Outdated Handcuffs Used By Police

[Guthrie]

...

*Why* does the school policy prohibit teachers from physically restraining students?

First, I haven't seen that policy...

Then you must be an incredibly lazy reader.

In post 34 (page 3) of this thread I posted a reference (Including a link!) which involves a federal guideline which states: Physical restraint may not be used...as a response to property destruction, disruption of school order, a student's refusal to comply with a school rule or staff directive.. Go back and read it.

Really... I could understand if this thread were more than a dozen pages that someone might want to skip a few. But we're only at 5 pages, AND that particular regulation had been referenced many times before. There should be no excuse for not seeing and/or knowing about that policy. You should be ashamed of yourself for making such a stupid remark. Do not pass go, do not collect $200.

So, basically a child can decide to trash the classroom, and as long as no other student was threatened they could destroy anything they want, and the teachers couldn't intervene at all. If you want to claim that making education a higher priority is the answer, you still have to explain how all that training will help if the rules say they still can't actually intervene.

...

your post #34 has nothing to do with the Florida schools where the real incident took place

no, the Town of Scituate, Massachusetts - which is the town of link you provided - didn't handcuff the little girl - the Avon Park Schools don't adhere to MA school regs -- so, calling ME the " incredibly lazy reader," is an error on your part -- you have that matter backwards.

[segnosaur]

...

*Why* does the school policy prohibit teachers from physically restraining students?

First, I haven't seen that policy...

Then you must be an incredibly lazy reader.

In post 34 (page 3) of this thread I posted a reference (Including a link!) which involves a federal guideline which states: Physical restraint may not be used...as a response to property destruction, disruption of school order, a student's refusal to comply with a school rule or staff directive.. Go back and read it.

So, basically a child can decide to trash the classroom, and as long as no other student was threatened they could destroy anything they want, and the teachers couldn't intervene at all. If you want to claim that making education a higher priority is the answer, you still have to explain how all that training will help if the rules say they still can't actually intervene.

...

your post #34 has nothing to do with the Florida schools where the real incident took place

no, the Town of Scituate, Massachusetts - which is the town of link you provided - didn't handcuff the little girl - the Avon Park Schools don't adhere to MA school regs -- so, calling ME the " incredibly lazy reader," is an error on your part -- you have that matter backwards.

Yes, one of my references in post 34 is for a Massachusettes school... but in the very first paragraph, it points out that they are following the restrant policies of the federal Department of Education, a fact that I had already pointed out.

You know, I don't have a copy of the exact policy that that exact Floriday school was following. But considering that I had a reference to the U.S. FEDERAL policy, and considering I had a reference to the policies at ANOTHER Florida school, do you have a particular reason to believe that THIS school would have different policies?

[segnosaur]

- What do teachers do if they haven't yet put on their protective gear while the kid is trashing the classroom

Let's understand what we're each talking about ... by trashing, what level of damage and danger are you seeing?

'Damage' could mean anything from ripping up schoolbooks (something well within the physical strength of a kindergarden kid), overturning chairs or other types of furniture, marking up floors or walls with paint and/or markers.

Of course, the 'level' of damage should be irrelevant here... the rules state quite clearly that teachers can't stop ANY of it. Are you suggesting that they can only intervene if they expect the level of damage to be higher than some preset level?

- Will you have law reform to prevent people launching lawsuits against teachers and schools if restraints are used?

No, I would have public insurance indemnify teachers for bona fide efforts to do their best in any given situation.

And if schools can't afford the insurance? (All you need is one or 2 incidence to really drive up the cost of such insurance, and as I pointed out when talking about lawsuits, you don't necessarily have to do anything wrong to be hit with a lawsuit.)

I just don't want to see any get punched in the groin (like you seem to want to.)

Cheap.

You suggested teachers just "give students a hug". I pointed out potential physical dangers to the teacher if that particular policy were carried out. You seem to dismiss the dangers. Therefore, you must have no qualms about teachers getting hurt in the ways I described.

Now, of course you DO keep suggesting body armour, but its very difficult to know whether you're serious about that or not. And if you are, what EXACTLY do teachers do in between the time the kid starts trashing the place and they put the armour on.

So, that means never having to approach a child from the front in a friendly 'hug'; you always approach from the back, and use whatever force is necessary, unless of course they've put on armour.

That's not what it means to me.

In that case, I hope you can find teachers that either 1) like getting punched in the groin, head-butted in the face, or getting your fot stomped on, or 2) are a little smarter in protecting themselves.

If no handcuffs are used, the person must continue to be restrained physically. That's where the problem is.

Alright, I'll concede that in rare cases involving super-powered children given to eternal tantrums perhaps the police, or Spider-man or someone should be called in.

Children are more than capable of continuing tantrums for lengthy periods.

I remember watching a documentary where some kid had a condition similar to ADHD. The mother struggled for over 2 hours trying to get the kid to bed.... kid would get up, mother would pick the kid up and lay him back down and hug him for a sec, kid would immediately get back up... repeat for hours.

... you mean "I have no proof to support my claims, so I will resort to my already debunked common sense argument because".

I admit I haven't tendered any evidence. Do you really think it would be hard for me to find cases of people being injured while being handcuffed?

Let me put it this way... for every case of a school kid injured once handcuffs are in place, I can probably find a case of a kid injured while being restrained.

Except for the fact that you yourself said that the rules need to be changed to allow those 'sensible professionals' to actually do something to deal with the situation.

Yes, where that exception applies, I concede it.

Except you'll never actually come out and specify WHAT you want the rule to be, other than the vague 'give a hug' concept. Under what conditions? How long? What do you do if it still doesn't work? What about kids that have been sexualy abused and for whom that type of contact will make things worse? Are you going to allow teachers to use restraints that are safe for them? If not (and you expect teachers to approach from the front), who pays if a teacher gets injured?

Hey, I want to be convinced there's another way.... but as I've said before, all I've heard are vague, empty statements that have no real thought behind them.

[Guthrie]

...

*Why* does the school policy prohibit teachers from physically restraining students?

First, I haven't seen that policy...

Then you must...

your post #34 has nothing to do with the Flo....

Yes, one of my references in post 34 is for a Massachusettes school... but in the very first paragraph, it points out that they are following the restrant policies of the federal Department of Education, a fact that I had already pointed out.

You know, I don't have a copy of the exact policy that that exact Floriday school was following. But considering that I had a reference to the U.S. FEDERAL policy, and considering I had a reference to the policies at ANOTHER Florida school, do you have a particular reason to believe that THIS school would have different policies?

you don't have an exact copy of the exact schools policy --- so, after all the meaningless dressing is removed, what you have is, exactly bupkis.

but, I will admit, for having bupkis, you sure fill a lot of space

oh and that other Florida school - you show the rules for substitute teachers - GMAB

[Figleaf]

'Damage' could mean anything from ripping up schoolbooks (something well within the physical strength of a kindergarden kid), overturning chairs or other types of furniture, marking up floors or walls with paint and/or markers.

Of course, the 'level' of damage should be irrelevant here... the rules state quite clearly that teachers can't stop ANY of it. Are you suggesting that they can only intervene if they expect the level of damage to be higher than some preset level?

I wanted to get a picture of how much or little damage you believed a six year old was capable of carrying out and how much damage justified a police take-down on a six-year old.

- Will you have law reform to prevent people launching lawsuits against teachers and schools if restraints are used?

No, I would have public insurance indemnify teachers for bona fide efforts to do their best in any given situation.

And if schools can't afford the insurance? (All you need is one or 2 incidence to really drive up the cost of such insurance, and as I pointed out when talking about lawsuits, you don't necessarily have to do anything wrong to be hit with a lawsuit.)

Schools are government bodies and can afford whatever insurance they need. Just raise taxes.

I just don't want to see any get punched in the groin (like you seem to want to.)

Cheap.

You suggested teachers just "give students a hug". I pointed out potential physical dangers to the teacher if that particular policy were carried out. You seem to dismiss the dangers. Therefore, you must have no qualms about teachers getting hurt in the ways I described.

You overlook what I actually think ... that what you describe is nonsense.

Now, of course you DO keep suggesting body armour, but its very difficult to know whether you're serious about that or not. And if you are, what EXACTLY do teachers do in between the time the kid starts trashing the place and they put the armour on.

???

Presumably they are putting on their hockey equipment. True, no six-year old would think of putting on hockey equipment to tackle another six year old, but teachers are much more fragile than six year olds.

Let me put it this way... for every case of a school kid injured once handcuffs are in place, I can probably find a case of a kid injured while being restrained.

I doubt it.

[segnosaur]

'Damage' could mean anything from ripping up schoolbooks (something well within the physical strength of a kindergarden kid), overturning chairs or other types of furniture, marking up floors or walls with paint and/or markers.

Of course, the 'level' of damage should be irrelevant here... the rules state quite clearly that teachers can't stop ANY of it. Are you suggesting that they can only intervene if they expect the level of damage to be higher than some preset level?

I wanted to get a picture of how much or little damage you believed a six year old was capable of carrying out and how much damage justified a police take-down on a six-year old.

Well, given the fact that we're dealing with kids who are having EXTENDED temper tantrums (in the example that started this thread it was at least 20 minutes, although likely well over half an hour, although I've read about similar cases that went on for over an hour), I suspect that the amount of damage could be rather considerable.

I'll tell you what... you get a bunch of kindergarden kids at your home, give them a bunch of books, markers, etc, and tell them to just go nuts and see how much they can wreck.

No, I would have public insurance indemnify teachers for bona fide efforts to do their best in any given situation.

And if schools can't afford the insurance? (All you need is one or 2 incidence to really drive up the cost of such insurance, and as I pointed out when talking about lawsuits, you don't necessarily have to do anything wrong to be hit with a lawsuit.)

Schools are government bodies and can afford whatever insurance they need. Just raise taxes.

School boards in the U.S. have much tighter controls over their funding than they do in Canada. Often, boards can't "just raise taxes" without passing some referendum. If the citizens in the area don't agree to pass the referendum, the school will either have to skip the insurance, or take the funds from somewhere else.

You suggested teachers just "give students a hug". I pointed out potential physical dangers to the teacher if that particular policy were carried out. You seem to dismiss the dangers. Therefore, you must have no qualms about teachers getting hurt in the ways I described.

You overlook what I actually think ... that what you describe is nonsense.

Unfortunately, what you THINK doesn't seem to be based on reality.

I pointed out real dangers that a teacher would experience if approachng for a 'hug'. The fact that you dismiss such dangers with no explaination why just underscores your lack of logic in this matter.

Now, of course you DO keep suggesting body armour, but its very difficult to know whether you're serious about that or not. And if you are, what EXACTLY do teachers do in between the time the kid starts trashing the place and they put the armour on.

???

Presumably they are putting on their hockey equipment.

I'm assuming that there would always be someone available in a supervisory capacity in the classroom even when ONE teacher is putting their armour on.

Of course, that's assuming you were even serious about that. Putting on hockey equipment (or anything else) seems rediculous, but then, your arguments seem to thrive on lack of logic.

Let me put it this way... for every case of a school kid injured once handcuffs are in place, I can probably find a case of a kid injured while being restrained.

I doubt it.

Well then, lets start seeing your masses of examples of kids injured after handcuffs have been applied. If they're so dangerous I'm sure you'll find plenty of examples. I will try to keep up with examples of kids injured through restraints.

Of course, I notice you STILL haven't given any sort of comprehensive set of rules on how to deal with situations like this.... when and how to apply hugs, how to deal with students who don't respond, how to deal with students who were victims of sexual assault. Are you ever going to do that, or are you just going to take pot shots and make bogus claims?

[segnosaur]

you don't have an exact copy of the exact schools policy --- so, after all the meaningless dressing is removed, what you have is, exactly bupkis.

I posted a reference to the federal regulations. Got it? Federal. Last time I checked, Florida was actually still a member of the United States of America. When did they separate?

oh and that other Florida school - you show the rules for substitute teachers - GMAB

You're right... it was for a subsititute teacher... but do you have any reason to believe that a full time teacher would be handled any differently?

Really... you have to apply some rationality here... What makes more sense, that some school followed the FEDERAL regulations limiting contact with students, or that somehow this one particular school allowed teachers to restrain students all they wanted for whatever reason they wanted?

You keep taking potshots at myself and the school board; don't you think that its at least REASONABLE to assume that the school might be following federal regulations?

[Guthrie]

you don't have an exact copy of the exact schools policy --- so, after all the meaningless dressing is removed, what you have is, exactly bupkis.

I posted a reference to the federal regulations. Got it? Federal. Last time I checked, Florida was actually still a member of the United States of America. When did they separate?

...

Got it? oh yeah sure --- except, YOU'RE the one who doesn't seem to, "Get It" -- because you did NOT post up federal regulations. You posted MA state regulations.

The Scituate Public Schools complies with the Department of Education (DOE) restraint

regulations, 603 CMR 46.00 et seq.

this refers to Massachusetts law, not federal

Florida and Massachusetts have never been linked by way of education regulations. Though I do agree that both states have recreational ocean fishing available - there is no point in your putting one up as explanation of the other.

That is, what you have given is just as previously noted, 'bupkis'

[Figleaf]

I wanted to get a picture of how much or little damage you believed a six year old was capable of carrying out and how much damage justified a police take-down on a six-year old.

Well, given the fact that we're dealing with kids who are having EXTENDED temper tantrums (in the example that started this thread it was at least 20 minutes, although likely well over half an hour, although I've read about similar cases that went on for over an hour), I suspect that the amount of damage could be rather considerable.

Well, just a side point here... the article indicates that they never just left the kid alone to wind down -- instead they kept pestering her, virtually guaranteeing she would continue to be upset.

Anyway, I don't think the level of damage you are envisioning bespeaks a need to mount a police takedown. So a few books get torn up ... whoopee.

No, I would have public insurance indemnify teachers for bona fide efforts to do their best in any given situation.

...

School boards in the U.S. have much tighter controls over their funding than they do in Canada. Often, boards can't "just raise taxes" without passing some referendum. If the citizens in the area don't agree to pass the referendum, the school will either have to skip the insurance, or take the funds from somewhere else.

The crappy organizational structure of the US school system is no excuse. If employees are exposed to the possibility of lawsuits for carrying out their jobs, they should be indemnified. If that means taxes must be raised or services curtailed, well then, let the citizenry make better choices about where they spend their public money.

Unfortunately, what you THINK doesn't seem to be based on reality.

I was just THINKing the same about you.

I pointed out real dangers that a teacher would experience if approachng for a 'hug'.

No, you fabricated a bunch of highly implausible dangers and called them real.

I'm assuming that there would always be someone available in a supervisory capacity in the classroom even when ONE teacher is putting their armour on.

Of course, that's assuming you were even serious about that. Putting on hockey equipment (or anything else) seems rediculous, ...

I'm assuming there are principals, vice-principals, school nurses and guidance counsellors in the school in addition to the teachers.

What seems ridiculous is the notion that six-year-olds pose such terrible hazards to grown people.

[Guthrie]

...

Well, just a side point here... the article indicates that they never just left the kid alone to wind down -- instead they kept pestering her, virtually guaranteeing she would continue to be upset.

...

yes, the fact that our education system has driven off all but a very few of the really decent teachers, it should be no surprise that Florida schools don't know how to care for the kids whose lives they affect so deeply. The real disturbing part, this is not the first case of a Florida school calling in the cuff toting Barney Fife wannabees of the local constabulary

[sharkman]

You know what? This whole thing would have been taken care of quite nicely if the kid had been doing this in 1965, when teachers and principals were allowed to spank. Plain and simple.

In today's school the child is never wrong. No one is allowed to even touch them. So frustrated educators, who no doubt had to deal with this type of nonsense regularly, thought a brush with the law might smarten the kid up.

The probable reason this is a news story is the parents, instead of apologizing for their idiot kid, are prbably idiots themselves and had a hissy fit in the principal's offce, the police station, and then the local news channel. If I were the principal I'd kick the kid out of school for good.

[Guthrie]

You know what? This whole thing would have been taken care of quite nicely if the kid had been doing this in 1965, when teachers and principals were allowed to spank. Plain and simple.

In today's school the child is never wrong. No one is allowed to even touch them. So frustrated educators, who no doubt had to deal with this type of nonsense regularly, thought a brush with the law might smarten the kid up.

The probable reason this is a news story is the parents, instead of apologizing for their idiot kid, are prbably idiots themselves and had a hissy fit in the principal's offce, the police station, and then the local news channel. If I were the principal I'd kick the kid out of school for good.

"This whole thing would have been taken care of quite nicely if..."

If schools had the resources they had in 1965 --- or even an administration who cared about education the way the administration in 1965 cared about education.

Spanking has never been an effective method. NEVER

[sharkman]

I just re-read the link, and here's the revealing part:

Last spring a number of civil rights organizations collaborated on a study of disciplinary practices in Florida schools and concluded that many of them, “like many districts in other states, have turned away from traditional education-based disciplinary methods — such as counseling, after-school detention, or extra homework assignments — and are looking to the legal system to handle even the most minor transgressions.”

Civil rights groups (read liberal activists) have decided to target school districts. I wonder how they get the word out so idiot parents can call them in on a case? No doubt they have a crack team just itching for the phone call. Pathetic.

[Figleaf]

You know what? This whole thing would have been taken care of quite nicely if the kid had been doing this in 1965, when teachers and principals were allowed to spank. Plain and simple.

In today's school the child is never wrong. No one is allowed to even touch them. So frustrated educators, who no doubt had to deal with this type of nonsense regularly, thought a brush with the law might smarten the kid up.

The probable reason this is a news story is the parents, instead of apologizing for their idiot kid, are prbably idiots themselves and had a hissy fit in the principal's offce, the police station, and then the local news channel. If I were the principal I'd kick the kid out of school for good.

The real idiots in this matter are the ones who use heavy-handed police tactics to deal with upset six-year olds.

[PolyNewbie]

Spanking has never been an effective method. NEVER

Threat of the strap kept me in line on many occasions.

[Guthrie]

... good.

The real idiots in this matter are the ones who use heavy-handed police tactics to deal with upset six-year olds.

I graduated High School in Orlando FL -- I concur, "the real idiots in this matter are the ones who use heavy-handed police tactics..."

[sharkman]

... good.

The real idiots in this matter are the ones who use heavy-handed police tactics to deal with upset six-year olds.

I graduated High School in Orlando FL -- I concur, "the real idiots in this matter are the ones who use heavy-handed police tactics..."

Why, are you saying you turned out badly under spanking laws of the time?

[Army Guy]

This is an example of a situation gone bad, and nobody making sound and rationally choices...I mean handcuffing a six year old, even a huge 6 year old,. I'd hate to see what the procedures are for high school or even adults Swat team perhaps , shit maybe the national guard....

[Guthrie]

...

Why, are you saying you turned out badly under spanking laws of the time?

Right now, I'm saying that is highly insulting. Do you care to take it back?

[sharkman]

...

Why, are you saying you turned out badly under spanking laws of the time?

Right now, I'm saying that is highly insulting. Do you care to take it back?

No, because it wasn't a statement but a question. The reason I asked it is you never addressed why, as a former student in Florida, you agree with the statement you quoted:

"the real idiots in this matter are the ones who use heavy-handed police tactics..."

So let me ask again. Why, as a former student in Florida, do you agree with the above quote? What was your personal experience as a student in Florida, that you would agree with such a statement.

[stignasty]

Police: Substitute Drags 1st-Grader Down Hall

Teacher Suspended Without Pay

POSTED: 11:56 am EDT May 16, 2007

UPDATED: 5:50 am EDT May 17, 2007

BOSTON -- A Lawrence substitute teacher was suspended Wednesday after grabbing a first-grader by his shirt and pulling him down a hallway on Tuesday, police said.

Douglas Tracia, 48, was charged with assault and battery because there were scratches and lacerations on the boy's neck, police said. The incident was captured by a surveillance camera at the South Lawrence East School on Osgood Street.

The police chief said the incident began when one student threw a book and Luis Tejada, 7, threw it back. The teacher tried to mediate and Tejada said he didn't start the incident and bolted from the classroom, police said.

http://www.thebostonchannel.com/news/13330...00410&qs=1;bp=t

[kimmy]

See, this teacher's mistake is obviously that he forgot to put on hockey gear before grabbing the kid.

-k