Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Teflonic
This type of victimless rules infraction is commonplace and can be easily dealt with by allowing it to finish, then applying discipline after the fact. He wasn't cutting class, or disrupting instruction, he was violating the phone policy outside, during lunch time.

A wise teacher would have acknowledged that the incident was seen, stayed away and allowed the call to be finished, then have the student called to the office later if she wanted to pursue it. I'm sure the kid would have openly admitted he violated the policy.

The principal could have dealt a day or so suspension because of the rules infraction, while also showing the student he was concerned about him and his mom, even though he had to be consequential with rules enforcement.

I'm sure they could have found a way to allow the kid to get the next call without having to be in violation of school rules, or at least given the kid the confidence to ask about the procedure of taking such a call without violating the policy in the course of the discussion about the consequential punishment.

The teacher escalated this. Kids do get mad. That's not to condone the behaviour of the kid, but a teacher is much better off not enducing it. Most kids show up sheepishly on their own about a half hour later with an apology when they lose it, and accept punishment if warranted, if a teacher remains calm.

This story is out in the universe now. I consider it a lack of wisdom on the teacher's part, and the now the entire district is paying the price.

Very poor decisions by the teacher in this case, IMHO, and such decision making does not yield the natural authority teachers maintain when they make decisions that are not impulsive and whose outcomes rest on consequences that can be meted out when circumstances are calmer.

longjack

110 posted on 05/07/2005 5:53:49 PM PDT by longjack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: longjack

A very wise post.


123 posted on 05/07/2005 10:55:05 PM PDT by FreedomCalls (It's the "Statue of Liberty," not the "Statue of Security.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson