well, i see you’re an argumentative sort and all over the place. didn’t realize my comment was so controversial.
anyway, your tiny font third alternative is perhaps closer to the mark of what i assumed would be the situation in a well managed school, and is exactly what we had when i was in school back in the 70’s.
i’m not going to argue further, except to rephrase my original comment for others watching the thread, which i continue stand by, not withstanding your disagreement.
1. my first thought is that the school made it’s first mistake when it allowed any electronics in the first place.
2. the second thing i’ll repeat from my initial comment is that the woman made the 2nd mistake (which was proved out with her being hurt) and shouldn’t have made the demand in the first place, because she was incapable of enforcing it with a teen who could overpower her. (i don’t know why she didn’t realize that the teen could overpower her, or could fly into a rage given the punishment. perhaps she was a bit inexperienced in the classroom.)
anyway, if the electronics had to be confiscated, she should have called in men who could handle the situation, by controlling it. no average sized woman could possible control a boy that size without potentially lethal force. you obviously don’t want to deploy lethal force in that situation. you’re dealing with an out of control teen, who without a weapon wouldn’t be a threat to someone of greater experience, training, strength and agility.
well, have the last word if you want. i’m done.
I wasn't being "argumentative" here. I simply took your comment (which I wouldn't characterize as "controversial" - but rather simply as "short-sighted" and/or as "naive") seriously, and tried to respond in an analytical, thoughtful, respectful, and structured manner.
Did you really take offense at that?
well, have the last word if you want. i’m done.
You're very generous!
Your latest comments are not per se wrong - though thank you for clarifying your actual position! - but are based on a far too optimistic and realistic mind-set.
I suspect here that the school is already hopelessly "woke," and that the political climate wouldn't allow for the implementation of any of the "improvements" you suggest - or, if implemented, would probably backfire.
Indeed, if you, as a parent, were to show up at a Town Hall open-mic assembly or P.T.A. meeting and lay out your proposals, you'd probably get shouted down, booed at, decried as a ray-cist, or cut off by the podium.
(To be clear: This assessment of mine is not of the specific school district at hand, but of the general atmosphere in America.)
Given the current leftist climate, I doubt that your well-meaning recommendation that a troop of security guards or orderlies or however you want to describe them would "pan out." As already stated, leftist forces would emasculate any such security measures and/or male coworkers would be unfairly be expected to bear the brunt (and then they would probably be castigated subsequently on account of "unnecessary brutality" and "toxic masculinity").
I see this incident as merely a reflection of a bigger problem already rampant across America, and expressed most clearly in the anti-police sentiment sweeping across the nation.
I therefore continue to stand by my assessment that expecting male personnel to "leap into the breech" and compensate for 98-lb female teachers unable to "cash the checks that their mouths write" would be inherently unfair. I stand by my characterization that this would be tantamount to demanding that the male personnel - already suffering from "reverse discrimination" and "DEI" - "take one for the team" or "fall on their swords."
Yes, in a perfect world, an experienced and confident 98-lb female teacher would have had recourse to better options. But that is delusional given current conditions.
Regards,