Basically, the teacher had each child tell this boy what they didn't like about him, then called for a vote. Talk about bullying - from a teacher, no less.
This is disgusting. Whether or not the teacher wants this boy in class, this is so wrong. This has traumatized the boy and probably warped the rest of the class. The teacher has basically taught these kids that it's okay to pick on disabled people or people who act differently.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Wow. That teacher is so going to hell.
If I believed in hell. *sigh* Saying stuff like that would be so much more satisfying if I did.
On a more serious note, I had a sixth grade teacher who wasn't quite that bad, but was also a bully and had sixth-graders as her allies. What a miserable human being.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
I had a 8th-grade North Carolina state history teacher who said, IIRC, "Who wants Mike to shut up?", and about 5/8 of the class raised their hands. I didn't say much else the rest of that day in class, although I admit I did have a tendency to speak up in class.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
8th grade is quite different from Kindergarten and not being able to control your verbosity at age 13 is quite different from being a (likely) highly intelligent and (also likely) bored five year old boy with a social disorder being told that people don't like you as a person.
This is a tragedy.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
That is really horrible. I realize the difficulty of defining emotional abuse but I'm dismayed that the police dismissed this one so quickly. I hope DCF follows through with some more serious action.
A teacher who does this kind of thing shouldn't be allowed to work with young children.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
The kid has to learn sometime. Everybody else in the class manages to function without getting voted out. Still, we don't have all the info yet, do we? We don't know if the teacher has done something like this before, we don't know how long she has been teaching, we've never observed her at work, and we don't really know how this kid actually is. Those factors make a huge difference.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
No, they don't.
I think you're being contrary just to stir things up.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
whatever.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: A teacher who does this kind of thing shouldn't be allowed to work with young children.
Amen.
The child is FIVE. I have been a frustrated teacher at my wits' end with a student, but this is so far beyond the pale it's unbelievable.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Sigh...teaching was so much easier when you could just hang signs on kids and make them stand on a stool in front of the class.
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: A teacher who does this kind of thing shouldn't be allowed to work with young children.
I agree. And steven, you're dead wrong on this one. A five year old with neurological issues needs special tutoring and therapy to be able to fit in with a classroom of neurotypical kids.
Posted by CaySedai (Member # 6459) on :
The thing is, it's not just the voted-out kid that is damaged by this - the whole class is affected. There is a group of kids that now think if you don't like someone, it's okay to just tell them and kick them out of the group, instead of trying to get along. I can't even express what I'm trying to say here, but that teacher is basically teaching these kids to be bullies.
When my youngest was in kindergarten, her teacher didn't appear to like her. Cayla has a tendency to be overhelpful, even managing at times. Her teacher didn't appreciate that Cayla is trying to be helpful, and was kind of curt. But the difference between a teacher who is a bit cold emotionally to one student and one who actively goes out of her way to destroy a young ego and create a class of bullies is immense.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Sigh...teaching was so much easier when you could just hang signs on kids and make them stand on a stool in front of the class.
Kate, I'm not sure what point you are making. If it's that things that used to be considered acceptable teacher behavior have (thankfully!) been stopped, then I agree. I'm against whacking kids with rulers, too.
quote:Originally posted by CaySedai: The thing is, it's not just the voted-out kid that is damaged by this - the whole class is affected. There is a group of kids that now think if you don't like someone, it's okay to just tell them and kick them out of the group, instead of trying to get along. I can't even express what I'm trying to say here, but that teacher is basically teaching these kids to be bullies.
Agreed!
Posted by Eaquae Legit (Member # 3063) on :
I am truly baffled that this doesn't count as "emotional abuse". What the hey?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Actually, I can buy that it does not quite meet the test for criminally prosecutable emotional abuse. They might win the civil suit though.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Sorry, Rivka. I was channeling my outrage into sarcasm and making the point that this sounds like something from Dickens or Bronte. Where, even then, teachers that behaved that way were recognized as villains.
Posted by Nighthawk (Member # 4176) on :
I tried to post this yesterday but my connection kept coming and going and I couldn't do it successfully.
I figured somebody would post it eventually.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Ah!
Ok, that makes sense. Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
For the record, I don't recommend gleaning teaching tips from 19th century literature!
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
I won notoriety for an essay I wrote in the 9th grade about my 8th grade teacher, who was an unconscionable bully.
She actually created a similar situation in which the entire class raised their hands to say what they didn't like about me, and to offer "constructive criticism." It was a major trauma- but as I recall I didn't cry. Nevertheless, I was scarred.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I'm pretty worried that this teacher thinks she has authority to kick someone out of school. She sounds mentally challenged.
The only question for me is whether she's evil or just a certain variety of person many of us seem to have run across that is spun into a lather by people with autistic type disorders. I guess we could call them the Bizarro Autistic.
Posted by anti_maven (Member # 9789) on :
What was going through the head of the teacher that this would appear as normal behaviour?
I imagine if I knew one of my pupils was diagnosed as autistic, I'd cut the kid some slack. Bad behaviour needs to be addressed, that's true, but with a little empathy.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Well, as is with the case in many things, what drives them crazy is something in themselves, which they may either recognize or be blind to.
So if the teacher's behavior, which is outrageously inappropriate, is also due to autism, what then?
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:So if the teacher's behavior, which is outrageously inappropriate, is also due to autism, what then?
She should find another career.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Seriously, I'm all for giving opportunities to people with all kinds of disabilities but there are limits. A job that requires heavy lifting will never be an appropriate career choice for a quadriplegic. A job as tech-editor is simply inappropriate for someone who can't spell whether they have dyslexia or not. And someone who has a social disorder that causes them to engage in highly inappropriate abusive behavior, shouldn't have a job as a kindergarten teacher.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
I tell you one thing, I would love to meet the two kids who voted to keep him IN the class.
Either they didn't know what they were doing, tried to be funny, or at five years old recognized this as an evil deed they didn't want to be part of. If it's the latter, I want to hang a medal on them.
As for the teacher, I have no words. In part of my teacher education classes, I had to spend 20 hours observing in exceptional education and spent my time with a young man with Asperger's. Yes, they are annoying at times. Yes they are challenging to deal with, but they are also human beings, who deserve to be treated with respect and dignity and valued for who they are.
This woman doesn't need to be teaching, at any grade level.
And since when does punishment mean going to sit in the nurses office all day? What does that accomplish? Not to mention, I'm sure the school nurse has better things to do than babysit kids who get in trouble.
Posted by CaySedai (Member # 6459) on :
The boy's mom was on the CBS Early Show this morning, which was how I found out about this. She said that her son's best friend had voted for him, but the teacher said his name sternly and he changed his vote.
She also said the teacher doesn't think she did anything wrong.
Now, these are both hearsay by a prejudiced party, but the article does say that the teacher confirmed that the incident occurred.
quote:So if the teacher's behavior, which is outrageously inappropriate, is also due to autism, what then?
She should find another career.
The kid is supposedly autistic, not the teacher, in case that was a point of confusion.
I agree though, if you can't deal with asperger's then you can't be a teacher. I've worked with developmentally challenged kids, and it is trying, but nothing would make me conduct a ritual of public humiliation.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Orincoro, Please read pooka's post which I had simply quoted. No one said that the teacher was autistic, it was speculation on what the appropriate response should be IF the teachers unacceptable behavior were also due to a disability.
Sometimes I really regret the absence of a more robust subjunctive tense in the English language.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
The thing I don't understand is how a person who can't handle disruptive kids or kids with special needs is teaching at all. I mean, in a typical classroom I was told by my exceptional ed professor to expect that 10%-12% of the kids there would have IEP's, or in other words, be part of the special education program in the school. So, you have to be ready to handle people in your classes that have physical disabilities, learning disabilities, emotional and behavioral problems, ADD, and indeed, autism and Asperger's.
If you aren't willing to do that, don't teach. Last time I checked, you didn't get to pick and choose which kids you taught - you don't get to turn kids away because you don't like the way they behave.
At the same time, I understand that kids who are highly disruptive upset the learning opportunities of all students. And, perhaps this particular child would be best served in a self-contained exceptional education classroom away from the general education environment. I can sympathize that perhaps this teacher was at the end of her rope with this child.
Still, she handled it wrong. This is not the way to do things.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
That was so mean. I thought it was bad when a kindergarten teacher yelled at me for asking her to help me with my jacket sleeves I unziped. She made me cry. But at least she said she was sorry.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: For the record, I don't recommend gleaning teaching tips from 19th century literature!
The method you mentioned has been used -- and considered an acceptable disciplinary technique -- considerably more recently than that. Which is probably why I was confused about your initial post.
quote:Originally posted by Belle: I tell you one thing, I would love to meet the two kids who voted to keep him IN the class.
Either they didn't know what they were doing, tried to be funny, or at five years old recognized this as an evil deed they didn't want to be part of. If it's the latter, I want to hang a medal on them.
Amen!
quote:Originally posted by Belle: And since when does punishment mean going to sit in the nurses office all day? What does that accomplish? Not to mention, I'm sure the school nurse has better things to do than babysit kids who get in trouble.
IME, it's less a punishment and more what many schools do with kids that cannot be in class just then (for whatever reason) but who are not getting sent to the principal's office. I don't like it much, but it is better than the schools (all private, AFAIK) that figure the parents should come get their kid immediately.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
When I was a school librarian, they sent the problem kids to me. There wasn't anything else to do with them. Our principal was only there part time. I was concerned with the kids viewing the library as punishment. I also had more than one child misbehave in order to get sent to the library.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Belle: The thing I don't understand is how a person who can't handle disruptive kids or kids with special needs is teaching at all.
Did you go to a public school in America? Some of the cruelest, unreasonable and angry people I've ever met have been public school teachers and substitute teachers.
Of course, I'm biased, as I was a young boy at the time. And I'm not saying that they were necessarily unjustified in their reactions. But I had many a teacher who knew of no kind way to deal with disruptive students.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Sometimes I really regret the absence of a more robust subjunctive tense in the English language.
As do I... As would I.
Posted by Carrie (Member # 394) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Sometimes I really regret the absence of a more robust subjunctive tense in the English language.
The subjunctive is a mood, not a tense. Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
You're a mood.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
quote:Originally posted by CaySedai: The thing is, it's not just the voted-out kid that is damaged by this - the whole class is affected. There is a group of kids that now think if you don't like someone, it's okay to just tell them and kick them out of the group, instead of trying to get along. I can't even express what I'm trying to say here, but that teacher is basically teaching these kids to be bullies.
I think this specific act was unconscionable, but I don't see anything wrong with adults voting someone out of an organization where membership is voluntary. You know they say, "Misery loves company", and I'm all for not being around miserable people.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:Originally posted by Carrie: The subjunctive is a mood, not a tense.
*high five*
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
The child was not officially diagnosed with a mental illness so it is reasonable to expect (and demand) "normal" behavior. Of course that doesn't justify the punishment which, according to the testimony of the child's mother, appears to have caused severe emotional distress in the child (not surprising).
Posted by C3PO the Dragon Slayer (Member # 10416) on :
What an EVIL teacher.
An aspie kindergardener can be a pain (I know this in the first person; I wasn't exactly the most beloved kid in the class), but this is WRONG. I thought my first grade teacher was kind of borderline, but this makes her look like a shining angel.
Teacher should be fired. Don't care about legal nonsense. If there isn't a law about discriminating against and denying class membership to a kindergardener in a public school, there darn well SHOULD be.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:The child was not officially diagnosed with a mental illness so it is reasonable to expect (and demand) "normal" behavior.
Autism is not a mental illness its a developmental disorder. The school had recommended that this child be tested for Autism earlier in the year so they clearly recognized that this child had problems that were outside the normal range for children of his age.
High function Autism disorders are very difficult to diagnose. I know some families with children with Aspergers and other forms of high functioning autism who spent years seeking a proper diagnosis. That doesn't mean it took years to figure out the child had a developmental disorder, only that it took years to correctly classify that disorder.
Your reasoning and therefore your conclusions are flawed.
Since this child doesn't have an official diagnosis, the teacher and other people at the school could be forgiven for not knowing the best methods for dealing with his problems. But cruelty and public humiliation of a 5 YEAR OLD wouldn't be an acceptable method for dealing with any type of disorder.
This teacher actually shamed this little boys best friend into changing his vote. That's simply appalling.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
This would have been inappropriate whether or not the child had a mental illness, a developmental disorder, any other condition, or was perfectly "normal." And I agree with previous posters that if my kid was one of the other kids in class and I found out about this I would have pulled him out until that teacher was gone. That is not the kind of behavior I want my child to learn and not the kind of person I want as a role model or authority figure. I might reconsider if the teacher apologized to the whole class and explained why what she did was wrong. Everybody has bad days and makes stupid mistakes occaisionally. But if she tries at all to argue that this was a valid disciplinary technique, no way.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Reasons people who can't handle disruptive kids (or are otherwise not functional adults) might wind up teachers: They were told there would be a high demand for teachers and it would be a stable, secure career. They thought it would be good to have summers off. They figure special kids would go in special ed. They were raised in a sexist environment and the other choices were nurse or secretary.
I'm just listing possible reasons. Not everyone goes into the field they are in because they have an abiding passion and gift for it. There are paths of least resistance that end in being an elementary school teacher.
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:The child was not officially diagnosed with a mental illness so it is reasonable to expect (and demand) "normal" behavior.
Autism is not a mental illness its a developmental disorder. The school had recommended that this child be tested for Autism earlier in the year so they clearly recognized that this child had problems that were outside the normal range for children of his age.
High function Autism disorders are very difficult to diagnose. I know some families with children with Aspergers and other forms of high functioning autism who spent years seeking a proper diagnosis. That doesn't mean it took years to figure out the child had a developmental disorder, only that it took years to correctly classify that disorder.
Your reasoning and therefore your conclusions are flawed.
I only had one conclusion and that was that if the child is in a "normal" classroom then he is expected to behave like a "normal" child. I don't see how what you said contradicts that conclusion.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
I'm not sure the relevancy of your comments.
Yes, there are all sorts of reasons that people make poor career choices but the choice for this woman to be teaching a kindergarten class is not hers alone.
If she things this type abuse is appropriate discipline for a developmentally disabled 5 year old, she should not have been given a job teaching kindergarten.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Threads: As has been pointed out, a fairly high percentage of children in most classes can be expected to have IEPs.
There isn't the distinction between "normal" and not "normal" classrooms that you assume.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
The company I work for offers anti-bullying programs for elementary schools. At a conference recently I was talking to a counselor about getting our program into her school.
Her response was that it needed more emphasis on teacher bullying, and not just bullying other kids, but bullying other teachers.
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: Threads: As has been pointed out, a fairly high percentage of children in most classes can be expected to have IEPs.
So what? A disruptive student is a disruptive student. I've never seen a kid get a free pass for having ADD or some other behavior disorder.
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: There isn't the distinction between "normal" and not "normal" classrooms that you assume.
In my school district there are separate classes for children with severe learning disabilities.
Posted by calaban (Member # 2516) on :
There is a distinction between a teacher discussing alternative options for schooling with the childs parents and bringing about a social hazing like this.
The first is appropriate, the second is contrary to furthering the goal of helping the child in question achieve social integration.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
I'm with Belle-- I think it's great that two five-year-olds went against the rest of the group and the teacher and voted to keep him in the class. I hope my children would do the same.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:I only had one conclusion and that was that if the child is in a "normal" classroom then he is expected to behave like a "normal" child. I don't see how what you said contradicts that conclusion.
If a child had only one leg, would you expect them to participate in all the "normal" physical education activities?
I am fully aware of all the problems that arise for teachers because of main streaming children with severe developmental disorders. At some point the price the rest of the class pays from having a few students who require tons of extra attention warrants considering moving these students to a separate class.
But that point generally isn't in kindergarten. Most children with learning disabilities, ADD or developmental disorders haven't even been identified at kindergarten age. And many children with Aspergers can learn successfully in a normal classroom with the proper help.
Both the school and the parents appear to have been involved in getting this child on track to get proper help. Eventually I'm sure that both the parents and the school would have come to a decision about whether or not his needs were best served in a regular classroom or if he needed some alternative. But that would never have been the choice of the teacher and it certainly is not a question that should ever have been put to his classmates.
Certainly the teacher wasn't out of line in using normal disciplinary measures like sending him to the principals office. But if standing a 5 year old in front of the class and asking all his peers to criticize him, followed by pressuring them all to vote him out of the class is one of her normal disciplinary measures, she should be publicly flogged.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I remember the first time I saw a teacher being horrible to elementary age students. Thankfully, I never had a teacher like that (that I remember), but I volunteered in a school in Detroit for a little while, and I was absolutely shocked by how the teacher would yell at the kids, say they were stupid - all sorts of things. Really unbelievable. But then, it was an inner city school, and I'm guessing there wasn't such a surplus of applicants for the jobs that they fired teachers for being total jerks.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Not having severe learning disabilities is very different from not having any learning disabilities.
There is a big difference between a 'free pass' and an appropriate response. For many behaviors due to mental disability, the appropriate response is not punishment, much less exile.
Posted by Launchywiggin (Member # 9116) on :
"Maybe if I can only get him to see what a disruption he is for the other students, he'll stop acting up every minute of every day in class. He clearly doesn't care about what I think--maybe he'll care about what his friends think. I've tried just about everything I can think of...maybe this will work"
She clearly went about it the wrong way, but I don't think she had evil intentions, like some of you are making it out to be. I don't like seeing entire classrooms of students held back in their development and education because of one problem child, and it appears that the rest of the class would like to be learning, too, instead of dealing with the kid.
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
Interestingly, I found this story here first and *then* discovered the activity on disability blogs.
I sometimes wonder if the creation of "special ed" didn't end up creating a very unrealistic and narrow expectation of what "normal" classrooms should look like.
My schooling began before there was much in the way of special ed (other than totally segregated schools). In my first grade class, we had a girl who was an "elective mute" (didn't talk at all - at least at school), a boy whose clothes seemed to hang off of him and spoke with a drawl - and prone to memorable monologues on things like the booger on his finger. There was the girl who spend most of the day with one hand glued to her face - one finger in her nose and two fingers in her mouth.
By today's standards, I'd be considered kind of weird and I even know the label I'd have. But I really didn't stand out with that kind of competition.
My trip down memory lane aside, there's no defense for the behavior of this teacher. *All* children need some clear expectations and some clearly communicated consequences in terms of willfully failing to meet those expectations. It's called discipline - which isn't a dirty word, but something all kids need.
This wasn't discipline - it was something else entirely.
Posted by TheGrimace (Member # 9178) on :
I have to say that I'm disappointed that no one here seems to be admitting that this article could be very skewed. I'm willing to admit that it's quite possible this teacher acted entirely inappropriately, but I think there's also at least a decent possibility that she just made some minor poor decisions which have been twisted and blown out of proportion.
Let me set up a situation that could quite possibly result in the articles that have currently been linked:
The autistic child is an extreme disruption in the class, impeding all the other children's learning and causing them distress. Now the teacher poses the following question to the class, both to attempt to show the trouble-child the impact he's having and to validate her point that the whole class is suffering: "Class, is 'robbie' making it harder for you to learn?" When 'robbie's friend doesn't raise his hand along with the rest (despite the fact that the teacher knows he was at least as distracted by robbie's antics as the rest) she calls him on it and gets him to reluctantly admit that his friend is impacting his education.
Having the general consensus of the class, and realizing that she is not currently able to handle the child effectively, she send him to the nurse for the rest of the day.
Now sure, a kindergarten teacher should be able to handle this type of thing without ejecting him from class, but we have no idea how extreme his behavior was on that day (or any others for that matter). Also, the "vote" was probably not the best idea, but if it were phrased as above there is little sinister about it, and in some circumstances could prove a useful tool to show the child how bad his behavior is...
Basically we have a couple reports where the only person directly quoted was not there for anything, and is heavily biased towards her child... I'm disappointed that so many people are willing to jump in and condemn someone to hell and whatnot based on such potentially sketchy "evidence."
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
1) She didn't just ask for a show of hands on whether he was being disruptive, she had each child say something they didn't like about the kid.
2) Even if your scenario was true it would still be inappropriate. This is kindgergarten, not college, where something like that might work.
3) A teacher that needs the general consensus of a group of 5 year olds to know whether or not she is handling something effectively isn't.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
I am a bit, concerned, about the mother's part in this.
The child is having behavioral issues at school, and at a previous school.
Yet it takes the school to suggest testing for medical reasons.
Then the child faces brutal criticism and embarrasment from his fellow classmates. What does mommy do? She informs the press, send photos, and goes on TV to tell the whole world about her poor mentally challenged (well, probably, we're testing him) deprived son was mentally wounded for life.
He may have been.
But the way mommy is handling this 15 minutes of fame makes me wonder.
You do realize that if the police would have found reason to prosecute for emmotional abuse, the boys name would have been kept from the press. Momma, on the other hand, seems to want to make sure everyone sees it, and possibly hers.
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
Adding to dkw's points:
This is a kindergarten class. Even in this best-case(?) scenario, the teacher is going through the motions of ceding control of the class to a bunch of five-year-olds.
Note to nurse from teacher: I had to send this child here. In the judgment of my esteemed five-year-old colleagues, this child doesn't belong in my classroom.
Of course, the ceding of control was a facade. The kids did what she expected them to do - they dogpiled on the kid in question.
So what was the lesson here?
Posted by ladyday (Member # 1069) on :
Dan, I wondered about that. But I didn't see where it said that testing was the school's idea. It's quite possible that she has begged and pleaded her way through two schools trying to get the testing and services her son needs. My own experience with getting my kid tested was a very difficult time for everyone involved, so I guess I can see how it might be the same for her and her son.
I was trying to ask myself what I would do as a parent in this situation, if the police looked the other way, if the principal defended the teacher. I'd probably lawyer up, but not everyone has the means to do that (just like not everyone has the means to do testing on their own, without the state's intervention), so what recourse do you have?
Now like I said, I also wonder about running screaming to the press and printing your kid's name in letters eight inches tall. I just don't know. That poor kid .
Edit: I see it now:
quote:Alex began the testing process in February at the suggestion of Morningside Principal Marcia Cully.
That's interesting. It does say later on, though, that they already had an IEP meeting with the teacher present.
Edit again: language, sorry *blush*
[ May 27, 2008, 05:49 PM: Message edited by: ladyday ]
Posted by Luna 9 (Member # 11326) on :
I have a child with some disability in my class, 'J'. I dunno what's wrong with him, but I just know that he won't stop talking. Here's an example: Teacher: Can anyone think of a time you've witnessed bullying? 'J': *raises hand* Teacher: Yes 'J'? Class: No... 'J': Well, um, I was at my dad's house eating popcorn, and Dad switched the channel to Cubo, and the robots were at a party for the blue robot's birthday, and when the pink and yellow robots were at the punchbowl, the orange robot started to bully them. Teacher:...Okayyyyy... He just gives too many details in a story, he just doesn't know when to get to the point.
<Removed teacher's and student's names. --PJ>
[ May 28, 2008, 01:11 AM: Message edited by: Papa Janitor ]
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Grimace, According to the reports the schools resource officer says the teacher confirmed that the incident took place so your speculations seem unfounded. Certainly if the mother was grossly exaggerating the course of events, the school would be disputing her story and they aren't.
Dan-raven, I see your concern but there is also a much less sinister possibility. The mother started by filing a complaint with the school but got no results. After the state said it would not file criminal charges, she considered a civil suit but her lawyer advises her that the teacher in question has nothing worth suing over and its highly unlikely that the school district would be held liable. Frustrated that this teacher is still in the classroom, that her son is still screaming whenever he gets close to the school and having exhausted her other options, she decides to go to the press. Maybe she even asks for anonymity but the papers aren't willing to run the story without the cute kid picture as a emotional grabber so she relents.
And then maybe she's an attention whore.
As for the fact that the family didn't have the kid evaluated for Aspergers until the school recommended it, that is not at all unusual for kids with high functioning autism. I have friends with a son with Aspergers. He wasn't diagnosed until he was 10 despite the families efforts to figure out what's wrong. Finally a friend of the family who worked in a school and knew kids diagnosed with Aspergers suggested they should have him tested for this disorder. The doctors he had seen before had never suggested it.
Posted by TheGrimace (Member # 9178) on :
Thank you Dan, for throwing some additional doubt at this story.
dkw, let me revise my scenario:
1) what if she asks "Class, is 'robbie' making it harder for you to pay attention and learn?" "Now for those of you who raised their hands, what has 'robbie' been doing that bothers you?" would it make a difference if he had been actively bothering/assaulting other students and she wanted them to specify these grievances (i.e. maybe he didn't realize that his constant leg twitching was actually kicking the kid next to him or something)
In my understanding, this is not cedeing control to the 5-year-olds it's encouraging them to voice their disquiet about being bothered by someone. This could be a relatively healthy exercise in social interaction (i.e. instead of kicking your brother you explain to him that he's making you mad by taunting you with the toy he won't let you have).
2) Certainly it's probably not the best option for teaching a lesson, and it would work better with older kids, but without the context and actual wording of what went on I really don't think we can immediately say that it was inappropriate.
3) in my scenario the polling is almost certainly more of a reality check for the student than for the teacher. (though I'll admit I left that window open in my explanation).
I'm really just trying to get across that this situation COULD have actually been completely/relatively benign and just twisted to imply all the horrible things that people keep assuming.
note: I keep saying "robbie" because I can't recall the actual boy's name
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
Luna, you really shouldn't list the full name of the child in your class in your post, especially since you're speculating on a disability that he may or may not have. Imagine if he googled his name and found what you wrote? Or if his aunt or grandmother happens to be a member here? Please edit your post to remove the name, it is not necessary to your point.
Posted by TheGrimace (Member # 9178) on :
addendum to The Rabbit: i still think that the "confirmation of the event" could easily be "Did you ask the class for a show of hands and elaboration about how disruptive the child was? And did you then send him to the nurse for the rest of the day?"
Again, it's quite possible that this is all an accurate portrayal of things, but what I've seen so far has not convinced me one way or the other.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Grimace, your revised scenario is still missing the fact that these are 5 year olds. They are not developmentally capable of the kind of self-reflection that you are positing. Not the kid who is being disruptive, and not the kids who are being disturbed, if indeed they are being disturbed. "What is robbie doing that is keeping you from learning?" is way too abstract a question for a kindergarten class. And the idea that a 5 year old, especially one with an autism-spectrum disorder, could constructively process that kind of criticism and come to a realization of his problem behavior is ridiculous.
Edit: and anyone who is licensed to teach kindergarten should know enough about child development to know that.
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:I only had one conclusion and that was that if the child is in a "normal" classroom then he is expected to behave like a "normal" child. I don't see how what you said contradicts that conclusion.
If a child had only one leg, would you expect them to participate in all the "normal" physical education activities?
I'm talking about disrupting the class, not participation. A child with behavior problems should receive the same punishments as a "normal" child. That's all I was saying. The only point I was making in my first post was "While the child may have deserved to be disciplined, the teacher was way out of line." I don't really see why it was a controversial statement.
EDIT: I just reviewed my posts. Perhaps people read more into my statement because I used an aggressive tone? Anyways, just use this post as my "official" position.
Posted by TheGrimace (Member # 9178) on :
<shrug> keep in mind that I'm a complete educational lay-person, but when my nieces and nephews act up (admittedly none of them are developmentally disabled) I (and their parents) will often try a tactic similar to this (though I admit my wording above is almost certainly too precise/technical). Making it less a question of "you're breaking my arbitrary rules" and more a question of "see how your misbehavior made your brother trip and sprain his ankle." or making the child realize that what they thought was "harmless" waving of their arms ended up smacking their friend in the face and causing a bloody nose (even if they didn't notice it at the time).
But as to it's effectiveness: apparently the fact that the kid's one friend voted against him seems to have had an impact (at least on the mother if not the child) so if it was a more benign questioning, then maybe it had the desired effect. Again, I'm probably thinking too highly of these kid's processing powers and comprehension, but at different ages a friend/classmate saying something has a very different power than an adult.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:A child with behavior problems should receive the same punishments as a "normal" child.
Possibly-- but a child with behavior problems should have an IEP that addresses triggers and has guidelines for avoiding them and possibly additional accomodations or reinforcements, and it should be followed.
Posted by Sachiko (Member # 6139) on :
I also wonder about parents when I hear horror stories like these, where something egregiously wrong happens to their child, and then at the end of the article is a line like "The child goes back to school on Monday."
I mean...??? If it's bad enough that you called the paper about what Teacher did to your kid, then why are you taking this kid back there?
Of course, I am biased--I homeschool my kids.
And it's entirely possible the kid's mother doesn't have the resources--or doesn't think she has the resources--to do anything but send her child back into a bad situation, which I think it still will be even if the offending teacher gets reassigned to another classroom.
It's too bad. There are good teachers out there, but stories like these are all too common. I think part of the flaw is in the structure of public school--but then, again, I'm biased.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
Public Law 94-142 (federal law) states that all children have a right to a free public education in the least restrictive environment.
The "least restrictive environment" clause basically means that schools (and teachers) are not allowed to remove a student from their class without proving that the student cannot function in a normal environment. I don't know how that works on a day to day basis, as opposed to actual enrollment in the class.
(Lawyers may weigh in here...)
It seems to me that while it may be perfectly appropriate for a teacher to ask the nurse (or whoever) to take a child that's disrupting class, this should merely be a "time out," not a punishment (I know, a lot of people use time out as punishment, but it's supposed to be a behavior modification, not a punishment).
Oh, and yeah, Luna, edit your post.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
From everything in the article it seems clear that the the principals office rather than the nurses station would have been the normal route for punishment.
The article doesn't say that the boy was sent to the nurses statement as punishment. In fact it doesn't say that the teacher even sent him to the nurses station, he may have just run out of the door to find the nurse who had previously treated him kindly.
There is however another possibility about why he was at the nurses station. He may have started crying, it certainly would have been a very normal response for a 5 year old. I suspect that crying children are a fairly common thing in kindergartens and it may be a standard procedure to send a child who is crying to the nurse. The nurse could then check to make sure the child wasn't injured or sick and help the child calm down before going back to class. The nurse seeing how upset the boy was and how strongly he didn't want to go back to class may have let him stay there until it was time to go home.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
The nurse's station may have also been the designated spot for him to go when he was out of control, per his IEP, if the school did not have a time out room.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
quote:Originally posted by Belle: . . . you don't get to turn kids away because you don't like the way they behave.
quote:Originally posted by Glenn Arnold: The "least restrictive environment" clause basically means that schools (and teachers) are not allowed to remove a student from their class without proving that the student cannot function in a normal environment.
Actually we (teachers in Osceola County, the neighboring county to the one in which this event occurred) have the right to demand that a disruptive student be removed from our classes and not returned until the disruption has been dealt with. It's a very rarely used right, though.
-o-
When I was in second grade or so, a substitute teacher told me in front of a class that I was a nerd. She didn't mean it as a compliment; this was back in the seventies when "nerd" was definitely not a compliment. I was a pretty disruptive little kid too. We didn't have words like "Asperger's." We had words like "nerd." :-\
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Why should a child with behavior problems receive the same punishments as a 'normal' child? I would prefer children receive punishments (or other responses) appropriate to helping them overcome their difficulties. That will not be the same for all children, even among 'normal' children.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
Icarus, read the next line after what you quoted.
As I said, it's perfectly appropriate to put a child in time out. It's not alright to have the class gang up on the child and kick him out of class.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
I'm talking about neither one nor the other. I'm not talking about time out. I have the right to insist that a child be removed from my class indefinitely.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
No you don't.
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: Why should a child with behavior problems receive the same punishments as a 'normal' child? I would prefer children receive punishments (or other responses) appropriate to helping them overcome their difficulties. That will not be the same for all children, even among 'normal' children.
Fine. Same class/severity of punishments.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
um, I've read my contract and the mailers from my union. Have you?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by TheGrimace: <shrug> keep in mind that I'm a complete educational lay-person
Which might be relevant, neh? Several of the people you're arguing with have training and/or experience as classroom teachers.
quote:Originally posted by TheGrimace: Making it less a question of "you're breaking my arbitrary rules" and more a question of "see how your misbehavior made your brother trip and sprain his ankle." or making the child realize that what they thought was "harmless" waving of their arms ended up smacking their friend in the face and causing a bloody nose (even if they didn't notice it at the time).
And that is very, very different than public humiliation. Assuming you don't survey random passersby to make the point to your nieces and nephews. Posted by Eaquae Legit (Member # 3063) on :
Glenn Arnold, Icarus is talking about a legal right. Whether or not one thinks it's a moral right is a different matter. I think it's an important right, too. Maybe less so in kindergarten (although the teethmark bruises left on my arm by a 7-year-old through kevlar would suggest it's not entirely unreasonable), but definitely by high school where some of the students might be much bigger and stronger and angrier than I, it's very important that teachers have protection.
Ic, how does that work in real life? Are there guidelines for what is considered too disruptive, or is it case-by-case?
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
Y'know, I was going to make some flippant comment about not finding the immunity idol. But after reading the article, all I can think is "Jeez! Poor kid!"
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
In real life, you'd have to be unbelievably desperate to use that provision, because it gets taken as an admission that you lack the ability to control your classroom. I know that it gets used, I know that our union reminds us every year that we have that right, but I don't know of anybody who has used it. (Keep in mind that "indefinitely" does not mean "permanently.")
When I have had a horrid student who disrupted the hell out of my class, I found it more productive to just apply my discipline policy, which resulted in frequent referrals and thus frequent trips to the office, and this frequent suspensions. In one case, all the way until that student threatened to vandalize my car and got expelled for it.
I'd be more likely to use that provision if I felt personally threatened.
Posted by DDDaysh (Member # 9499) on :
This is truly sick! I think this teacher has major issues... what does she think Kindergarten is??? Survivor??????
No matter how awful the kid is, you don't "vote" on his behavior. All that's doing is encouraging kids to think it's ok to pick on other people. Honestly, she's VERY lucky this kid has good parents. What if he was one of those kids whose parents leave guns around the house... her behavior could have had some serious consequences if the kid decided to vote his class out instead!
I also cannot believe the state didn't think this was emotional abuse. What more did they want to have happen?
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Threads, I think you're just going to find yourself backing even further into a corner. Some students will correct their behavior with a mild scolding. Others won't correct their behavior without significantly larger disciplinary measures.
How do you justify your stance?
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
quote:Maybe she even asks for anonymity but the papers aren't willing to run the story without the cute kid picture as a emotional grabber so she relents.
I could see them asking for pictures but if the newspaper insisted she put her minor child's name in the story, well, there must just be something in the water in that town because it seems no one* has a lick of sense about how to do their job.
*This would be hyperbole.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
This is JenniK posting as Kwea because I'm being too lazy to log out and back in.
My nephew had a teacher for 3rd grade who chose him as her special child to humiliate and make his life a living hell for that particular year. (Apparently she did this every year, selecting one child to single out.) He had been tested in 3 different schools (they had moved several times)for learning disabilities at this time, but nothing had been found. The first week of school she sent a report home in his parent notebook (The schools has each kid take it home each week for a parent to view comments, commendations, and concerns from teachers. The parent has to sign it and send it back with the kid.) saying "HE WILL FAIL!" in big red letters. He saw this and decided the first week of school that no matter what he did she would fail him, so why should he bother even to try. She hounded him so much that he would leave her classroom and even tried to lock himself in his locker! He spent most of his days that year in the principals office - where he completed all of his work at a little desk with no problems at all. He is now in 6th grade at an alternative school where he is excelling. My sister continued to get him tested and he apparently has a very rare learning disability where he cannot take what he has just learned/heard/read and put it into his own words. There are other symptoms, but it took a teacher with 30 years of testing (who had seen it only once before) to catch it. Instead of being in a class of 32 with 1 teacher he is now in a class of 8 with 2 teachers and his grades have improved so much his mom let him play youth basketball.
Back to the 3rd grade teacher....she had chosen 1 child to bully every year. I know this because she had a teacher's aide (Aimee) in her classroom, one of my good friends, who had been the recipient of her bullying years before. Aimee reported to my mom what she had seen in the classroom - which lead to a meeting with my mom (an educator), my sister, the principal, VP, the teacher, the aide, guidance counselor, myself, and a few others. The teacher was retiring after the end of the next year, but she couldn't answer my question: "If you hate children so much, why did you become a teacher?" She ignored me. Aimee told the principal that since her own daughter would be in 3rd grade the next year "they better damned well NOT put her in THAT WOMAN'S class" because she didn't want her to be put through hell the way she was! (Aimee was switched out of her classroom that day.) My nephew passed that year and then went on to his new school where he is excelling academically!
On another note, since he has an IEP my sister thought it wrong to suspend her daughter for 3 days because she threatened to hit another child (who had first threatened her), while my nephew got suspended for only 1 day for punching another kid in the face and breaking his nose! She didn't see that such a punishment would deter him from doing it again, that it instead would say that because he was "special needs" it was ok to do it since you only get a 1 day suspension! (Of course he got his punishment at home with not being able to watch tv or play video games for a month from his mom!)
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
I've taught young children before. I'm actually pretty good with disruptive behavior from just one or two kids. It's kind of like a dance, you wait for the disruptive one to send things in a tangential direction, and you gently, circularly guide the discussion back to where you want it. I admit I think this technique that the teacher used is a cheap trick, since you're the teacher, and therefore, usually, the one with the power. I didn't actually realize that there were two kids who voted for him. That says, to me, that the teacher didn't plan this out, and was responding from emotion/impulse/desperation versus planning it. That's a terrible thing, to act out of impulse with a disruptive child. She needs more training, badly.
However, I'd still like to know how many years the teacher has been teaching, how much experience she has with developmental issues, how loved (or not) she has been by students in the past, etc. She may actually be competent, and this may have simply been a "perfect storm" situation, with a disruptive kid, a lack of training, a really bad day, and a personality conflict all rolled into one. She definitely needs more training, though. There are experts who can teach almost any teacher how to deal productively with this type of behavior, if the teacher is willing to learn.
Posted by BlueWizard (Member # 9389) on :
Calaban "There is a distinction between a teacher discussing alternative options for schooling with the childs parents and bringing about a social hazing like this."
"The first is appropriate, the second is contrary to furthering the goal of helping the child in question achieve social integration."
I agree with Calaban and others who have sense expressed similar positions.
If the kid was causing problems, and likely he was, then the teacher needs to address those problems in an appropriate way. 'An appropriate way' is NOT to ostracize and humiliate the child.
Now some have projected a softer version of the scenario in which the teacher was merely trying to illustrate to the student how his behavior was disrupting the class in a detrimental way. If that had been done, it would have probably been all right, but that is not the framework that this teacher used. She essentially said, we hate you and we wish you would leave.
The right approach, if this approach was being used, would have been to say, Alex your behavior is causing other students not to learn. It is hurting us all. If you don't believe me, we will ask your friends. I don't see 5 years olds a being particularly articulate, so the responses would probably not have been as hurtful as 'tell us why you don't like Alex'.
Then the teacher should have re-enforced to Alex that we do like you and we are your friend, but we need your cooperation so that we can all learn and have fun together.
I think most would have considered THAT approach acceptable. But as the teacher seems to have done it, I can't imagine a more thoroughly inappropriate action on her part.
A better approach, if the student wasn't simply being annoying, but was truly damaging the educational process, would have been to work with the parents and the administration to get this student what ever help he needed, or to learn to effectively apply whatever approach would most smoothly integrate the student into the classroom.
Keep in mind that even if it wasn't confirmed that this child had special needs, it was clearly suspected and the teacher was aware of these suspicions. A reasonable and logical teacher would have waited for the results. Once the results were in and it was confirmed as Asperger syndrome, they would have then had some sense of how best to proceed to get Alex comfortably integrated into the classroom.
So, we have several far more reasonable and logical approaches to solving the problem than humiliating a student and making him think everyone hate him.
If I were one of the parents of a kid who had been coerced into voting out a fellow student, I would be personally humiliated by knowing my child was forced into such a hurtful action. And as a parent (which I actually am not) would not be sure if I wanted such a hurtful spiteful vindictive teacher continuing to teach my child.
My point is that regardless of what you think about the validity of what motivated this teacher, there were many many more and far better ways to handle the problem than the one she used.
[ May 28, 2008, 11:49 AM: Message edited by: BlueWizard ]
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:If the kid was causing problem, and likely he was, then the teacher needs to address those problems in an appropriate way. 'An appropraite way' is NOT to ostracize and humiliate the child.
It's not clear from what was presented how the teacher previously tried tp address this problem. It is possible that she really did try a whole range of things and was met with no success with the child and no cooperation and even obstruction from the parents.
That wouldn't make what she did right by any stretch, but I think there is pretty big difference between her doing this as a primary response and it being something she tried out of desperation after trying everything else she could to think of to deal with this chronically disruptive and poorly behaved child.
Posted by BlueWizard (Member # 9389) on :
A couple additional points -
Here is a link to "The Early Show" report with video. We can get some sense of the child's behavior from the video, though not being acquainted with 5 year olds, I'm not sure how it compares.
As far as the mother going to the press, I think she did this after the administration and the police were unresponsive. Most people are powerless to effect an entrenched and tightly closed administration like a school. When there is trouble in a school, there is a massive public relations need to sweep it under the rug and give it a spin that very much minimizes the problem.
I remember discussing case shere in this group where crimes were committed against students and even after the parent's insistence, the administration refuse to call the police or cooperate with any investigation.
Bad publicity and civil legal action are sometimes the only way to get an effective response out of a very closed and tight school administration.
Now, I'm going to go back and edits some of the many typo's I see in my previous post.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlueWizard: typo's
*bites tongue*
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Are they kittens' tongues? Because the little fuballs don't need tongues now. Being dead and all.
Posted by Primal Curve (Member # 3587) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jon Boy:
quote:Originally posted by BlueWizard: typo's
*bites tongue*
Hey, cut him some slack, maybe he works weekends cashiering at the local mega mart.
Posted by BlueWizard (Member # 9389) on :
So, Jon Boy, is the apostrophe that is bothering you?
Naturally, 'typo' is short for 'typographical error' which usually refers to printed text, but also applies, in a broader sense, to all written communication.
The apostrophe indicates that letters have been left out, just a the apostrophe in "Can't" indicates that the letter 'O' had been left out.
Or were you biting your tongue for other reasons?
To MrSquicky, who said it was not clear that other means and methods were not tried. To that I say, it's not clear that other means and methods WERE tried.
But what is clear is that a problem was suspected, and the answer or confirmation of that potential problem was on its way. Common sense and reason would have said wait for the diagnosis, which would have in turn indicated methods for dealing with the problem.
I do agree though, that the teacher, herself, has not, and probably will not be allowed to, publicly air her side of the actions.
Despite any actions she may have previously taken, and despite any underlying motivation or logic she may have had, her actions were wholly wrong, ill-conceived, and very poorly executed.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Common sense and reason would have said wait for the diagnosis, which would have in turn indicated methods for dealing with the problem.
And what about the other children in the class? Is it fair to them to do nothing and have their experience being constantly disrupted for however long it takes for a diagnosis and treatment plan? What if the diagnosis comes back saying that there isn't really anything neurologically wrong, he's just hasn't learned how to behave?
---
Again, I'm not saying that what she did wasn't wrong no matter what the circumstances. However, when people are describing the teacher as being spiteful, mean, and vindictive, I think they are operating on assumptions of the facts of the situation that may not be warranted.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
Scott: Why on earth would I bite dead kitten tongues? That's disgusting.
BlueWizard: Yes, I was razzing you over the misplaced apostrophe. It's true that apostrophes are used in some words to indicate elided letters, but they certainly aren't used every time letters are missing. If they were, we'd have d'r instead of dr. and a't'm' instead of ATM. And anyway, I'd say that typos is simply the plural of typo, not an elided form of typo[graphical error]s.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Especially since kitten tongues have those velcro hooks all over them. :jibblies:
Posted by CaySedai (Member # 6459) on :
The teacher says the voting was because the class was learning about voting and tallies.
The mom of Alex's best friend - who was reported to have originally voted for him but was pressured by the teacher to change his vote - confirms the voting lesson and also that her son had wanted to vote to keep Alex.
quote:Iowa-based author Gail Pursell Elliott said what happened sounds like "mobbing," which involves group public humiliation and embarrassment.
"The children in that class learned how to mob someone — from the teacher," said Elliott, who wrote "School Mobbing and Emotional Abuse." "This type of thing shatters a person's self-esteem."
The teacher has taught for 12 years, 9 at that school.
quote:Barton (the mom) said Tuesday morning Alex was officially diagnosed with an autism-spectrum disorder and attention deficit and hyperactivity disorder, or ADHD.
I teach a Primary class (Sunday School for children) with 4- and 5-year-olds. I sometimes take the next class when the teacher isn't available, so can have kids ranging from 4 to 7 or 8 years old. I do understand what it's like to have a kid's behavior mess up the whole class, but I would never make the other kids turn on the one that is misbehaving. In fact, I only remember one occasion when I actually took a kid out of my class because he was so disruptive. (Then I felt bad later because his dad said he wouldn't get treat that day.)
I have been the recipient of bullying throughout most of my K-12 years and know what it's like to be treated like that. I would never do that to a child. This horrifies me.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kwea: The teacher was retiring after the end of the next year, but she couldn't answer my question: "If you hate children so much, why did you become a teacher?" She ignored me.
Honestly, that's a "Have you stopped beating your dog yet?" kind of question. She ignored you because it was out of line. I would have walked out of the meeting. Any administrator worth his or her salt would have questioned your presence, not allowed the meeting to continue, or excused the teacher from what was obviously intended as a gang-up session.
I'm not saying you're wrong about either particular case. I'm willing to grant that the woman was as much of a witch as you say. Please take the rest of my post not as a criticism of or response to you or your post, but one teacher's response to the "why are you teaching if you hate kids" cliché, which most teachers have had leveled at them at one time or another.
In every case I've seen, and therefore, I'd predict, in the vast majority of all cases, the teacher that one person swears is without any merit whatsoever and without a nurturing bone in his or her body has plenty of people who think he or she is a saint and the most gifted teacher ever. One man's poison and all that. So while it seems self-evident to you that someone is a monster, and you're free to judge her as inadequate, presuming to know her motivations and her feelings is [generally] out of line.
I have had parents and students say of me that I hate children, that I have no business teaching children, and that I'm not mature enough to be working with children. I assure you that those who feel that way are in the minority. I have also had students tell me that I was the single most positively influential teacher they ever had, that I did an excellent job preparing them for college, and so forth. Those who come back years later to say these things are more gratifying than I can convey. Clearly, though, what works for some doesn't work for all.
If a student or parent tells me I am untalented or unsuccessful at what I do (which has happened) I'm hurt, but it's their right to judge for themselves. I try to take comfort in the more numerous people who have had more positive things to say. When they presume to know what is in my heart, though . . . why I teach or whether or not I like kids, I find it much more inappropriate. I personally would never stand for being treated as the teacher in your anecdote was. I have hung up on people who were abusive and I have ended meetings that I thought were as well.
[ May 28, 2008, 03:57 PM: Message edited by: Icarus ]
Posted by BlueWizard (Member # 9389) on :
Jon Boy,
So, I wasn't wrong and it was nothing to bite your tongue over.
Just because something isn't always done, doesn't mean it isn't sometime done.
And by the way, the correct punctuation for ATM is not A'T'M', it's A.T.M.. Further ATM as it stands in not correct, but is commonly accepted. Basically, we are just too lazy to add the 'dots', and I'm OK with that.
Hoping you understand that I'm not really taking this seriously.
Posted by Wendybird (Member # 84) on :
I volunteered many hours in my son's kindergarten classroom this year. There were two students in particular that were quite challenging and the teacher did get frustrated with them but she never let them see her frustration. Sometimes their behavior held up the class. NO 5 year old should be treated like this boy was treated. It doesn't matter what other measures the teacher had taken or how disruptive he had been. If it had been that much of a problem then the teacher should have been talking with the school administration about getting an aide to help with the student or someone but should never have taken out her frustration on the child. Yes, Alex has problems - his behavior in the video from the Early Show is fairly typical for high functioning autism. The school was aware of his problems, the mother was aware, the teacher was aware. There are appropriate ways of handing a special needs child and the teacher's Survivor style abuse is not one of them. I don't care how frustrated she was or how many other things she had tried it is no excuse. Believe me, my own children have frustrated me to no end but I don't abuse them. If she had hit the kid with her fists instead of her words she would have been out in a heartbeat (at least I can hope). Choosing words as her weapons doesn't lessen the emotional impact on this boy and his classmates.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
The teacher says the voting was because the class was learning about voting and tallies.
Wow. What an idiot.
quote:As to the news of Portillo being reassigned, Barton responded, "That's just a slap in the face."
It isn't, really. Being pulled out of the classroom and reassigned to do clerical work in the county office is a big deal, and usually the precursor to being fired. (Unless the case proves to be without merit, which seems pretty clearly to not be the case, here.)
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlueWizard: Jon Boy,
So, I wasn't wrong and it was nothing to bite your tongue over.
Just because something isn't always done, doesn't mean it isn't sometime done.
And by the way, the correct punctuation for ATM is not A'T'M', it's A.T.M.. Further ATM as it stands in not correct, but is commonly accepted. Basically, we are just too lazy to add the 'dots', and I'm OK with that.
Hoping you understand that I'm not really taking this seriously.
What you don't seem to understand was that Jon Boy wouldn't have posted anything at all if you hadn't mentioned typos, and that Jon Boy was posting in good humor, not an attempt to insult. Basically since you joked about typos, he mistakenly assumed you were somewhat secure and able to take some ribbing. Also, everything you've said about punctuation is pretty much wrong. For instance, most major style guides do not put periods in terms like ATM. * And no, typo's is not a contraction. The plural of typo is typos, not typo's.
You know what mistake I make all the time? I use "it's" possessively. It's not that I don't know better; it's just second nature, I guess. If someone called me stupid because of it, I'd be pretty pissed. But if someone calls attention to it lightheartedly in the context of my already mentioning punctuation and/or typographical mistakes, I wouldn't be.
* EDIT: To clarify, ATM is an acronym. Most style guides use periods on abbreviations, but not on acronyms.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
quote:I am a bit concerned about the mother's part in this.
The child is having behavioral issues at school, and at a previous school.
Yet it takes the school to suggest testing for medical reasons.
At the risk of being controversial, there often seems a connection between the behavior (including things like aspergers syndrome/autism) of the child and the parent/home atmosphere.
Also, not all children who misbehave continually, especially boys, are not necessarily 'neurounusual' (or whatever Tante called it). Sometimes they're just bored or antsy kids. This kid clearly has friends in the class, so he's capable of normal relationships. He doesn't seem to have a learning disability (or it's not mentioned.)
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
The kid has one friend in the class who the mother describes as the only friend he's ever had.
He is also now officially diagnosed with Autism spectrum disorder and ADHD.
As I mentioned before, this is not at all unusual for children not to be tested for these things until a professional recommends it. It is hardly evidence that the parents are negligent. These things generally don't become evidently distinct from normal developmental differences until about the time kids each school age. The parents may have known something was wrong but not known where to look for help. A doctor who sees the child for only a few minutes may not observe symptoms that would indicate a serious problem.
These things are not easy to diagnose. As I said earlier, I personally know parents with this type of disorder who spent years trying to find out exactly what was wrong.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
I did not mean that the parents are negligent in identifying their child's problem. I agree that a doctor familiar with seeing certain symptoms will likely identify a problem much faster than parents who have watched their child grow and thus accept any idiosyncrasies in their child as part of him rather than symptomatic of a disorder.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlueWizard: Jon Boy,
So, I wasn't wrong and it was nothing to bite your tongue over.
You were, and it was.
Edit: What Icarus said.
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
quote:I agree that a doctor familiar with seeing certain symptoms will likely identify a problem much faster than parents who have watched their child grow and thus accept any idiosyncrasies in their child as part of him rather than symptomatic of a disorder.
That's not always the case. Especially in situations where the child isn't the first one, the parents are the first ones to note that something is "different" - before major school issues come up. I've known parents who've had to fight to get a real evaluation while the professionals they're dealing with write off what their concerns as a simple maturational issue.
It really can go both ways.
Posted by ladyday (Member # 1069) on :
*nods* yeah you can add another parent to your list, sndrake. As a first time mom (and very young, I suspect that was part of it), three different pediatricians blew me off. Thank goodness for CT .
Teshi, I'm not sure I follow what you're saying. I don't think anything is off the table as far as autism research goes but I also don't think I've heard anything along the lines of the home environment causing autism or aspergers. Autism spectrum disorders are not behaviors - they are developmental disabilities that are described by a set of symptoms. So you lost me at "the behavior (including things like aspergers syndrome/autism," I think.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
I did not mean to imply that doctors are more likely to notice a problem a child is having than parents. That wasn't my point at all.
The parents I've known who have children with developmental disabilities (particularly those who function normally in many ways) have generally had a very difficult time getting a proper diagnosis. And its not because they haven't been trying. Its been my observations that most doctors aren't very good at diagnosis and unless you've got something on the top 40 list you or a good idea what's wrong yourself, the doctor is unlikely to figure it out.
So the parents have known that something wasn't quite right, that the child had some unusual problems but they don't know what to do because the doctor likely tells them its just a phase and they should wait to see if he outgrows it. Typically the pediatrician spends only a few minutes with the child so they don't get much of a chance to observe behavior.
A school Principal on the other hand sees all the problem kids, possibly regularly in her office so she has a great deal of experience with kids with various types of developmental disabilities. The kid ends up in her office several times and she starts to notice that he behaves a lot like another kid who has X. She suggests this to the parents who are relieved to finally have an idea where to look for answers and immediately make appointments to have the kid tested by a specialist for X.
Its a familiar story. This kid is lucky to be diagnosed while he is in kindergarten. I know several kids with developmental problems who weren't properly diagnosed until they were quite a bit older.
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
Rabbit,
Sorry. Didn't mean to jump on you.
Fact is, I agree with a lot - probably most of what you've written in this thread.
The point you just made about kindergarten being a time when many kids get evaluated is a valid one - and it can happen later as well.
Not that I got any labels, but I became much more of a subject of concern - and obviously odd - when I left elementary school for middle school. The loss of over half of my old schoolmates, the new environment, the completely new social system to learn -- way too much for me to deal with and even appear minimally competent at it.
In elementary school, I was considered a little odd, a proscrastinator and underachiever (lazy got mentioned a lot, too). But not too far from the norm.
Middle school was the start of the descent into social and scholastic hell.
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: Threads, I think you're just going to find yourself backing even further into a corner. Some students will correct their behavior with a mild scolding. Others won't correct their behavior without significantly larger disciplinary measures.
Okay, I think I understand where the problem is now. I phrased my idea too broadly and ended up including situations that I wasn't even thinking about. I don't have a problem with adjusting punishments to a child in response to how successful the punishments are and the child's past behavior. I think every child should start out on equal footing.
Posted by C3PO the Dragon Slayer (Member # 10416) on :
quote:Originally posted by Teshi: At the risk of being controversial, there often seems a connection between the behavior (including things like aspergers syndrome/autism) of the child and the parent/home atmosphere.
Leave my mother out of this.
Nah, I get what you're trying to say, and I agree with your next paragraph.
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
quote: the teacher that one person swears is without any merit whatsoever and without a nurturing bone in his or her body has plenty of people who think he or she is a saint and the most gifted teacher ever.
Icarus, you ain't kidding. We've still got parents back home who would swear to you that the middle school band teacher didn't molest that girl - even though he admitted to it.
I know a gal whose whole job is to keep eight mainstreamed ESE students from failing math and science. She says the hardest part of her job is to get the teachers to cooperate with her. One of them goes so far as to refuse to tell her when she's having quizes even though one of the kids can't read and needs his assignments to be read to him. Only a third of her teachers regularly share their lesson plans with her and another third do some of the time, usually late. A third of her teachers can't be bothered to take advantage of an extra resource that takes some of the pressure off themselves. How much sense does that make?
She's in a middle school, so I respect that they're dealing with 150 or so kids every day. I get that lesson plans are annoying and stuff comes up and you can never really plan for everything. (And dear lord why should you have to? Shouldn't life have room for spontaneity?) It's completely ignoring a resource that's designed to take some of the burden off that I don't get.
Posted by Sachiko (Member # 6139) on :
I reread this article and read a couple more across the web.
The kid screams when he's in the car while she is taking his sibling to school, but she isn't taking the kid back to this school. Good for her!
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote:Glenn Arnold, Icarus is talking about a legal right. Whether or not one thinks it's a moral right is a different matter.
I'm not talking about a moral right, or about Icarus' contract. I'm talking about a federal law that says that teachers and schools DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT to deny a student the right to an education.
quote:I have the right to insist that a child be removed from my class indefinitely.
No you don't. You have the right to ask for the school to begin due process to PROVE that the student cannot be accommodated in your classroom. The burden of proof is on the school. If the school fails to do this within a definite time limit (I think it's five days), the student has every right to come back into your classroom and there's nothing you can do about it. Contract be damned.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
quote:Originally posted by Glenn Arnold:
quote:Glenn Arnold, Icarus is talking about a legal right. Whether or not one thinks it's a moral right is a different matter.
I'm not talking about a moral right, or about Icarus' contract. I'm talking about a federal law that says that teachers and schools DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT to deny a student the right to an education.
Removing a child from my class does not deny the child the right to an education. It just means the school must find another setting for it to take place in.
quote:
quote:I have the right to insist that a child be removed from my class indefinitely.
No you don't. You have the right to ask for the school to begin due process to PROVE that the student cannot be accommodated in your classroom. The burden of proof is on the school. If the school fails to do this within a definite time limit (I think it's five days), the student has every right to come back into your classroom and there's nothing you can do about it. Contract be damned.
Thank you for your scintillating legal opinion. You're wrong.
Posted by Slim (Member # 2334) on :
quote:Originally posted by Icarus: You know what mistake I make all the time? I use "it's" possessively. It's not that I don't know better; it's just second nature, I guess.
I used to make that mistake all the time too. But then, when my sister was learning Polish, she explained to me about cases. Just like how we change verbs based on what tense it is, in Polish they change nouns based on what case it is. My sister explained that in English, we only have cases with the pronouns. (so like: He, Him, His)
That's when I learned why "its" (possessive) has no apostrophe: The same reason "his" doesn't have one either.
Back on topic...
I'm really interested in this, and how it turns out. My sister changed her class one year in elementary school because the kids in her class were so mean. But a teacher? ... Matthew 18:6 Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by ladyday: Teshi, I'm not sure I follow what you're saying. I don't think anything is off the table as far as autism research goes but I also don't think I've heard anything along the lines of the home environment causing autism or aspergers. Autism spectrum disorders are not behaviors - they are developmental disabilities that are described by a set of symptoms. So you lost me at "the behavior (including things like aspergers syndrome/autism," I think.
Ditto.
The notion that autism is somehow caused by a lack in the parenting has been disproven. Quite a number of years ago.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
quote:The notion that autism is somehow caused by a lack in the parenting has been disproven. Quite a number of years ago.
I don't want to elaborate but you helped somebody I know out quite a bit here. That sounds awful and snarky, but I'm actually sincere. Posted by BlueWizard (Member # 9389) on :
Icarus:
Acknowledging that we have our own little unrelated side conversation going on, perhaps though you missed my last line, which, by the way, you quoted.
"Hoping you understand that I'm not really taking this seriously.
And if you want to get into a case of Dueling Dictionaries -
American Heritage - Third Edition - CD-ROM
Typo's - ty·po n., pl. ty·pos. Informal. A typographical error.
It also recognizes - "Typo." where the period is part of the word indicating an abbreviation.
Also, ATM in not a acronym, it is an abbreviation and as such the periods are appropriate. It is only in common informal usage that the periods are left out. Which, as I said, I have not problem with.
Again, it's just a joke, lighten up.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:ATM in not a acronym, it is an abbreviation
Nope. It's an acronym.
If it were an abbreviation, it would normally be followed by a period, if the usage was formal. If the abbreviation were standard usage (typo, info) then the period is not necessary.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Teshi:
quote:The notion that autism is somehow caused by a lack in the parenting has been disproven. Quite a number of years ago.
I don't want to elaborate but you helped somebody I know out quite a bit here. That sounds awful and snarky, but I'm actually sincere.
I'm not sure why that would be snarky. Anyway, I'm happy to help.
Posted by BlueWizard (Member # 9389) on :
Scott R,
Well, it's a slow rainy day and I've got nothing better to argue about, but you are wrong.
To be an acronum, the resulting letters must spell a word in and of themselves, even if it is a made up word.
WAC = Women's Army Corps
RADAR = RAdio Detecting And Ranging
ATM is not a word, not even a made up one. Notice you/we do not pronounce it 'ATOM' or similar. It is simply a listing of the first letters of the full name 'A', 'T', 'M'.
Being an abbreviation, it is most correctly A.T.M., but common usage and simplicity have transformed it into simply 'ATM'.
Further, as I illustrated from the American Heritage Dictionary - typo. and typo's are both correct, as are 'typo' and 'typos'. Though I admit, 'typos' is probably the more common usage.
So, I was only sort of wrong.
Who likes to debate and discuss, and is a paid up member of the "Loyal Order of Nitpickers" (LOON for short, which is an acronym) but really doesn't care .
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
Typos is the more common usage by a giant margin. So much so that I've never seen anyone use typo's purposefully until you did a few days ago. Which I'm still convinced wasn't on purpose but was, rather, a typo. Ironically.
Also, I know several dozen people who pronounce ATM 'atom'.
Also, I don't really care, either. I just like to see what lengths you'll go to to convince everyone that you didn't make a common typo, but instead prefer a ridiculously uncommon usage.
Posted by Sharpie (Member # 482) on :
I do care. Typos is the correct pluralization of the word typo. It's not "more common usage"; it's CORRECT.
Abbreviations include acronyms. Blue, I suggest you look at the wikipedia page on acronyms and initialisms. It's lovely and informative.
Typo. Typos.
(Not a LOON, but have done kajillions of pages of transcripts for scientists, various government organizations, and lawyers. Nitpicking required. Grammar and spelling perfection life-threateningly mandatory.)
Posted by BlueWizard (Member # 9389) on :
Well, as long as we seem to be 98% agreed that this teacher was an idiot, I suppose we can fall into distractions.
Wikipedia - Acryoym and Initialisms
You mean like this -
...restricting acronym to pronounceable words formed from components (letters, usually initial, or syllables) of the constituent words, and using initialism or alphabetism[8][5] for abbreviations pronounced as the names of the individual letters."
Which means I was first right because 'acronym' are ABBREVIATIONS. And secondly, I was right because ATM is not, even by the Wikipedia definition, an acronym; it is, at best, an intitialism.
Next, my use of "typo's" was intentional, and not a typo. Next, next, like to or not, most common or not, "typo's" is correct according to my dictionary.
Though most people took it as Possessive, it was in fact, a contraction of the plural phrase 'typographical errors'. And as it is considered correct by my dictionary, regardless of the level of common usage, it is, none the less, correct.
How do words like typo, typos, and info come into common usage? Simply out of shear laziness. But again, I'm pretty much as lazy as the next guy, so I don't have a problem with that.
That same is true of ATM. It is not A.T.M. out of laziness, which being lazy myself, I don't have a problem with.
So, like it or not, I was right in using "Typo's" as a contraction.
Like it or not, I've established from two sources that ATM is not an acronym.
Next 'typo', like 'info', is not a proper words but is lazy slang fallen into common usage, and as such, is only considered an informal words.
Am. Heritage. 3rd Ed -
ty·po n., pl. ty·pos. Informal. A typographical error.
Also, being a LOON, I will go to great lengths to argue the most petty and unimportant point, especially if I feel I am right.
So, I'm right, I'm right, I'm right.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
I thought I had trouble letting go of an argument.
Clearly, I am a mere piker.
Posted by Carrie (Member # 394) on :
Um, doesn't your dictionary say the plural is, in fact, "typos"?
Posted by BlueWizard (Member # 9389) on :
quote:Originally posted by Carrie: Um, doesn't your dictionary say the plural is, in fact, "typos"?
Well, I'm only continuing this because it's a dull boring rainy day, and because I'm a LOON in every sense of the word. If people want to continue talking about this teacher and student, I will back off.
Now, Carrie, as to your comment above, that would only be relevant IF I were saying that 'typos' was wrong. I am indeed NOT saying that.
What I am saying is that, while 'typos' is more common, "Typo's" is still correct and as such is not an error or mistake.
Steve/bluewizard - who is clearly not a piker.
Again, let me say...
Posted by Carrie (Member # 394) on :
Ah. I had ignored most of the rest of the argument. Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlueWizard: And secondly, I was right because ATM is not, even by the Wikipedia definition, an acronym; it is, at best, an intitialism.
This is not an accurate summation of the Wikipedia article for several reasons. In fact, the article lists ATM as an example of a type of acronym.
And again, most style guides do not call for periods between letters of acronyms or "initialisms." The only place where a period is standard is in abbreviations formed by dropping letters of words (eg. abbr.).
Posted by BlueWizard (Member # 9389) on :
Icarus:
"This is not an accurate summation of the Wikipedia article for several reasons. In fact, the article lists ATM as an example of a type of acronym."
And this is far less accurate than my statement. The only example using 'ATM' is in reference to a recursive or redundancy syndrome and has nothing to do the "ATM" itself. But in which a word that is being abbreviated is also repeated, as in
ATM machine
which is in reality -
Automatic Teller Machine machine
So this is NOT defining ATM as a acronym even though it uses the word acronym, but is instead describing a redundant or recursive nature of some abbreviations.
And most style guides don't call for periods in such abbreviations, because laziness as fallen into common and acceptable use.
Incorrect use becomes correct when its common use becomes so overwhelming that the style guides realize they have lost the battle and merely accept it as ...well... acceptable.
What is technically correct and what is acceptable modern style are not necessarily the same. Technically A.T.M. is correct; stylistically ATM is acceptable.
Also, note that Wikipedia claims that functional definitions of abbreviation, acronym, and intialization are not etched in stone; they are subject to varying interpretations.
But regardless, you are going to have to try a lot harder than that to convince me that ATM is an acronym by any definition. The heart of the common definition of an acronym is the the resulting letters spell out a new or imagined word that makes some sense in its own right. LOON for Loyal Order Of Nitpickers for example. 'Loon' is a word on its own. WAC for Women's Army Corps, while not a true word, still functions as and is spoken as a word. AWOL (ay-wall - Absent With Out Leave) is not a true word but functions as a word-like phrase that has an underlying meaning.
The basic and common definition of an Initialism is that the letter of an abbreviation are spoken in sequence, such as 'A', 'T', 'M', or 'C', 'D', or 'D', 'V', 'D'.
It's hard to admit I'm wrong...when I'm right.
steve/bluewizard
[ May 29, 2008, 08:12 PM: Message edited by: BlueWizard ]
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
They use it as an example of "redundant-acronym syndrome."
quote:RAS syndrome stands for "Redundant Acronym Syndrome syndrome," and refers to the use of one of the words that make up an initialism or acronym as well as the abbreviation itself, thus in effect repeating that word. It is itself a humorous example of a redundant acronym.
Posted by BlueWizard (Member # 9389) on :
Really?
I've already acknowledged that it used the word 'acronym', but it is not by any means defining 'ATM' as an acronym, but instead using it to illustrate a type of redundancy or recursiveness that occurs in abbreviations.
From your own quote above -
" ...and refers to the use of one of the words that make up an initialism or acronym as well as the abbreviation itself,..."
So, in this case, 'ATM' is an illustration of redundancy as part of a syndrome that just happens to have 'acronym' in its name, but it is by no means intending to define 'ATM' as an acronym.
I already gave the common and standard definitions of 'acronym' and 'intialism', and ATM is at best an initialism, but only by the most extreme stretch of any definition would one even remotely consider it an acronym.
When I'm right...I'm right, and I never give up.
Sorry, to highjack the thread though.
Steve/bluewizard
Posted by Dobbie (Member # 3881) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlueWizard:
And most style guides don't call for periods in such abbreviations, because laziness as fallen into common and acceptable use.
Do you mean "laziness has fallen"?
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Steve, really not quite sure why you chose this hill to die on...
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
Just to set the record straight: I can't find typo's listed as the plural of typo in any dictionary, including Random House Unabridged, The Oxford English Dictionary, Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, and The American Heritage Dictionary, third edition. So, Steve, if your argument is that your American Heritage third has typo's, then I'd say either you're misreading it or your dictionary has a typo.
Furthermore, typos is not an abbreviation or contraction of typographical errors. If you think it is, then I'd say you misunderstand the workings of English morphology. Your explanation adds an extra step to the cognitive process and posits an underlying form that many people aren't even familiar with.
Add to that the fact that you exhibit a pretty naive understanding of the way usage and style work. Slang really doesn't have much to do with laziness, and slang is not the same as informal usage. And as Icarus pointed out, most style guides do not favor A.T.M. over ATM. The only style guide I know of that uses periods like this is The New York Times Style Guide. It's not an issue of laziness becoming the norm, but of readability. Fewer periods make for less visual clutter and, theoretically, better readability.
You are right on one point, though: ATM is an initialism, not an acronym. Acronyms are words formed from the initial letters of words, like radar and scuba. Acronyms are a type of initialism, but not all initialisms are acronyms. ATM, FBI, and the like are merely initialisms.
So go ahead and revel in your rightness on that one thing. As for the rest, though: you're wrong, you're wrong, you're wrong. Posted by BlueWizard (Member # 9389) on :
I'm not dying on this hill, I'm just wounded but I expect to make a full recovery.
I have American Heritage CD-ROM dictionary installed on my computer, and it shows "Typo's" which in any case is as valid a contraction as any.
My search of Dictionary.com turns up "Typo's", typos, typo, typo-, and typo.. All of which are classified as informal which means they are not really words at all, as I have already pointed out, but are lazy informal shortenings of common words that have become acceptable not through correctness but though shear quantity and commonness of use. And, as I have also said more than once, I don't have a problem with that.
Let's face it "ain't" ain't a word, but it is still in the dictionary. How did it get there? Well, it was so commonly and frequently, though incorrectly, used, that it became an informal word in the process and the dictionary had to recognize it as such.
The same it true of 'typo' and 'info', they are not proper words, but they have fallen into such common and frequent of use that dictionaries had no choice but to accept them as, again, informal words.
Next, while not much of an indicator, 325,000 instances from a Google search for "typo's" would seem to agree with me, including 'National Public Radio'. Though again, admittedly, that is not much of a test, and massively more people use 'typos'.
None the less, like it or not, "typo's" is still a valid contraction even if it isn't a formal word. I've never denied that 'typos' is a valid and common plural of the informal 'typo', but I'm standing fast that "typo's" is a valid contraction for the phrase 'typographical errors', and that is whether it is in the dictionary or not. And I've never denied that 'typos' is far more common, but that fact alone does not make me wrong.
As far as how A.T.M. and F.B.I became ATM and FBI, again it was through shear volume. A.T.M. and F.B.I. are correct, they are just not common any more, but they were at one time. You say yourself that A.T.M. is not favored, but not favored doesn't mean wrong.
I do agree, too many periods clutter things up, but it is still a matter of laziness that brings less cluttered forms into common use. I suspect in the beginning the easier forms were resisted in formal writing, but again, shear volume overrode correct style. What was once an error is now accepted, and rightly so, it is far easier both from the perspective of writing and reading to use the more modern forms. I don't have a problem with that, I'm as lazy as the next guy.
So, wounded on the hill as I may be, no one has yet to prove to me that "typo's" is not a valid contraction of 'typographical errors'.
And, as 'typo.' is considered correct, it would seem that 'typo' is an abbreviation. Again, acknowledging that the period was dropped for simplicity, but reminding you that it was once there, just as it was for info..
You've made a strong argument, but you haven't convinced me that I'm wrong, partly because you are arguing the wrong point. You seem to think the question is whether "typo's" is a substitute for the informal and PLURAL 'typos'. I never claimed it was. All I've ever said is that it is a valid contraction of 'typographical errors'.
Convince me I'm wrong, and I'm concede defeat.
Steve/bluewizard
Posted by Elmer's Glue (Member # 9313) on :
But you see, typo's looks silly and takes longer, so you should use typos.
Problem solved.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I prefer "typoes." Posted by Sharpie (Member # 482) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: I prefer "typoes."
Bzzzt. Challenge! But there is a valid Scrabble anagram in those six letters (tepoys). I'm sure this is helpful to everyone.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
And here I was partial to "typose."
In fact I just right clicked and added it to my firefox dictionary, muahaha!
Actually I didn't add it, the thought of accepting a word I knew to be misspelled into my dictionary hurts me mentally.
[ June 01, 2008, 10:58 AM: Message edited by: BlackBlade ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
You know, it occurs to me that a wonderful way of responding to completely nonsensical posts would involve pointing out the valid Scrabble anagrams that could have been generated instead. Posted by Sharpie (Member # 482) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: You know, it occurs to me that a wonderful way of responding to completely nonsensical posts would involve pointing out the valid Scrabble anagrams that could have been generated instead.
I have been resisting exactly this temptation for about, oh, three days.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote:Originally posted by Icarus: Thank you for your scintillating legal opinion. You're wrong.
Wow, you really put me in my place by providing support for your argument. I'm sure you'll do equally well when you get sued by someone's parents because you removed their child from your class.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
I already supported my argument. It's in my contract, it's in my faculty handbook; you have not contradicted this, and you misunderstand what denying educational opportunities means. You provided no support for your argument in your last post--or wait, were THE CAPITAL LETTERS INTENDED TO BE ENTERED AS EVIDENCE?! Therefore, your post merits no evidence in reply.
No student has an inalienable right to be in my classroom. We have lots of other classrooms and other settings. Our administration informally exercises this right from their end all the time--when there seems to be a huge personality conflict, where a kid is getting in trouble with the same teacher all the time, they frequently move the kid, even if the teacher has made no such request.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote:No student has an inalienable right to be in my classroom.
quote:Our administration informally exercises this right from their end all the time--when there seems to be a huge personality conflict, where a kid is getting in trouble with the same teacher all the time, they frequently move the kid, even if the teacher has made no such request.
Do they do it without the parent's permission? Ask them.
I had two students removed from my remedial math classroom. One of them had just returned from an extended absence due to violation of his parole. Could we have proved that his presence was disruptive to my class? Sure. Did my principal remove him from my class at my request? Yes. Did he do it without asking his parents permission? Not a chance.
If the parent agrees to it, then everything's kosher. But if you do it without going through the proper steps, you've just violated PL 94-142.
Your classroom is by definition the least restrictive environment.
Posted by BlueWizard (Member # 9389) on :
To Icarus:
"No student has an inalienable right to be in my classroom."
I don't think you will get any argument on that issue. The question is not with the result, but with the method.
Several of us, myself included, have already demonstrated courses of action that would have been more appropriate and far more kind for achieving that same goal.
Likely your own school has established procedures for handling chronically disruptive students and for removing them from the classroom. Do these procedures include humiliating a 5 year old and alienating the other students against him?
I didn't think so.
steve/bluewizard
[ June 01, 2008, 03:17 PM: Message edited by: BlueWizard ]
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
BlueWizard, you have very seriously misinterpreted my position. I have not defended the teacher in this situation; I think her actions are reprehensible. In fact, I gave an example of a teacher from my childhood who was similarly ill-equipped to be around children.
I simply presented a quibble. Two people asserted that a teacher does not have a say as to what students are in his or her classroom, and I was pointing out that this was less than 100% accurate, for at least one district that I am intimately familiar with (which happens to neighbor the one in question). The larger points about her actions stand, though.
(I also pointed out that needing to use that provision of our contract tends to get teachers marked as incompetent behavior managers.)
-o-
GlennArnold, you have forgotten that PL 94-142 is superseded by Galactic Statute THX-1138-NCC-1701-D-XYZ.
Parents didn't get to place their children in my specific class in the first place. We have lots of teachers at each school, and we try to avoid ever having just one teacher teach any specific class, specifically to make it possible to move students if it proves necessary. Parents are specifically not allowed to request a specific teacher, or to request not to have a specific teacher. (Of course, they can request whatever they want, but those requests carry pretty much no weight.) Before the year starts, they certainly don't have the right to pick and choose their teachers. Why should they have a right afterward that they didn't have before?
(EDIT TO ADD: Requests by parents to switch teachers during the year are also routinely ignored. Parents quite simply do not get to choose their children's teachers.)
Least restrictive environment means that they can be in a regular classroom unless it can be proven that that is not feasible. Nobody is arguing the fact that students have the legal right to be educated in the least restrictive environment feasible. But when I teach Algebra I and so does Mrs. Smith down the hall, yes, the school has the right to switch a student from my class to Mrs. Smith's without asking permission. The student is still in the same environment--a regular classroom.
I can't speak to your school's policy when you taught remedial algebra. I wouldn't presume to claim to know more than you about your experience, and about what your principal would and wouldn't do.
I can tell you you're either misinterpreting that law or not understanding what I'm saying, though.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Kwea as Kwea again....
Not to mention that schools remove students from classrooms without parental permission a lot of times each and every year. It is called a suspension, and can be followed by expulsions from the school, or even the school system.
My niece is going thought the system right now regarding this, and I don't blame the school at all, although the final resolution is still up in the air. She isn't a threat, but she has had multiple problems for years.
There are conditions where the school can and does restrict where a child gets their education. It doesn't usually have to involve the parents consent, either, although it is for the best if it does.
Posted by BlueWizard (Member # 9389) on :
Sorry, Icarus, apparently I did misunderstand slightly. At any rate, on this issue, it seems we are in agreement.
Likely there are procedure, as you point out, in place to deal with difficult students in this teachers school. I can't believe this teacher actually followed them, which was my point. If this student was causing sufficient problems in the classroom to warrant being moved, then the teacher should have follow reasonable procedures to deal with the problem.
I do have great sympathy for modern teachers. It seems to me that the have been massively hamstringed by 'political correctness' and the idea that no one should even be disappointed. So, we give trophies to everyone who participates, which diminishes the accomplishments of those who succeed or stand out. Discipline seems even more no existent in the homes than it is at school.
They, teachers, also seem to be under the impression that no kid should ever fail, and when a student does and should fail, the administration blames the teachers rather than the students or parents. That puts teacher in a seeming hopeless no-win situation. I don't blame them for being frustrated.
But no matter how frustrated this particular teacher might have been, she absolutely handled the problem in the worst possible way. At least in my opinion.
steve/bluewizard
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
If the reports we have seen are correct, then I think she WILL lose her job. She should, IMO. No child, special needs or not, should be put though that, particularly at age 5.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:Originally posted by Icarus: GlennArnold, you have forgotten that PL 94-142 is superseded by Galactic Statute THX-1138-NCC-1701-D-XYZ.
He fell victim to one of the classic blunders. ::nods::
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlueWizard: I'm not dying on this hill, I'm just wounded but I expect to make a full recovery.
You could recover by admitting you're wrong.
quote:I have American Heritage CD-ROM dictionary installed on my computer, and it shows "Typo's" which in any case is as valid a contraction as any.
My search of Dictionary.com turns up "Typo's", typos, typo, typo-, and typo..
As I said earlier, I've got an American Heritage Dictionary, third edition, and it does not show typo's as a plural of typo. You can go to Dictionary.com and enter "typo's" in the search box, and it'll return an entry for "typo," but that entry pretty clearly shows the plural to be "typos." Note that one of the print dictionaries that Dictionary.com draws from is AHD, fourth edition. In other words, it's pretty clear that you're misreading the entry on your electronic AHD third.
And anyway, I'd be pretty surprised if AHD showed a plural of a normal word with an apostrophe, since it's a pretty conservatively edited dictionary; it was created in response to Webster's Third New International Dictionary, which some people saw as too liberal and permissive.
quote:All of which are classified as informal which means they are not really words at all, as I have already pointed out, but are lazy informal shortenings of common words that have become acceptable not through correctness but though shear quantity and commonness of use.
Er, no. As I said earlier, you don't seem to understand what "informal" means in a dictionary entry. It has nothing to do with laziness or correctness and everything to do with, well, the level formality you're going for in your writing.
quote:Let's face it "ain't" ain't a word, but it is still in the dictionary. How did it get there? Well, it was so commonly and frequently, though incorrectly, used, that it became an informal word in the process and the dictionary had to recognize it as such.
Again, you really don't know how such things work. Ain't was once a perfectly legitimate word until some people got it into their heads that there was something wrong with it, and ever since then it's been a piece of folk linguistics that ain't isn't a word. You could try looking it up instead of just shooting from the hip.
quote:Next, while not much of an indicator, 325,000 instances from a Google search for "typo's" would seem to agree with me, including 'National Public Radio'. Though again, admittedly, that is not much of a test, and massively more people use 'typos'.
It's worth pointing out that some of those are possessives and some are obviously meant to be ironic.
quote:None the less, like it or not, "typo's" is still a valid contraction even if it isn't a formal word. I've never denied that 'typos' is a valid and common plural of the informal 'typo', but I'm standing fast that "typo's" is a valid contraction for the phrase 'typographical errors', and that is whether it is in the dictionary or not. And I've never denied that 'typos' is far more common, but that fact alone does not make me wrong.
It's not a contraction. Contractions in English are a pretty limited group. There are basically two groups: auxiliary verbs plus n't, and personal pronouns plus auxiliary verbs 'm, 's, 're, 'd, 'll, and 've. The only one I know of that doesn't fall into these two categories is let's.
But if you're so sure that it's a contraction, perhaps you can provide some evidence. Your Google search results aren't very good evidence because there's a much better explanation for the apostrophe: the fact that many people pluralize words with apostrophes, especially when the word ends in a vowel.
quote:As far as how A.T.M. and F.B.I became ATM and FBI, again it was through shear volume. A.T.M. and F.B.I. are correct, they are just not common any more, but they were at one time. You say yourself that A.T.M. is not favored, but not favored doesn't mean wrong.
Can you provide some sources? As I've said, almost all style guides now recommend dropping the periods, even if they were formerly more common. And since the style guides are the ones who make up these rules in the first place, I'd say that if they've changed their minds (with the exception of the New York Times), then it means that it's now incorrect to put periods in such abbreviations.
quote:So, wounded on the hill as I may be, no one has yet to prove to me that "typo's" is not a valid contraction of 'typographical errors'.
Nah. You just seem highly resistant to facts.
quote:And, as 'typo.' is considered correct, it would seem that 'typo' is an abbreviation. Again, acknowledging that the period was dropped for simplicity, but reminding you that it was once there, just as it was for info..
Make up your mind: is it an abbreviation or a contraction? Of course, it's actually neither; it's an apocopation.
Edited to add: Actually, it looks like typo. is an abbreviation, but it's not the same thing as the word typo. An abbreviation is basically a short way of writing something, like abbrev. for abbreviation. But these are separate things, and the apocopated form is not the same as the abbreviated form.
quote:You've made a strong argument, but you haven't convinced me that I'm wrong, partly because you are arguing the wrong point. You seem to think the question is whether "typo's" is a substitute for the informal and PLURAL 'typos'. I never claimed it was. All I've ever said is that it is a valid contraction of 'typographical errors'.
No, you're just misunderstanding. You've gotten all mixed up in talk of contractions and abbreviations and laziness and correctness and have missed the point that neither English morphology nor style work the way you claim.
[ June 02, 2008, 04:29 PM: Message edited by: Jon Boy ]
Posted by Kama (Member # 3022) on :
I wish I could choose my French teacher. Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote:Parents didn't get to place their children in my specific class in the first place. We have lots of teachers at each school, and we try to avoid ever having just one teacher teach any specific class, specifically to make it possible to move students if it proves necessary. Parents are specifically not allowed to request a specific teacher, or to request not to have a specific teacher. (Of course, they can request whatever they want, but those requests carry pretty much no weight.) Before the year starts, they certainly don't have the right to pick and choose their teachers. Why should they have a right afterward that they didn't have before?
(EDIT TO ADD: Requests by parents to switch teachers during the year are also routinely ignored. Parents quite simply do not get to choose their children's teachers.)
The previous has to do with the placement of students in class. I have no problem at all with this.
quote:Least restrictive environment means that they can be in a regular classroom unless it can be proven that that is not feasible. Nobody is arguing the fact that students have the legal right to be educated in the least restrictive environment feasible. But when I teach Algebra I and so does Mrs. Smith down the hall, yes, the school has the right to switch a student from my class to Mrs. Smith's without asking permission. The student is still in the same environment--a regular classroom.
As I have been taught repeatedly: Once the student has been placed in a regular classroom, that classroom is the least restrictive environment. Removing the student from that classroom is a restriction. It can be done, yes, but not merely because a teacher requests it. There must be a reason, or the parent must agree to it. My argument with you is not whether it can be done, or whether it is done, but whether a parent has a right under the law to demand that it is not done.
A parent can claim that: "My child had developed a routine in this class, changing that routine represents a restriction." Or: "My child has friends in that class, so moving my child will be traumatic to him." Or, "If you move my child, the other children will know it's because of her behavior, and this will stigmatize her."
I'll go back to your original statement that I disagreed with, because this thing has gotten blown up out of proportion:
quote:Actually we (teachers in Osceola County, the neighboring county to the one in which this event occurred) have the right to demand that a disruptive student be removed from our classes and not returned until the disruption has been dealt with.
Number one I have a disagreement with the word "right." You have a contractual agreement with your administration that they will support you when you ask that a child be removed from your class. Fine.
Number two I have a disgreement with the phrase "not returned until the disruption has been dealt with." That's too broad. The administration has a certain amount of time to have an "administrative hearing" or whatever language they use where you are, but they have to go through that step if they haven't "dealt with the disruption" before that time is up. And even then, if the parent argues that the student should remain in your room, the burden of proof is on the school. Again, you may have a contractual agreement that they will attempt to do this, but if they fail to prove that the student can't be accommodated in your room, the student will be back in your room. The part you keep leaving out of your response is the parent's reaction to the move. You and your school have no control over that.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Glenn, I checked with teacher friends of mine in Philadelphia. What Icarus is saying is correct for them too.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
This just in: Icarus might just know his job and its specific ins and outs better than Glenn Arnold!
More shocking updates as we get them!
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Glenn: as that's a pretty radical definition of least restrictive environment, you would need to find a court case supporting it to even begin to prove the position. Ideally a court case that is precedent for a decent chunk of the country.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: This just in: Icarus might just know his job and its specific ins and outs better than Glenn Arnold!
I'm going to need a citation for that.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: This just in: Icarus might just know his job and its specific ins and outs better than Glenn Arnold!
::furrows brow::
Now you're talkin' crazy talk!
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote:This just in: Icarus might just know his job and its specific ins and outs better than Glenn Arnold!
I am qualified and certified to do Icarus' job. Beyond that I have no interest in arguing credentials.
quote:Glenn: as that's a pretty radical definition of least restrictive environment, you would need to find a court case supporting it to even begin to prove the position. Ideally a court case that is precedent for a decent chunk of the country.
Well, I'm not a lawyer, which is why I invited legal types to weigh in on this in my original post. But this is from wikipedia. It's not perfect, but I think it's relevant.
quote:According to the United States Department of Education, for children with disabilities who have been suspended for 10 days total for each school year, including partial days, the local education agency (LEA) must hold a manifestation determination hearing within 10 school days of any decision to change the placement of a child with a disability because of a violation of a code of student conduct following either the Stay Put law which states that the child shall not be moved from his or her current placement or interim services in an alternative placement if the infraction was deemed to cause danger to other students. The LEA, the parent, and relevant members of the individualized education program (IEP) team (as determined by the parent and LEA) shall review all relevant information in the student's file, including the child's IEP, any teacher observations, and any relevant information provided by the parents to determine if the conduct in question was:
* Caused by, or had a direct and substantial relationship to, the child's disability; or * The direct result of the LEA's failure to implement the IEP.
If the LEA, the parent, and relevant members of the IEP team make the determination that the conduct was a manifestation of the child’s disability, the IEP team shall:
* Conduct a functional behavioral assessment and implement a behavioral intervention plan for such child, provided that the LEA had not conducted such assessment prior to such determination before the behavior that resulted in a change in placement described in Section 615(k)(1)(C) or (G); * In the situation where a behavioral intervention plan has been developed, review the behavioral intervention plan if the child already has such a behavioral intervention plan, and modify it, as necessary, to address the behavior; and * Except as provided in Section 615(k)(1)(G), return the child to the placement from which the child was removed, unless the parent and the LEA agree to a change of placement as part of the modification of the behavior intervention plan.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
In particular, there's a key element: "children with disabilities". They have an IEP indicating the steps of how they need to be treated. Children without an IEP have no such restrictions.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
I said it wasn't perfect.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
It is imperfect enough that it offers no support to speak of. The situation it applies in has long been understood to be different in relevant ways.
Oh, I'd also take an official opinion from the DOE instead of a court case.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
To the best of my knowledge, Icarus never made a distinction between whether he has the right to remove a non-classified student from his room as opposed to classified one. Even then, I see no reason why a non-classified student would have fewer rights than a classified one. And the child in question (going back to the thread topic) is classified, yes?
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
At the time, the child was not classified. He is now though.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
Which speaks to my point, actually, because he had the same right to remain in his placement even before he was classified. Or, saying it another way, any student can potentially be classified, and kicking them out of your room may well be the catalyst that starts the process.
In any case, IDEA (which is pretty much just PL 94-142 renamed when they renewed it) gives rights to classified students which previously were assumed to only apply to "educable" children. Educable children already had those rights, although they weren't encoded into law.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
My question about this court ruling is what is meant by "a change in placement", while this could refer to moving a child from one classroom to an equivalent classroom in the same school, I suspect that it does not. I would interpret "Change in placement" to refer to change from one school to another or from one program (such as accelerated or remedial) to another program.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
.![[Confused]](confused.gif)
Anyway, I'm happy to help.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
.
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)