we'll instantly expel you." nonsense is really unrealistic, and damages the shit out of the rest of that kids academic career.

In my experience, zero-tolerance policies lead to more violence, because kids are less likely to confront or report bullies out of fear that they'll get in trouble as well, and the administration is more willing to ignore problems caused by bullies for fear of tarnishing their record.

I know anecdotes aren't data, but my brother nearly got expelled for nonviolently confronting a bully and standing up for another kid.

edited 20th Aug '13 10:55:18 AM by DrunkGirlfriend

^

Yeah, instead of blowing off steam with a little fight, the fights that do take place have built up and escalate into being more violent altercations, I would think.

Problem is, what if two people were caught fighting by a faculty member who didn't see the fight begin? If there are no other witnesses, each child could claim the other one started the fight, and you won't know who's at fault. Or the kid who did start the fight may have had some of their friends with them who'll all vouch that the victim was actually the instigator, and the wrong kid gets punished.

Security cameras would go a ways towards reducing this, though.

If one kid is noticeably more beaten than the other, it's not hard at all to tell who started the fight. If you can't tell, then give them both a slap on the wrist and go home, because if neither of them is a victim, there's no sense worrying over it.

That doesn't penalize the kid who starts the fight, just the kid who wins the fight.

The trouble with applying zero-tolerance policies and punishing anyone involved in a fight, regardless of who started it, is that it gives power to the kids who care the least about being punished for fighting. Want to get someone in trouble? Pick a fight with them—boom, instant black mark on their record. They can't realistically do anything to avoid it.

One year I had a kid who picked on me constantly because he actually wanted to be expelled. How are you supposed to deal with that? I just got the "he wants to be your friend" thing. I don't think that's how it works.

Let's assume some trouble picks a fight with...I don't know, Little Lisa. Just walks over and starts wailing on her while she screams for help. Nobody saw the fight start. I come over, look at the kids. Lisa clearly has the shit beaten out of her, asshole kid is unscathed. I can draw a reasonable assumption about who was the victim here.

By contrast, some kid walks up to Little Barkey and punches him in the face, and Barkey hits him back. They start scrapping. I can look at them both and see that Barkey gave as good as he got. The purpose of anti-violence regulations is to protect the kids, and Barkey can clearly protect himself. Further, it would do him more harm and actually make him a target if I establish to the kids that Barkey needs Teacher to fight his battles.

Some kids need to be protected, but some kids, if they don't ask for it, you'll do more harm than good by butting in.

I've got an idea, why not simply have it so that the staff can see the kids during break? Or maybe they could do some investigating, find some unbiased kids who watched the fight and ask them what the hell happened. Sure sometimes you won't get an answer, but it's worth a try.

Then do what we do with adults who get in a fight where nobody knows who started it... Do an investigation and if no evidence of wrong-doing is found, slap em on the wrist and move on.

Or toss em both in the drunk tank with a few days of detention or something, but not expulsion or weeklong suspension.

When fights happened on the playground while my mother was a school monitor, she a) already had a pretty good idea of who the troublemakers were to keep an eye out for (because she bothered paying attention to kids before fights started), b) got eyewitness accounts, and c) applied her bullshit detector.

I don't remotely approve of letting fights slide because "boys will be boys". That attitude results in bullies doing whatever the hell they want to kids who haven't learned the social skills to stand up to them, likely don't have the physical capacity (bullies often travel in packs), and quite possibly will never learn either if they don't get a break.

That said, zero-tolerance is even worse. It results in bullies who likely don't care about repercussions still doing whatever the hell they want, while also teaching their victims to be doormats and their authority figures to be lazy and unreliable. It breaks every part of the system.

Zero tolerance is built on a single, faulty premise: that all children want to be in school.

This is patently untrue.

Hey everyone: We've debated this issue before.

Back then, I argued that research clearly does not support the use of "zero tolerance" policies (they have no effect on rates of violence). Schools use them because they are an easy, inexpensive (i.e. free) solution. They cannot substitute for a properly trained adult staff, but that costs time and money.

There exist effective programs we can use to train both children and adults how to deal with conflicts in a non-violent way, and what the most appropriate form of counseling is when a violent incident may have occurred (not punishment in most cases).

As for the article, punishing a seven year old (my son is seven) for play-fighting is both silly and destructive (in that it teaches the children the wrong lessons, without protecting anybody). Were I a parent at that school, I would have sued them.

Or by biting a poptart into the shape of a gun. Or by making the gun shape with your hand. That's fucking retarded.

We're pretty much against children playing at all, which is why it doesn't surprise me that we punish kids for making shooty hands. We think a kid having an active imagination is a mental illness, after all.

Yeah, and that tends to go hand-in-hand with the larger societal notion that the humanities are "worthless" and people who want to pursue creative endeavors are "stupid". Of course we don't want kids to think that imagination is a positive thing.

ALL KIDS NEED IS MORE FOOTBALL

Because making shooty hands is off limits, but tackling each other all over the place is totes okay.

edited 20th Aug '13 2:44:57 PM by Pykrete

To be fair, some schools have banned competitive sports too, under the assumption that it makes kids violent.

Or they dislike competition in any form — I've certainly heard stories about that, too.

Anyway, what about this example: Little Joe wants to beat up Little Greenie for whatever reason, but Little Greenie knows he won't win — so he commences Passive-Aggressive Kombat instead, resisting demands to fight physically.

Does that count as Violence?

edited 20th Aug '13 3:07:13 PM by Greenmantle

BRING. BACK. DODGEBALL.

And not that foam ball bullshit. The red rubber balls with the treads on them!

I loved dodgeball as a kid...

edited 20th Aug '13 3:24:22 PM by Barkey