Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

That too. We need more ass woopin. it builds character.

Another reason the suspension is completely ineffective.

 Ratbarf wrote:
I think you are all somewhat unaware as to the purpose of a suspension. The punishment doesn't come from the having missed a day of school. The reason a child is suspended is because the punishment the Teachers/Principals deem suitable to the offence is too severe for them to legally administer, and thus the expectation is that when you get home your parents will administer said punishment. Colloquially known as, "a good old fashioned ass whoopin."

Unfortunately, most parents no longer believe in the benefits of said ass whoopin, so the punishment goes undelivered. I, however, had the good grace to be born into a family which did and does still recognize the educational benefit of an ass whoopin, and thus suspensions where the thing I feared the most when it came to disciplinary action by the school.

While spankings might be appropriate for some children in some cases, getting suspended for making a "finger gun" or talking about a Hello Kitty bubble pistol isn't one of them.

 Breotan wrote:
I don't see how discipline is warranted in any of these cases.

By following struct procedure and getting the police whenever when absolutely ever possible, they avoid lawsuits. "We followed policy" is way to avoid parents and lawsuits, or frankly any criticism.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Hordini wrote:

 Ratbarf wrote:
I think you are all somewhat unaware as to the purpose of a suspension. The punishment doesn't come from the having missed a day of school. The reason a child is suspended is because the punishment the Teachers/Principals deem suitable to the offence is too severe for them to legally administer, and thus the expectation is that when you get home your parents will administer said punishment. Colloquially known as, "a good old fashioned ass whoopin."

Unfortunately, most parents no longer believe in the benefits of said ass whoopin, so the punishment goes undelivered. I, however, had the good grace to be born into a family which did and does still recognize the educational benefit of an ass whoopin, and thus suspensions where the thing I feared the most when it came to disciplinary action by the school.

While spankings might be appropriate for some children in some cases, getting suspended for making a "finger gun" or talking about a Hello Kitty bubble pistol isn't one of them.

Plus you might run into a parent like me who may decide beat the hell out of you for touching their kid. No one beats my kids but me! Oh wait thats doesn't sound right...

You gave that kid a warning for something, and my kid a suspension? What my kid did wasn't that much worse than the other kid! You discriminated against my kid, I am going to sue you!

=

Kid gets a warning for pointing a stick or using his fingers as a "gun". Another kid brings a toy gun and gets suspended. Parent: "that toy gun wasn't any more of a real gun than the stick. I am going to sue the pants of this school!"

=

Zero tolerance policies where everybody gets the same punishment for any level of breaking the rules.

Or just go with, oh I don't know, common sense policies and stop punishing children for being children.

Well, it seems that moronic school policies aren't limited to the USA.

http://shine.yahoo.com/parenting/australian-kids-banned-birthday-tradition-school-181900033.html

some people were traumatized by Sandy Hook is all.

The precedent over make believe weapons has been set in the case of Iraq Vs Coalition.

 Breotan wrote:
Or just go with, oh I don't know, common sense policies and stop punishing children for being children.

It's a legal liability to have common sense when the people that sue you don't have it.

d-usa is right, Its no the schools lacking common senses, its parents.
Its all comes down to the way parents act, many think their kids cannot do wrong(my cousins kid ran down almost into the street and they didnt get punished.) And you dont mess with parents at all.

 Ratbarf wrote:
I think you are all somewhat unaware as to the purpose of a suspension. The punishment doesn't come from the having missed a day of school. The reason a child is suspended is because the punishment the Teachers/Principals deem suitable to the offence is too severe for them to legally administer, and thus the expectation is that when you get home your parents will administer said punishment. Colloquially known as, "a good old fashioned ass whoopin."

Unfortunately, most parents no longer believe in the benefits of said ass whoopin, so the punishment goes undelivered. I, however, had the good grace to be born into a family which did and does still recognize the educational benefit of an ass whoopin, and thus suspensions where the thing I feared the most when it came to disciplinary action by the school.

I never got an ass whoopin, and I never even got close to getting suspended from school. Never even got detention. So there might be a lot more to it than what you've considered.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:
By following struct procedure and getting the police whenever when absolutely ever possible, they avoid lawsuits. "We followed policy" is way to avoid parents and lawsuits, or frankly any criticism.

And this isn't just a school thing. In an increasingly bureaucratic world policies and procedures are being put front and centre - and everyone is being taught the only thing to do is follow the written policy every time. The value of things like discretion are so much dismissed as not even considered.

I was at a manager's ethics course a few months ago, and we had all these examples of misbehaviour, some big and some small. In every instance the 'answer' was to follow the process, write it up, speak to the employee formally etc. There was no concept that a manager is there because he's a professional capable of exercising professional judgement, and that in many situations an informal 'don't do that' is an ideal resolution.

 sebster wrote:

 Ratbarf wrote:
I think you are all somewhat unaware as to the purpose of a suspension. The punishment doesn't come from the having missed a day of school. The reason a child is suspended is because the punishment the Teachers/Principals deem suitable to the offence is too severe for them to legally administer, and thus the expectation is that when you get home your parents will administer said punishment. Colloquially known as, "a good old fashioned ass whoopin."

Unfortunately, most parents no longer believe in the benefits of said ass whoopin, so the punishment goes undelivered. I, however, had the good grace to be born into a family which did and does still recognize the educational benefit of an ass whoopin, and thus suspensions where the thing I feared the most when it came to disciplinary action by the school.

I never got an ass whoopin, and I never even got close to getting suspended from school. Never even got detention. So there might be a lot more to it than what you've considered.

I don't understand the point you're striving for. I was talking about the purpose of a suspension, which many people in the thread had called a positive experience, which is not the intention of a suspension. The fact that it can be a positive experience is solely at the feet of the parents.

The fact that you never got an ass whoopin, while at the same time seemingly staying out of trouble, doesn't make sense to me. I mean, were you expecting random ass whoopings? Ass whoopings must only be applied in cases of severe discipline and with a defined message and purpose. If you never got in trouble, you never should have received one.

 d-usa wrote:
You gave that kid a warning for something, and my kid a suspension? What my kid did wasn't that much worse than the other kid! You discriminated against my kid, I am going to sue you!

=

Kid gets a warning for pointing a stick or using his fingers as a "gun". Another kid brings a toy gun and gets suspended. Parent: "that toy gun wasn't any more of a real gun than the stick. I am going to sue the pants of this school!"

=

Zero tolerance policies where everybody gets the same punishment for any level of breaking the rules.

But the thing is, I'm pretty sure a parent could sue a school over the results of a ridiculous zero tolerance policy just as easily as they could a policy that allows for some discretion. Consistency doesn't make a policy more lawsuit-proof if the results of the policy are abusive.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Hordini wrote:

 Ratbarf wrote:
I think you are all somewhat unaware as to the purpose of a suspension. The punishment doesn't come from the having missed a day of school. The reason a child is suspended is because the punishment the Teachers/Principals deem suitable to the offence is too severe for them to legally administer, and thus the expectation is that when you get home your parents will administer said punishment. Colloquially known as, "a good old fashioned ass whoopin."

Unfortunately, most parents no longer believe in the benefits of said ass whoopin, so the punishment goes undelivered. I, however, had the good grace to be born into a family which did and does still recognize the educational benefit of an ass whoopin, and thus suspensions where the thing I feared the most when it came to disciplinary action by the school.

While spankings might be appropriate for some children in some cases, getting suspended for making a "finger gun" or talking about a Hello Kitty bubble pistol isn't one of them.

Plus you might run into a parent like me who may decide beat the hell out of you for touching their kid. No one beats my kids but me! Oh wait thats doesn't sound right...

I think that's the point Frazz. No one is saying anyone other than the parents should decide whether or not corporal punishment is an appropriate form of discipline for their kids.

 Hordini wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
You gave that kid a warning for something, and my kid a suspension? What my kid did wasn't that much worse than the other kid! You discriminated against my kid, I am going to sue you!

=

Kid gets a warning for pointing a stick or using his fingers as a "gun". Another kid brings a toy gun and gets suspended. Parent: "that toy gun wasn't any more of a real gun than the stick. I am going to sue the pants of this school!"

=

Zero tolerance policies where everybody gets the same punishment for any level of breaking the rules.

But the thing is, I'm pretty sure a parent could sue a school over the results of a ridiculous zero tolerance policy just as easily as they could a policy that allows for some discretion. Consistency doesn't make a policy more lawsuit-proof if the results of the policy are abusive.

Consistency does make it more lawsuit-proof. In this case it would be a simple "don't bring guns, anything that looks like a gun, don't act like you have a gun, don't pretent you have a gun, don't make gun noises" policy. Any violation will be handled with "x punishment". That policy isn't really something you can sue over as long as it is applied universally. But you can sue if you feel your kid was treated differently than other kids.

 d-usa wrote:

 Hordini wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
You gave that kid a warning for something, and my kid a suspension? What my kid did wasn't that much worse than the other kid! You discriminated against my kid, I am going to sue you!

=

Kid gets a warning for pointing a stick or using his fingers as a "gun". Another kid brings a toy gun and gets suspended. Parent: "that toy gun wasn't any more of a real gun than the stick. I am going to sue the pants of this school!"

=

Zero tolerance policies where everybody gets the same punishment for any level of breaking the rules.

But the thing is, I'm pretty sure a parent could sue a school over the results of a ridiculous zero tolerance policy just as easily as they could a policy that allows for some discretion. Consistency doesn't make a policy more lawsuit-proof if the results of the policy are abusive.

Consistency does make it more lawsuit-proof. In this case it would be a simple "don't bring guns, anything that looks like a gun, don't act like you have a gun, don't pretent you have a gun, don't make gun noises" policy. Any violation will be handled with "x punishment". That policy isn't really something you can sue over as long as it is applied universally. But you can sue if you feel your kid was treated differently than other kids.

You could sue if you believe the punishment was inappropriate. If a school started administering some sort of corporal punishment for a certain infraction, it wouldn't matter how consistently they applied the policy, it wouldn't prevent a parent from initiating a lawsuit.

Note that I'm not saying the parents would always win. But the school saying, "We're just following a consistent policy!" isn't an invincible lawsuit deflector shield, especially if the policy is moronic.

 Ratbarf wrote:
I don't understand the point you're striving for. I was talking about the purpose of a suspension, which many people in the thread had called a positive experience, which is not the intention of a suspension. The fact that it can be a positive experience is solely at the feet of the parents.

Your second paragraph goes on to say that most parents no longer believe in the benefits of an ass whoopin, and that because yours did you feared suspension. I was questioning that assertion, by giving my own experience - no ass whoopin, no threat of an ass whoopin, and I didn't act up.

The fact that you never got an ass whoopin, while at the same time seemingly staying out of trouble, doesn't make sense to me. I mean, were you expecting random ass whoopings? Ass whoopings must only be applied in cases of severe discipline and with a defined message and purpose. If you never got in trouble, you never should have received one.

I got in trouble for various stuff, here and there, but it was minor and never at school. But there was never any threat of an ass whoopin for any of it.

Now, I'm not saying no parent needs to give an ass whoopin, because my experience is just my experience and isn't the way all children must be raised. Point is, every parent has to find their own to raise their kids, and unfortunately that simple lesson gets lost in all manner of nonsense (like the tut-tut brigade acting morally superior to parents who punish their kids physically, or the nostalgia brigade who tut-tut modern society by pretending there used to be a lot more physical punishment and that kids were better behaved when there was).

 sebster wrote:

 Ratbarf wrote:
I don't understand the point you're striving for. I was talking about the purpose of a suspension, which many people in the thread had called a positive experience, which is not the intention of a suspension. The fact that it can be a positive experience is solely at the feet of the parents.

Your second paragraph goes on to say that most parents no longer believe in the benefits of an ass whoopin, and that because yours did you feared suspension. I was questioning that assertion, by giving my own experience - no ass whoopin, no threat of an ass whoopin, and I didn't act up.

The fact that you never got an ass whoopin, while at the same time seemingly staying out of trouble, doesn't make sense to me. I mean, were you expecting random ass whoopings? Ass whoopings must only be applied in cases of severe discipline and with a defined message and purpose. If you never got in trouble, you never should have received one.

I got in trouble for various stuff, here and there, but it was minor and never at school. But there was never any threat of an ass whoopin for any of it.

Now, I'm not saying no parent needs to give an ass whoopin, because my experience is just my experience and isn't the way all children must be raised. Point is, every parent has to find their own to raise their kids, and unfortunately that simple lesson gets lost in all manner of nonsense (like the tut-tut brigade acting morally superior to parents who punish their kids physically, or the nostalgia brigade who tut-tut modern society by pretending there used to be a lot more physical punishment and that kids were better behaved when there was).

Okay, I think I see where you're coming from now.

Personally, I really don't see how suspension is an effective punishment at all regardless of education system or age...

Speaking from my experience, the only people who were typically suspended, due to bad behaviour, in my secondary school (would be approx high-school to you americans) were those brain-dead delinquents who were only in school because there is a legal requirement for them to attend it until they are 16. So essentially, the school was saying to the misbehaving mouth-breathers 'you did a very bad thing today, here, have a day or two off from this place that you hate and begrudge coming to every day of your life'

(And no, they would not have got an ass-whupping from their parents, more likely they would have been allowed to stay at home, play video games or go get drunk/high with the other deliquents)

In america, land of the free, I cannot make my hand look like a pistol, and then say "bang".

 Kilkrazy wrote:
In other news, children all over the world started to pretend to have guns.

It follows that we start having a serious debate about pretend gun control.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Leigen_Zero wrote:
Personally, I really don't see how suspension is an effective punishment at all regardless of education system or age...

I pretty well agree. I have minimal experience supervising children in an educational setting but what little I have, plus my own experience in school, leads me to believe that a lot of serious behavior problems come from a sense of marginalization and divestment. Suspensions seem to reinforce the problem.

 Grey Templar wrote:
That too. We need more ass woopin. it builds character.

All available data from credible sources contradicts this.

Chongara wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
That too. We need more ass woopin. it builds character.

All available data from credible sources contradicts this.

Then all available data from credible data sources is wrong.

I've never met a child from those "progressive parents" that didn't believe in any form of corporal punishment that wasn't a badly behaved monster, some of them even going so far in their lack of respect as to raise their hands against their parents (and I'm talking about 3 to 5 year old children).

I don't advocate in applying ass whoopings for just about everything, but in the most extreme cases a well applied hand to the behind does wonders for a child's behaviour.

Please describe what a "progressive parent" is. Because I hear it slot. But I never hear what it means. Does it mean a parent who refused to harm a child?

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Please describe what a "progressive parent" is. Because I hear it slot. But I never hear what it means. Does it mean a parent who refused to harm a child?

Read what I wrote, I think I explain quite clearly what I think it means.

Alternatively, this page provides a nice tidy list:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaley_Scott#13_Principles_of_Progressive_Parenting

#3 is the one that I don't agree with. There are plenty of punishments that fall far away from beating your kid, but still get the message across. Just giving the kid time outs is a stupid idea, giving the kid a time out and explaining why he's getting it is smarter.

Also I chuckled at #6 (as parents often go too far on the safety issue), 9 (because there are just too many times where I was a little fether and didn't know what I was talking about. An equal? Hell no), and well some of them are a little odd, but I can get behind most of the points.

 Alfndrate wrote:
Alternatively, this page provides a nice tidy list:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaley_Scott#13_Principles_of_Progressive_Parenting

Holly baloney, what a load of crap!

#1 - Every parent they I know of does this. The age of not displaying love to your children ended in 1959.

#2 - What in Everblights name does "Find The Yes" even mean?

#3 - Absolutely not! Humans learn not only by positive affirmation but by negative as well. The idea of instilling in my child the notion that his actions won't have consequences (good or bad), is completely ludicrous and harmful!

#4 - Every decent parent tries to do this, but sometimes authority is required.

#5 - Load of crap. Criticism is useful, that doesn't mean berating the child if he doesn't "get it right".

#6 - Every decent parent does this.

#7 - Every decent parent does this.

#8 - Every decent parent does this.

#9 - Absolutely not! A child doesn't have either its cognitive or emotional development complete yet and simply cannot make the right decisions regarding most things.

#10 - A parent that is resentful of his child under any circumstance, shouldn't be a parent in the first place. This is another load of crap, you will have to make sacrifices in your life one way or the other when you have a child!

#11 - Every decent parent does this.

#12 - Wrong. Children need to be encouraged to display the right attitudes or else they will treat others badly.

#13 - Every decent parent does this.

I don't advocate physical punishment for everything, only certain things.

I was spanked for certain things, sent to a corner for others, and told off for others still.

Spankings have a place in disciplining children, to cut them out completely is a major mistake. And some people can abuse thise punishment, of course they are also probably people that shouldn't be parents period(which is a seperate issue)

And yeah, that progressive parenting bit is a load of crap.

As an adult every lesson I remember from childhood that stuck with me was a result of physical punishment or having an activity end in pain.

Granted it's a view I lean heavily toward with male children but boys don't seem to learn well from logic in their early years. You have to keep it simple with them. I can still remember my though process for doing something when I was a kid.

"Will this hurt?"

Followed by:

"Will it hurt because I could get hurt or because it's likely to result in a whoopin?"

Followed by:

"Is it worth it anyway?"

Oddly I only got whooped twice by my dad and switched once by my grandmother. I was a terror but outside of things that were dangerous to others or myself or would be a major issue if not corrected my parents found other ways of dealing with me. But those whoopins didn't feel good and were definitely an impact on my thinking as I grew up.

The idea that I could be suspended for playing cops and robbers or war with friends on the playground would have been ridiculous. Almost as ridiculous as the school telling my father I had ADD as a child. My dad told them I concentrate fine when I'm interested or challenged. Figure out a way to make him interested or challenged.

A switch?!

did you have to walk 15 miles to school in the snow old timer? Was it uphill both ways?

My dad, who's 66, said he was only ever physically punished twice, and both with his dad's leather belt across his backside. If I had known my grandfather, that would have been a bigger deterrent when he offered it to me as an option when I was truly an unruly little gak.

PhantomViper wrote:

Then all available data from credible data sources is wrong.

Indeed! Goddamn those wily scientists and their "Observations" and "Research". Why didn't I see it before!?!? all their "Facts" are nothing more than a liberal conspiracy to ruin america with undisciplined children!

From now on, I'm only advocating the teachings of bender: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7aVxohAMmDs

 Alfndrate wrote:
A switch?!

did you have to walk 15 miles to school in the snow old timer? Was it uphill both ways?

Nah, it was only 25 years ago or so. My granny is kinda old fashioned and they live in rural Virginia