Kid Becomes "Little Zangief" in Response to Bullying
- Thread starter Scott Bullock
- Start date
CD-R said:
No, it won't. It will damage his fragile state even more and result in more rage and anguish, the same rage and anguish that made him bully Casey. He needs to be helped, not ridiculed. Ridiculing does not help his condition. His inability to feel empathy for his fellow human being is a mental disorder that arose probably due to negative influence or abuse. He CAN be helped, but making fun of him won't do jack. Stop thinking of bullies as inherently evil beings that need to be "punished". They need to be helped so they can deal with their own rage.
I suppose your right about that. Still it's nice to see a parent in one of these situations who isn't in complete denial and accepts some responsibility for their child's actions. You wouldn't happen to have a link to the interview by chance would you.AndyFromMonday said:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qmSRa2CJRpkCD-R said:
This text is here so as to not get banned for low content post.
"He called me fat.
I called him an ambulance."
It doesn't get old. Seen so many kids get bullied while I went through school, I don't always condone violence, per se- it's best to stand up to your bully in some way, though. In this case, bravo, kid. That little shitter will never bother you again, and will never bother you again.
I feel bad for the bully, simply because his leg is broken- but I don't think I've shown this to someone who didn't share the same "fuck that kid" sentiment towards the bully. I would like to think that having his ass handed to him and be publicly humiliated at his failure-to-bully will make him stop picking on kids.
I called him an ambulance."
It doesn't get old. Seen so many kids get bullied while I went through school, I don't always condone violence, per se- it's best to stand up to your bully in some way, though. In this case, bravo, kid. That little shitter will never bother you again, and will never bother you again.
I feel bad for the bully, simply because his leg is broken- but I don't think I've shown this to someone who didn't share the same "fuck that kid" sentiment towards the bully. I would like to think that having his ass handed to him and be publicly humiliated at his failure-to-bully will make him stop picking on kids.
Theres acctually alot of stuff in this post i had not thought about, thank you for explaining it, it makes alot of sense nowDastardly said:
Being a ex bully victim myself however, i would have loved to perminatly cripple my bullies, At the time anyway, Im pretty much over it now
Even though the bullies at my high school were equally lame(same thing: swift kick in the ass and they leave you alone), I still have a hard time feeling sorry for dbags like the twerp. But I do understand the sentiment: humiliation wont teach this kid humility.AndyFromMonday said:
It's kind of like when they send pedophiles to prison; they should really just keep them in prison because the place is obviously only going to make their condition worse.
The logic of this I mostly agree with. I understand schools are often in a difficult position; nevertheless I do disagree with the notion that suspending both parties will ultimately prevent further incidents for this fact alone:Dastardly said:
If you remove the victim as well as the aggressor there's a good chance the school kids won't understand this practice is a matter of prevention. Instead, they are more likely to use the suspension as a new bullying device that escalates. I'll take this further.
Let's say the school continues to suspend both parties. The obvious fighting about (Reason A) dies down. Okay. 1-3 weeks later the matter of suspension comes up when the exposure to the same bully groups starts becoming more frequent after the suspension. Not only did the victim defend him/herself in a situation which could have easily been a lot worse, but now they have to contend with the psychological abuse of the suspension. Most kids in this situation will feel like the school is now against them and will feel as though they have no choice, and will feel rettiscent to defend themself in future.
But it worked so well for that moment when Ri(t)chard was dropped.
What the school is doing, whether they know it or not, or is willing to acknowledge it or not, is backing that child into a corner both legally and psychologically. The school is, to the child, sending a VERY clear message which says: "Defend yourself and we'll kick you out". Whatever the intention of the school, they must stop this practice, because it is detrimental to the psychological well-being of the child being bullied. At this stage, the practice must not be used. The circumstances have by this time progressed to a point that help and support is needed, not (what is seen by the child as) turning a blind eye and dismissing his/her troubles.
By continuing this practice of suspending both parties it is both A) the easy way to deal with it, and B) demonstrating the school takes no active interest in the torment of its pupils.
So I suggest a different set of solutions which may/will work for the variety of issues facing children in the school yard:
? Have in place a structure by which the school removes the victim from the trouble classes, and organises the delivery of necessary coursework material to them so they can, in peace, deal with having lunch and doing assignments. A form of detention, if you will, but that which is positive and encourages relaxation.
? In my school they set up peer mediators (I never used them, my situation was too far developed) who themselves were supposed to be like mini-psychologists, students who would listen to troubles and suggest ways forwards and offer an ear so that no problem escalated to the point of aggression. Again, in my case, it was already at the point of weapons being used, so that was quite impractical.
? Offer them counselling (you will find a lot of students do not want this to happen, as they fear it'll go on their record, and they do not trust adult psychologists, and they do not trust fellow students. One is too far removed, the other is too involved). I suggest a counselling session/structure is set up so that the child's PARENT(s) is brought in to deal with it, in the company of a counsellor, or reviewed by a counsellor. Either at the school, or at the home. But the child must feel safe. Imagine being the child, going to the designated counselling office, talking to the counsellor and knowing that, in 5 minutes, you're going back into the playground. Back to the same place that's been causing all the trouble, and between then and the 5 minutes deadline, the problem will not be solved.
My heretic of a school always spouted a Triangle of Communication (school on top, parents in the middle, child on the bottom, that they revised to parents and child holding equal space on the bottom). They never encouraged it. So here's my solution: Children on top, parents in the middle, school on the bottom, because the buck stops with the school - does it not?
The child talks to the parents, the parents talk to the school. This way the parents will understand what the child is saying and will be more aware of how to word things when dealing with the official bodies. The official bodies can then take the adult language to their academic board of administrators, and can pursue the matter through their lines of investigation.
The problem you're dealing with, otherwise, is a total abolishment of trust. How can you, or any school official, expect to gain the trust of a student who feels alone, without friends and bullied both physically and pscyhologically, if you suspend them for a crime they did not commit? Remember the important factor here: you are dealing with a child whose life is wrapped up in one word: survival. He/she doesn't care about your red tape, they don't care about your official procedures, nor do they care about your bits of paper they have to sign citing at least 3 witnesses in support of your claim against another student. They don't care about how long an investigation takes, they don't care if you're talking to the Principle. What they care about is having something done about their difficulties, and no school can understand that because there is no understanding to begin with.
A child who enters a schooling administration is under the impression that they CAN make friends, that they ARE able to learn, that the great unknown that is the school yard is a vast place of opportunities to meet new people. But in Casey's circumstance, the playground is a hell hole. It's a place someone like Casey dreads to go, but many schools tell students to not stay in halls or classes, because they may cause mischief.
So now what do we have:
Don't fight back or get suspended,
Distrust,
Bullying,
Psychological trauma,
A hot bed of bullies,
No choice but to go TO the bullies,
Miscommunication on the part of the schools,
Misunderstanding on the part of the schools.
Add to that the real feeling of danger and being singled out, and you, as a school, have no chance of painting yourself as the savior by this stage. My school refused to know about the issues, simply because it was too much paperwork. I was too much trouble. Maybe Casey felt the same way.
Kids like Casey WILL let the system know they're in trouble, but the system is too slow. They do not understand the urgency of these kids, and that if a child feels he/she needs to tell a teacher then the situation will quickly be out of hand.
So I disagree with this practice of suspending both parties. By suspending the victim as well as the aggressor you are cutting off any trust left in the student and the school. You are telling them they are alone.
But who am I: AJW89 with 2 posts, registered yesterday. I just have a 15+ years experience dealing with defective systems in one form or another.
The kid wasn't really restrained, he was still very able to fight and cause damage. From the position the smaller kid was in, I can see a dozen ways he could have done damage to Casey. Even his random flailing could have caused damage (foot striking head, hand striking groin or knee). He was still fighting, still struggling, and still dangerous up to the point where he was dropped to the ground. At that point, having experienced actual pain, he broke off contact.danpascooch said:
Now, personally, I can see ways that Casey could have handled that better and more efficiently. However, I've had training and have been in real fights on more than one occasion. Casey, not so much. His attack was instinctive, reactionary, and ended as soon as the threat was reasonably neutralized. He didn't beat the kid bloody, he dropped him then backed off, exactly as he should have.
One final point. Lets see how well you analyze a situation like this when your body has dropped into fight or flight mode. Let's see how well you think when your system has just been hit by a MASSIVE load of adrenaline and endorphins. Let's see how clearly you can weigh your options when the conscious is being forced to stop back, and the lizard brain takes over. Instincts take over in a fight, especially without training. Instincts don't give a damn about reasonable force or risk factors, they only know one thing.
This guy is hitting me.
Stop him.
Period.
You don't get to second guess the man on the ground. I still call this appropriate use of force, but even if in some fantasy land it isn't, it's still a reasonable action under the circumstances. And if it helped this bully learn a lesson, it may spare him a hell of a lot more violence later, and that's all to the good. Pain is instructive.
What you're suggesting makes a certain kind of theoretical sense... but it just isn't happening in schools. Before we suspend a kid, for any reason, there is a meeting in which we clearly spell out exactly why the student is being suspended.AJW89 said:
And, being completely honest, being suspended is more often used as a "purple heart" for the underachiever than it is something to tease a kid about. Most of the time, the kid takes the suspension and then says nothing about it. Fact is that most middle and high schoolers are far too preoccupied with their own zits and failings to honestly get that wrapped up around someone who wasn't in class for a few days.
When we make changes like this in schools, they are based on the evidence. If the evidence comes back that it's a bad change, we switch back. Now, a lot of folks see something they don't like and assume the school is stupid... when, in reality, they're often only choosing to look at the situation from one point of view. We are a body made up of many, many people, so we are forced to see multiple viewpoints at all times.
This is far more likely to be "damaging" to a child--to be still at school, but separated and "sheltered" from the rest. They'll still have to pass other students in the hallway and lunch room, and be seen as the "coddled victim." Or, if you go for strict isolation, you've just suspended the kid in practice, just not in geography. We always send assignments home with kids so they don't get behind.
At least at home, the suspended child can also choose to participate in therapeutic activities like watching TV or playing video games, rather than being sequestered in a room.
As you've indicated, these are more about prevention. And in general, the students that use them aren't the students that need to. In a lot of cases, the students that choose to be "peer mediators" do so for the same reason as many "student councils"--popularity and status. As such, they are often not as helpful as they should be, or are not seen as approachable by the more downtrodden students, socially speaking.
Our job is to educate. And for this to happen, the child needs to be in class, or at least engaged in work. What you're talking about adding is a very good thing, but it's outside the scope of our funding. Also, all I can really say is, "Good luck getting parents of troubled students to come in on demand." We have a whole slew of forms we can use to compel parents to show up, simply because it's such a problem to get them there.
Not a chance. By the time a child is 18, that child has only spent about 12% of their lives in school. That's it. They've spent far more time sleeping. Additionally, as a teacher, I've got 150 students to keep track of everyday. That parent? They have one. My job isn't parenting, it's management. The buck in no way at all stops with the school. It starts and stops with the parents.
And we know precious little about Casey's home life. Why were his parents not aware that he was having trouble with his peers? Because they were not communicating with their child. He wasn't communicating with the school, but they weren't communicating with him. The parents are always seen as completely innocent in these situations, and that's what is most frustrating. The parents are in charge of the child. We're just in charge of the child's education, and we're busting our butts to do everything we can to make it happen.
And I work in public schools, and have a vested interest in seeing them made better. I'm also a "survivor" of childhood bullying, having seen more than my fair share of fights because of school districts not acting when they are told there is a problem. And I've also seen the major changes schools have made over the years, and the problem is far, far better. We are hearing more about bullying now specifically because schools are making sure these problems come to light more often.
Many, many of the failures attributed to school systems begin as failures at home. The school can try to apply bandages to these problems, but they are truly powerless to fix them without parental involvement (which we all sorely want more of, but only get from the parents that don't really need to be there).
If a ship has a hole in it, it will take on water and sink. As an emergency measure, you might grab a bucket and starting bailing. But when it comes time to fix the problem, you get to work repairing the hole in the ship. You don't tell the crew they just need to get more and better buckets.
I FREAKING LOVE THIS.
If I wasn't afraid of getting my ass beat back, then I would have done this to SO many people. Or at least a nice Falcon Punch in the face. or the gut.
If I wasn't afraid of getting my ass beat back, then I would have done this to SO many people. Or at least a nice Falcon Punch in the face. or the gut.
I understand what you're saying, but most cases (I assume and hope) are not as extreme as Casey's, prolonged and focused. Casey was "lucky" in this case, because we have evidence that at least 1 of the punches was really intended to hurt, and that it was the bully who escalated the conflict.AJW89 said:
Also, Casey being a big guy was probably helpful. Once provoked to violence, he could end it very quickly. However, if it was a small kid, he may need a weapon, or use tactics such as eye gouging (and I mean literal, Kill Bill type eye gouging). He may feel the need to continue the assault on a downed opponent, because if the bully gets up, he's fucked. Think how much debate there has been over Casey's level of force and what he should have thought. If the victim is kicking the bully in the nuts, or smashing his face in, it seems almost impossible he would have any idea when enough was enough.
It's well and good for us on the internet to approve of his violence, but we don't need to deal with the next kids who fight, and the next etc. If they don't suspend Casey, they have created a de facto standard; if you have been bullied this badly, you can use violence. That means there will be kids who used violence in good faith, feeling they were bullied as much as Casey, and the school says "no, you weren't suffering enough" or "you weren't scared enough." Or "twelve kicks to the groin would been okay, but 14 is unacceptable. That, I think is the most psychologically damaging situation.
I agree with a lot of what you're saying, but I'll clarify a number of points. You may very well still disagree but I feel that maybe I didn't actually highlight what was important.
If you're lucky enough to have a school where this is not used against the victim then congratulations, it's almost unheard of in some parts of England, in my experience. The system you employ - as far as education goes - must be better than here, because it'll suggest that here we have too many kids with too much free time. This is a variable I acknowledge.
Now I have to point out that I do not fully believe in the suggestions I have made. I don't fully support them, but even still it is worth while looking into them because they do offer a safe haven for troubled and bullied kids in some form or another. Another solution that someone very close to me implemented was to get himself detention every class, because, "It was safer than being in the halls" and would sneak off to the next class. It was out of desperation and worked for quite a while.
But to tackle each point seperately:
What you need to be aware of is that this is not going to "damage" the child, because he/she is already DESPERATE to get away. It's what they want. If your school is more worried about interaction with fellow students then you miss the point. They want out of the mainstream flow of kids so this'll be like Christmas to them, where they can have some kind of break from the violence. That's the simple primitive logic behind that one.
The benefit of being at home is beside the point really; while I acknowledge the benefit, they should still be able to access the classes. Okay, you take the necessary steps to deliver work to them, but we are still talking about the same thing: the segregation of a student from the rest of the crowd causing them trouble. I think the difference between your solution and mine is a matter of "discipline" and I think this is where we are going to continue to differ, correct me if I'm wrong =)
I don't like peer mediators. I don't trust them. But they proved somewhat useful to a minority in my school. So that's where I'm coming from on that one.
I however strongly believe that if the school needs to be involved in the solution then the parents should be as well. The parents will often not see an issue developing. They won't believe it even when they're told, because situations - by that time - ARE unbelievable. Children in fight situations will try to deal with it. But it's only when there is an archive of problems to recall will they tell their parents and it's only when the situation has just gotten out of control that the parents will begin to believe it. It's a failing on the older generation, in some ways. Perhaps for parents it all seems too early for troubles. I can't speak for parents like I can speak for tormented kids. I know better what it's like to be an underdog and then literally walked away from (by definition) by the school officials just as I needed them the most.
Counselling is something schools like to implement in England so I tacked it onto that as a different twist. In my experience, parents will invariably turn up when called. Or will tend to turn up when there's an arranged time. So I don't see it as a problem as such. Of course if you, working as an official I assume, see a broader issue I'm receptive to it.
Now this is where I disagree: the buck does stop with the school, as long as the problems are occurring on school grounds, and as long as the school has been made aware of troubles - either trouble starting or continuing and developing. Trouble may be noticed by teachers when they take the registers and see a pattern of absences, or lateness, or changes in character. It is not impossible for a teacher to remain human (despite the restrictions of their role within the school itself) and notice personality changes in a pupil, regardless of however many they teach. If something doesn't feel right, it is only inately human to pick up on it. It may not necessarily start with a piece of official paper filled out by the bullied student, but that's where your paper trail starts. A problem should be identified first, and I'm sure you'll find that most teachers with students who get bullied can tell you they notice something change before the paper work is filed.
I disagree because I don't feel it is the child's fault whatseoever for being on the receiving end and feeling he/she can't trust anyone. It is my opinion that a child in that circumstance has been failed by the system for not identifying an issue, for not being aware of problems within the school yard and ACTIVELY monitoring the situation. How hard is it (genuine question) for a school to employ X-Number of staff members per major area (or rotate the current staff per week) to be present and mindful of troubles, with the intent to prevent further flare ups?
If a school's intention is "prevention", then do as the police do, put staff down on the ground and out of the security of their staff room for one day, per staff member, per week. Rotate it, and keep the staff fully informed. A staff presence - especially the more stern staff members who will execute the Zero Tolerance rule - is more likely to 'prevent' bullying.
You have one risk with this: the budget doesn't stretch far enough for staff to report on issues. That's the school's problem, not the child, and the child should not be made to suffer as a result, just because their suffered incident doesn't classify as serious enough to warrant being filed.
My school (and I'm not sure about others) had CCTV cameras in the school yard. You might think, "Oh that's good, your school must have had quite a budget then, not all schools are like that". I agree. They did have quite a budget. They were promoted to "Specialist Status" in 2005 and had done a lot of good charity work. But here's the kicker for someone who got bullied and asked about the CCTV:
They were for intimidation purposes only. They did not record anything. And in fact many of them pointed the wrong way. Talk about a waste of money, eh?
So if the school is unwilling to put money into extra services, then flex the resources it has already: the staff. Train the staff to handle the children in the school yard and not just in the classroom. Train the staff to protect children who are obviously being bullied and train the staff to report on situations adequately enough to allow the authorities to take action.
The staff you know may already do many of these things, and you may already have a staff presence, and it may very well be working where you are, but in my experience it either needs to be done or it needs to be better with either better staff or better training.
When I refer to Casey's perception of the school yard, it was a generic reference. People like him, whom, in his interview stated he suffered constant bullying for years, are the subject of mindless torment. It should be a pretty fair comment to make, I'd think, to say the school yard is a hell hole. By association, we're talking about someone who goes to school - which invariably has a school yard. School yards tend to have thoroughfares, and along these thoroughfares (as you will know) the bullying can take place. Therefore, logic dictates that a bullied child will say, "School yard = bullying" and depending on the intensity of that bullying, he or she may dread it, fear it or hate it. It could feel like a hell hole.
That's what I meant by that.
I don't debate for an instance that many problems start at home. I believe you are entirely right. And I'll take the point about schools making changes which cause the bullying to come to light as true too. That's fair enough. It's very good to know that something IS being done, but I feel the approach to the victim is archaic.
Your euphamism is 'apt' too, I know what you're getting at and I agree with it. What I'm saying here is, to take your euphamism:
Schools are not only boarding up the hole to prevent the leak, they're also building a shed on the back and decking out the stern and giving the ship wings with the spare boards. Board up the hole by displacing the trouble makers, and polish the ship by giving the bullied kids a chance again at enjoying life.
A system used in England - I assume you're elsewhere - especially in the South West is one called, "Hard to Place". They take the most violent children from one school and put them somewhere else, in tougher schools with more strict policies. Unfortunately, my school was one in that system, and what made it doubly worse was my school never put into action its policies when it needed to, but instead preferred to have a school with a majority of violence so there was peace. Whenever a student was targeted, they became the minority, and removed by the system.
There was no justice, and THAT is a failing of the SYSTEM. When majority violence dictates peace, there's something massively wrong there. And I believe you'll find this is the case in several schools in this part of the world. Whether or not it is true to say this is a wide spread pattern is not something I can say for sure. But I know it is true in my area. It's certainly a good indicator the the liklihood exists elsewhere.
Much of what you say I agree with, I can see where you're coming from. I notice, however (and pardon me if I'm being too picky) that you say you have 'seen' your fair share of fights. Again I ask your pardon, but were you ever involved in them? There is quite a massive difference between witnessing two people fighting and being the one who feels he/she has no choice but to fight.
I for one believe that a child SHOULD fight, unless the schools take immediate and swift action against trouble making students.
And allow me to point one other thing out, from my personal experiences:
Fighting and bullying isn't limited to the school yard. Your response as an official then I suspect is the same as every official, "If it's not in the school, it's a matter for the police, not us." But remember that much of the trouble a bullied student will have will be at the end and start of the days. Commonly, at the end, when all the students are leaving via the same route. At any point between the start of the public area and their front door, anything can happen and the school will not know, nor will it do anything major about it. How can it? It's out of the school's jurisdiction and in the public - it's a matter for the police, and I agree. But what goes on outside school can be far worse than that which goes on inside school, and this is important because it makes the child afraid to come back. When they are back, they're on edge, every day all day. Looking over their shoulder, not trusting anyone, unsure of who's around the corner next.
Some children are under such a constant threat of bullying that they are literally unable to communicate the problems, and it is at that stage a school's filing system no longer works. When a child is incapable of going home peacefully, going the evening, sleeping, waking up and going back to school feeling they never left the school yard is a time when something drastic has to be done. Casey, in his interview, looks like he's "been there, done that, bought the t-shirt". There's something else going on here, and the school's Zero Tolerance system no longer applies. Zero Tolerance works when you catch the problem as it starts. But what they're now dealing with is a child who's gone so long through the system that's failed him over and over again that he does not trust them. That's not his fault, and you cannot realistically pin blame on him for it. You cannot therefore blame him for losing his temper and dealing with the aggressor. If you enforce a Zero Tolerance system when there is widespread bullying then you had might as well go on a Crusade, because it is a Bull-At-A-Gate approach. You, as a school, cannot win out over wide spread bullying, nor can you win out against deep seated torment and still be held up as the one who made the best adult decision, by weilding the Zero Tolerance hammer. It's almost impossible without wrecking someone's psychology for ages.
I can't blame Casey for fighting back for one second. Nor do I think he over-reacted. I think what he did should be applauded and the school should now be discussing very carefully how they should monitor their students. What we have here, in Casey's case, is a matter of a school making a swift decision to remove them both. I see your logic behind it, but I stand by my reasoning. It's, like I said, very different being an onlooker and being the one having to deal with it.
I apologise if I have made some crude assumptions and misunderstood your post. I'm receptive to any corrections =)
In my experience, not so much. Sure, for the trouble-maker who gets suspended, it means nothing to them apart from status, "Yeah, I got another suspension, I'm cool" - it means nothing to them, because they've lost interest in its purpose. But the one who doesn't deserve suspension will be more bothered by the fact. It won't sit well with them. This mind-set is well known among bullies and it will be targeted and used as a bullying device.
If you're lucky enough to have a school where this is not used against the victim then congratulations, it's almost unheard of in some parts of England, in my experience. The system you employ - as far as education goes - must be better than here, because it'll suggest that here we have too many kids with too much free time. This is a variable I acknowledge.
Now I have to point out that I do not fully believe in the suggestions I have made. I don't fully support them, but even still it is worth while looking into them because they do offer a safe haven for troubled and bullied kids in some form or another. Another solution that someone very close to me implemented was to get himself detention every class, because, "It was safer than being in the halls" and would sneak off to the next class. It was out of desperation and worked for quite a while.
But to tackle each point seperately:
What you need to be aware of is that this is not going to "damage" the child, because he/she is already DESPERATE to get away. It's what they want. If your school is more worried about interaction with fellow students then you miss the point. They want out of the mainstream flow of kids so this'll be like Christmas to them, where they can have some kind of break from the violence. That's the simple primitive logic behind that one.
The benefit of being at home is beside the point really; while I acknowledge the benefit, they should still be able to access the classes. Okay, you take the necessary steps to deliver work to them, but we are still talking about the same thing: the segregation of a student from the rest of the crowd causing them trouble. I think the difference between your solution and mine is a matter of "discipline" and I think this is where we are going to continue to differ, correct me if I'm wrong =)
I don't like peer mediators. I don't trust them. But they proved somewhat useful to a minority in my school. So that's where I'm coming from on that one.
I however strongly believe that if the school needs to be involved in the solution then the parents should be as well. The parents will often not see an issue developing. They won't believe it even when they're told, because situations - by that time - ARE unbelievable. Children in fight situations will try to deal with it. But it's only when there is an archive of problems to recall will they tell their parents and it's only when the situation has just gotten out of control that the parents will begin to believe it. It's a failing on the older generation, in some ways. Perhaps for parents it all seems too early for troubles. I can't speak for parents like I can speak for tormented kids. I know better what it's like to be an underdog and then literally walked away from (by definition) by the school officials just as I needed them the most.
Counselling is something schools like to implement in England so I tacked it onto that as a different twist. In my experience, parents will invariably turn up when called. Or will tend to turn up when there's an arranged time. So I don't see it as a problem as such. Of course if you, working as an official I assume, see a broader issue I'm receptive to it.
Now this is where I disagree: the buck does stop with the school, as long as the problems are occurring on school grounds, and as long as the school has been made aware of troubles - either trouble starting or continuing and developing. Trouble may be noticed by teachers when they take the registers and see a pattern of absences, or lateness, or changes in character. It is not impossible for a teacher to remain human (despite the restrictions of their role within the school itself) and notice personality changes in a pupil, regardless of however many they teach. If something doesn't feel right, it is only inately human to pick up on it. It may not necessarily start with a piece of official paper filled out by the bullied student, but that's where your paper trail starts. A problem should be identified first, and I'm sure you'll find that most teachers with students who get bullied can tell you they notice something change before the paper work is filed.
I disagree because I don't feel it is the child's fault whatseoever for being on the receiving end and feeling he/she can't trust anyone. It is my opinion that a child in that circumstance has been failed by the system for not identifying an issue, for not being aware of problems within the school yard and ACTIVELY monitoring the situation. How hard is it (genuine question) for a school to employ X-Number of staff members per major area (or rotate the current staff per week) to be present and mindful of troubles, with the intent to prevent further flare ups?
If a school's intention is "prevention", then do as the police do, put staff down on the ground and out of the security of their staff room for one day, per staff member, per week. Rotate it, and keep the staff fully informed. A staff presence - especially the more stern staff members who will execute the Zero Tolerance rule - is more likely to 'prevent' bullying.
You have one risk with this: the budget doesn't stretch far enough for staff to report on issues. That's the school's problem, not the child, and the child should not be made to suffer as a result, just because their suffered incident doesn't classify as serious enough to warrant being filed.
My school (and I'm not sure about others) had CCTV cameras in the school yard. You might think, "Oh that's good, your school must have had quite a budget then, not all schools are like that". I agree. They did have quite a budget. They were promoted to "Specialist Status" in 2005 and had done a lot of good charity work. But here's the kicker for someone who got bullied and asked about the CCTV:
They were for intimidation purposes only. They did not record anything. And in fact many of them pointed the wrong way. Talk about a waste of money, eh?
So if the school is unwilling to put money into extra services, then flex the resources it has already: the staff. Train the staff to handle the children in the school yard and not just in the classroom. Train the staff to protect children who are obviously being bullied and train the staff to report on situations adequately enough to allow the authorities to take action.
The staff you know may already do many of these things, and you may already have a staff presence, and it may very well be working where you are, but in my experience it either needs to be done or it needs to be better with either better staff or better training.
When I refer to Casey's perception of the school yard, it was a generic reference. People like him, whom, in his interview stated he suffered constant bullying for years, are the subject of mindless torment. It should be a pretty fair comment to make, I'd think, to say the school yard is a hell hole. By association, we're talking about someone who goes to school - which invariably has a school yard. School yards tend to have thoroughfares, and along these thoroughfares (as you will know) the bullying can take place. Therefore, logic dictates that a bullied child will say, "School yard = bullying" and depending on the intensity of that bullying, he or she may dread it, fear it or hate it. It could feel like a hell hole.
That's what I meant by that.
I don't debate for an instance that many problems start at home. I believe you are entirely right. And I'll take the point about schools making changes which cause the bullying to come to light as true too. That's fair enough. It's very good to know that something IS being done, but I feel the approach to the victim is archaic.
Your euphamism is 'apt' too, I know what you're getting at and I agree with it. What I'm saying here is, to take your euphamism:
Schools are not only boarding up the hole to prevent the leak, they're also building a shed on the back and decking out the stern and giving the ship wings with the spare boards. Board up the hole by displacing the trouble makers, and polish the ship by giving the bullied kids a chance again at enjoying life.
A system used in England - I assume you're elsewhere - especially in the South West is one called, "Hard to Place". They take the most violent children from one school and put them somewhere else, in tougher schools with more strict policies. Unfortunately, my school was one in that system, and what made it doubly worse was my school never put into action its policies when it needed to, but instead preferred to have a school with a majority of violence so there was peace. Whenever a student was targeted, they became the minority, and removed by the system.
There was no justice, and THAT is a failing of the SYSTEM. When majority violence dictates peace, there's something massively wrong there. And I believe you'll find this is the case in several schools in this part of the world. Whether or not it is true to say this is a wide spread pattern is not something I can say for sure. But I know it is true in my area. It's certainly a good indicator the the liklihood exists elsewhere.
Much of what you say I agree with, I can see where you're coming from. I notice, however (and pardon me if I'm being too picky) that you say you have 'seen' your fair share of fights. Again I ask your pardon, but were you ever involved in them? There is quite a massive difference between witnessing two people fighting and being the one who feels he/she has no choice but to fight.
I for one believe that a child SHOULD fight, unless the schools take immediate and swift action against trouble making students.
And allow me to point one other thing out, from my personal experiences:
Fighting and bullying isn't limited to the school yard. Your response as an official then I suspect is the same as every official, "If it's not in the school, it's a matter for the police, not us." But remember that much of the trouble a bullied student will have will be at the end and start of the days. Commonly, at the end, when all the students are leaving via the same route. At any point between the start of the public area and their front door, anything can happen and the school will not know, nor will it do anything major about it. How can it? It's out of the school's jurisdiction and in the public - it's a matter for the police, and I agree. But what goes on outside school can be far worse than that which goes on inside school, and this is important because it makes the child afraid to come back. When they are back, they're on edge, every day all day. Looking over their shoulder, not trusting anyone, unsure of who's around the corner next.
Some children are under such a constant threat of bullying that they are literally unable to communicate the problems, and it is at that stage a school's filing system no longer works. When a child is incapable of going home peacefully, going the evening, sleeping, waking up and going back to school feeling they never left the school yard is a time when something drastic has to be done. Casey, in his interview, looks like he's "been there, done that, bought the t-shirt". There's something else going on here, and the school's Zero Tolerance system no longer applies. Zero Tolerance works when you catch the problem as it starts. But what they're now dealing with is a child who's gone so long through the system that's failed him over and over again that he does not trust them. That's not his fault, and you cannot realistically pin blame on him for it. You cannot therefore blame him for losing his temper and dealing with the aggressor. If you enforce a Zero Tolerance system when there is widespread bullying then you had might as well go on a Crusade, because it is a Bull-At-A-Gate approach. You, as a school, cannot win out over wide spread bullying, nor can you win out against deep seated torment and still be held up as the one who made the best adult decision, by weilding the Zero Tolerance hammer. It's almost impossible without wrecking someone's psychology for ages.
I can't blame Casey for fighting back for one second. Nor do I think he over-reacted. I think what he did should be applauded and the school should now be discussing very carefully how they should monitor their students. What we have here, in Casey's case, is a matter of a school making a swift decision to remove them both. I see your logic behind it, but I stand by my reasoning. It's, like I said, very different being an onlooker and being the one having to deal with it.
I apologise if I have made some crude assumptions and misunderstood your post. I'm receptive to any corrections =)
I been in the same position as Casey (and as the other lil' prick) but instead of smashing the kid on the pavement, I choked him until 3 people forced me off him. it took a teacher, the kids brother and the kids friend. Got suspended for 2 days and the kid I almost killed got... an apology forced out of me. All because he tripped me then kept pushing me down.
Any-hoo good job Casey, the other kid probly won't learn his lesson and come back with even bigger ego after having 21 days convincing himself that it was just a fluke and "fatty fat fatkins" has no chance in round two. I've learned these out comes from both sides.
Any-hoo good job Casey, the other kid probly won't learn his lesson and come back with even bigger ego after having 21 days convincing himself that it was just a fluke and "fatty fat fatkins" has no chance in round two. I've learned these out comes from both sides.
We're very steadily coming back to the point I made earlier, being that of the few things with which we are left.
I reiterate that when a student such as Casey feels the needs to fight back (maintaining that he claims to have suffered bullying for years) he'll no doubt have lost trust in the system.
We have 3 things left:
? Continue to try to trust the system and get them to do something.
? Relay everything to the parent(s) who will probably try to do something about it.
? Retaliate, tell the parents and hope the bullying stops.
I almost guarantee that most bullied kids will have done the first one - tell the system. Clearly Case did talk to his family because his sister has been supporting him. Most parents take the attitude of 'walk away', as it's the moral high ground and it encourages an adult modus operandi. And the school will go through it's process. But there needs to be something in place for kids like Casey who then have to wait while the school looks into the problem, right? In my experience, you have to chase the officials up again to find out the results of their investigation and even then many will not tell you as it's supposed to be impartial. How is that fair? There's no certainty a school will even carry out a conclusive investigation on a student at all, unless there are a significant number of witnesses and, let's face it, bullied kids don't have that many friends in some cases, for fear of being bullied themselves.
Please someone offer a feasible alternative that has a logical and practical start, beginning and end to its process. I have seen and done so many things over the years that I cannot think of one thing - offered by the system - that works.
I reiterate that when a student such as Casey feels the needs to fight back (maintaining that he claims to have suffered bullying for years) he'll no doubt have lost trust in the system.
We have 3 things left:
? Continue to try to trust the system and get them to do something.
? Relay everything to the parent(s) who will probably try to do something about it.
? Retaliate, tell the parents and hope the bullying stops.
I almost guarantee that most bullied kids will have done the first one - tell the system. Clearly Case did talk to his family because his sister has been supporting him. Most parents take the attitude of 'walk away', as it's the moral high ground and it encourages an adult modus operandi. And the school will go through it's process. But there needs to be something in place for kids like Casey who then have to wait while the school looks into the problem, right? In my experience, you have to chase the officials up again to find out the results of their investigation and even then many will not tell you as it's supposed to be impartial. How is that fair? There's no certainty a school will even carry out a conclusive investigation on a student at all, unless there are a significant number of witnesses and, let's face it, bullied kids don't have that many friends in some cases, for fear of being bullied themselves.
Please someone offer a feasible alternative that has a logical and practical start, beginning and end to its process. I have seen and done so many things over the years that I cannot think of one thing - offered by the system - that works.