How do teachers see abuse in schools?

Remove all ads!

Heck yeah -- being a middle or high school teacher is probably one of the more stressful jobs in the United States. I remember when students would give teachers more than enough crap to deal with, or suspect that their teachers were "sexist" or "racist" because they received lower grades.

Granted, there are no doubt bad teachers. But in retrospect, the ones who were most strict and largley considered "hardasses" were the ones that offer more discipline. Certainly there are students who receive crap from classmates and teachers unfairly, but when you consider that a middle/high school classroom has a lot of angst/hormones/"no one understands me" emotions, there is bound to be a degree of frustration and anger directed at teachers, especially when parents are looking out for their children without regard for teachers.

So yeah -- teachers and relatives/spouses of teachers on SP have my support.

 

You know, I've already had such a situation happened. *I* was not the instigator of the fight, and I defended my ground until one of the teachers forcibly separated us (it was a good thing, the bastard was taking one hell of a beating). We both found ourselves in front of the principal... and BOTH of us were convocated into detention. I spoke to me Ma about that, saying that I wouldn't be punished of just defending myself, and she totally backed me up. I foxed detention, then they assigned me to another one, which I also foxed, and so on. Basically, I foxed FIVE detentions, and I was suspended for a week for doing so. I couldn't care less, since this was a free week off.

It seems that if you defend yourself, you're no better than your agressor. F*** that **** - what am I supposed to do, ignore everything and reduce myself to the status of doormat? No f****** way. I will fight until my last breath if I simply defended myself.

Hehe, that was my speciality! I was a take-no-s*** kind of wee lad, and still am this way.

 

You know, I'm beginning to think that the case of "he started it!" is going to be seen as a justified defense in this thread.

Heck, if there's one thing a person learns after high school (and hopefully before high school), it's that actions have consequences. I mean, potential psychopaths are the only individuals who typically have trouble picking that up.

 

There are most typically better solutions than violence, but the assailed victim's mind is not as clear and logical as ours when we are calm and have a broader perspective. The defence reflex is natural and justifiable and everyone has the right to defend himself -- there's no obligation whatsoever to receive a beating or run away. Once again, better solutions exist and I can typically talk people out of wiggling their uneasy limbs in front of my nose. But so long as the alternative is getting beaten/running away or defending onese, I believe the defender should only be punished for needless violence after defeating the opponent or for responding with inappropriately overwhelming force and doing much harm in the process.

@Oaz:

For "participating in a fight" yes (it's actually a legal term here, but I guess teachers and generally people use it everywhere). For beating someone up until he bleeds, not really. But between the kid who insults the other one's family line back to Forefather Adam and the kid who clocks him one, I'd rather side with the latter if it developed into a lawsuit and both boys' parents asked me to represent them.

In the middle ages, when you had one big feudal militia doubling as an army instead of law enforcement and the same people who fought enemy invaders dealth with bandits as well, whoever started a fight, even by insults alone (e.g. Knight X to Knight Y: "Your mother is fun to play with"), had himself to blame for getting chopped into pieces. I'm not saying this is the perfect system, but in harsh environments, like among teens, some elements of it would do a good job.

To my mind, if teachers delve into such advanced justice-related philosophical/legal problems as how much you can do in defence, how you should react to assaults to minimise damage and so on and so forth, they could as well employ proper standards of benefit of doubt, presumption of innocence and hearing out both sides. Also, if they require such a high moral ground of students as to fend off physical aggression with words of reason, themselves they should be morally high enough to show examplary standards of justice in judgment.

And yeah, I know it's not an easy job to get teens in order. I've had quite difficult siblings and difficult tutorees (the only class I've ever had has consisted of people all older than I am) and I've known some teachers.

 

Well, this is more of what I have in mind. However, I would like to nonetheless convey to the bullied party that it's still not okay (or at least mature) to go around clocking people because of what they say. Children should be aware -- and I'm sure you wouldn't explicity advocate otherwise -- that violence is not in the long run a helpful way of resolving things.

Of course, the bullying party probably deserves attention foremost, but of course this doesn't mean the bullied party's actions should be neglected.

 

Hmm... yes, violence is not the answer, but I think words actually do more harm that quick and deserved violence. Prolonged and making the kid feel powerless and defenceless is traumatising. But getting a prompt punch... Hard to say. As a kid, I remember I was desperate to stop some people from calling me names and otherwise mocking or taunting me. Sometimes it was not even what they said, but just that they wouldn't shut up and be quiet. This is to say the "verbal" kids can make it as bad on you as a real physical bully. The bad thing is that they always make a real physical bully out of you if you chase them and then you can't even say they kept provoking you because don't all bullies say they are being provoked?

My other impression is that teachers often see replying with violence to violence as worse than actually starting the violence. The lawyer in me revolts (and maybe that's how the lawyer in me was born, actually).

 

I've never seen a school employ "mediation" with bullies. It wasn't employed when I went to school and it hasn't been employed at any of my son's schools, either. Where I come from, bullies were actually subject to administrative action (suspension, etc) or even legal action in more severe cases. The only time I've ever seen "mediation" employed has been in instances of personality conflict or fights which erupted mutually (ie not bullying).

 

Were they undoubtedly mutual, the conflicts, or was it the teacher's judgment?

 

Chev, all such instances are going to require a modicum of judgement. That said, it's generally pretty obvious when a fight is an instance of "bullying" or just a personality conflict.