Posted on 03/02/2015 4:34:26 AM PST by bryan999
What is your basis for saying the child is innocent. Do you know things that the rest of us don’t?
How can the work “bullying” mean anything if you can’t provide your won definition of it.
To this point you have not provided even one logical element to support your position. I’m waiting.
I read the story. This story is what I’m commenting on. I haven’t taken the liberty of making up a different story. If you were commenting on some other story in which the child was guilty of something, you didn’t make that clear.
I also haven’t taken the liberty of creating a new definition for the word “bullying.” If you want to know what I mean by that word, or any other word I use, look it up in the dictionary. I already explained how that word applies to this situation. You keep trying to negotiate the definition with me, as if I have the authority to change it for you, and as if the morality of punishing a child with humiliation for something he has no control over somehow hinges on the meaning of the word “bullying.” If you changed the definition of every word in the English language, bullying would still be wrong. If you translated this story into Chinese, bullying would still be wrong. If you don’t like the word “bullying” as it applies to this story, feel free to use any word of your own choosing. It won’t change what happened, or make it right, but it might help you cope.
I don’t know why you’re having such a hard time understanding these basic facts. Normal people learn these things when they’re very young children. Most of the children in the classroom in this story probably know better than to bully anyone, especially someone smaller and weaker than themselves. It’s baffling to me that anyone can reach adulthood without learning this simple truth. I know there some of you out there, but I can only imagine the circumstances that would create such a mindset.
You mean it's impossible for him to shave off 60 seconds? It's hard to believe. Just like the rest of this dumb story.
They used to put that cardboard on the desks of the test cheaters, looking at other kids test papers for answers.
It's first grade. Unless he is missing hours he is not missing much "work".
Again, not a single word to logically support your position. You continue to refuse to provide YOUR definition of bullying because you know the second you do I can rip it to shreds.
My point about the child is that you keep referring to him as innocent without a single shred of evidence that the child was not complicit in this case of tardiness or the previous 5 events that occurred since the beginning of the school year.
To this point your argument consists of “It is bullying because I say it’s bullying”, “It’s wrong because I say it’s wrong” and “If I say it’s true then everybody agrees that it’s true.” Not very convincing arguments.
I think being one minute late isn't enough to initiate shunning against a small kid or laying judgment on what a horrible mother he has.
I have repeatedly told you what “my” definition of bullying is. Again, and pay attention this time, it’s the one you’d find in the dictionary, if you knew how to use one.
And again, and try to pay attention this time, my “argument” has nothing to do with your understanding or lack of understanding the definition of bullying. It’s about the treatment of an innocent child.
Now, I’ve grown weary trying to explain simple truth to someone whose goal in life seems to be avoidance of truth. It is wrong for a teacher (yes, even your wife) to bully a student. I realize you’re never going to be able to grasp that concept. That’s okay. Everyone can serve a purpose in life, even if it’s just to serve as a warning to others.
Have a nice day.
The article alludes to alleged past problems with the vehicle, which indicates to me that this child may have been late for school more often than just this one time. I do agree that this child is very young and thus, not responsible for his tardiness. If this was a recurring problem, the school should have dealt with the mother.
As usual, the news story in question omits certain potentially important facts. There appears to be more to the story than punishment of a child for being one minute late one time.
Thank you, finally you have actually staked your position, so let's go to the dictionary as you suggest.
Dictionary.com
Bully - a blustering, quarrelsome, overbearing person who habitually badgers and intimidates smaller or weaker people.
Bullying - to act the bully toward; intimidate; domineer; to be loudly arrogant and overbearing.
In this case the Rule is created by management of the institution with the intent of maintaining order and discipline in an educational environment. I have trouble believing the rule is intended to be badgering, intimidating, arrogant, domineering or overbearing. The school is correct in believing that students should be in the class room ready to begin glass on time. The Tardy bell is hardly a new or unique device. The school is a legitimate authority, so they are not domineering when establishing and enforcing rules, they are carryout assigned responsibilities
The consequences are established, generally known and I would expect applied evenly for each occurrence. I have no evidence to indicate otherwise, do you?.
The consequences as intended create embarrassment for unacceptable behaviour, no different then being sent to the office, having to sit in the corner, changing your behaviour card from green to yellow or red, or making the child apologize for unacceptable behaviour. As a consequence, it, like all of the others is not physically harmful, dangerous or damaging. It does not threaten the security or safety of the child. It does not fall outside the very restrictive limits placed on schools for applying discipline.
It’s about the treatment of an innocent child.
You keep ascerting that the child is innocent. On what evidence are you basing that claim. I have read 4 different articles related to this situation and in none of them did I see any evidence that indicated the child was not a contributing factor in the tardiness. Quite the contrary, as no mention is made of the child's contribution or lack there of to the event. Not surprising since schools for legal reasons cannot provide such information to the public. They are effectively gagged while any Tom, Dick or Harriet can scream bloody murder whether they are involved and knowledgeable or not.
When the child grows up and has a job, if the bus is behind schedule and results in being late for work and this happens on a repetitive basis, should the employer just accept the behaviour or punish the bus company. That is the message you are promoting. Of course not. If there is a problem with getting to work on time, the employer is fully correct in expecting the employee to remedy the problem. The employer or the school is totally correct in expecting an employee or a student to be on time.
Let's consider the case that the parent was totally responsible for the tardiness and the child was totally innocent. As a result of their failure to carryout their responsibility, their child is placed in an uncomfortable situation. Instead of taking responsibility for their failure and correcting their behaviour, they find fault with the school and expect the school to change their behaviour. That is a wonderful message to send to the child. What better way to raise a child to be a responsible adult?
I have read four different articles related to this. The child had been tardy 6 times since the beginning of the school year. Although past car trouble is alluded to, it is never directly implicated in this occurrence. The school never actually provides any details on the incident since they are precluded by law from doing so.
The child ha been tardy six times since the beginning of the Year. The School has established a rule, made the consequences of violating the rule known and enforced the rule on an even handed basis. Where did the school go wrong.
I realize that I have referred to information not in this report, but I have read 4 different articles on this situation and some of them provided more details.
The school went wrong in pummeling the kid for factors beyond his control. Ya’ll can hate on the mother all you like, but, in the end, the kid paid the price. And for what? Being tardy to bullshit public school classes? Is his capacity for knowledge now completely ruined? Did his classmates suffer for his absence? This is just zero-tolerance nonsense. Yet another reason to homeschool.
First, you have no basis for saying that it was beyond his control. You don’t know why he was late. Did he get up late? did he leave his lunch on the counter. Did he do any of the other million things that parents know children do that cause them to be late? You don’t know. You are simply assigning blame to the mother because it supports your emotions.
When a child enters class tardy it disrupts the entire class. If my child is in that class, it diminishes my childs learning experience. His classmates did not suffer for his absence, they suffered for his disruption.
The school has a rule, establishing rules is one of their responsibilities.
The school set a consequence for breaking the rule. Again one of their responsibilities.
The school administered the rule in an equitable fashion.
The child was not harmed, his physical security was not threatened. He bore only the burden of stigma for is breaking the rule. No different than being sent to the office or having to turn a behaviour card from green to yellow or even red.
You roll with that. That kid will be a good little drone, no doubt about it.
Actually I doubt it considering the number of people that are willing to step up and tell him when he breaks a rule it is okay and he should not be held responsible for it. He is more likely to turn out like Obama, believing rules are meant for everyone else. The sad part is that the rest of his classmates who have been following the rules may get the same message. Isn't that wonderful!
Yeah, he’s a danger to himself and everyone around him. CPS probably should get involved due to that horrendous mother, too.
To rule children by force is the technique of Satan, not of the Savior.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.