09-22-2007, 07:37 AM
Again, Zero Tolerance policies are being taken too far. Here's the article Video is also present, but I have no idea of how long it will be up.
09-22-2007, 07:37 AM
09-22-2007, 01:48 PM
Sounds like pretty typical six-year-old behaviour. I get punched and kicked regularly by my preschool students, the majority of whom are NT.
I've also been head-butted, causing my lip to be split, had my feet run over by children on tricycles in the playground, been poked in the eyes, etc etc. All this happens when you have a class of four to six year old children, all with high spirits, all of whom think the universe is their oyster.
Most of the worse accidents were just that - accidents. And the punching and kicking happens when a child gets hysterical or just plain angry and won't listen to sense. They tend to flail and don't care who they hit in the process of venting.
You just have to be mature about it and realise that at that age they can't really do you too much harm.
Alison
I've also been head-butted, causing my lip to be split, had my feet run over by children on tricycles in the playground, been poked in the eyes, etc etc. All this happens when you have a class of four to six year old children, all with high spirits, all of whom think the universe is their oyster.
Most of the worse accidents were just that - accidents. And the punching and kicking happens when a child gets hysterical or just plain angry and won't listen to sense. They tend to flail and don't care who they hit in the process of venting.
You just have to be mature about it and realise that at that age they can't really do you too much harm.
Alison
09-24-2007, 12:49 AM
UPDATE
Here's the Press Release put out by the parents.
The parents of Nathaniel Darnell, special minor child accused of assault, release the following statement to the press.
“We do not, cannot, and will not deny our son’s accuser (Glenda Schiltz) her right to due process just because we disagree that this criminal case is the best thing to modify the future actions of and outcomes for our son. We have not, nor has our precious son, denied his action and poor behavior. We have not anytime in our son’s three year academic career hidden the fact that our son is a child with multiple disabilities, both emotional and mental. We only deny that our son has NO worth and no equal protections, due process, or civil rights. We were and are angered that the actions taken were seen as the only way to help a child with multiple emotional and mental disabilities. We believe that our son can learn nothing from this action except that he is “different” and that he is undesirable and separate.
We have simply asked the school, going on a third year now, to provide a free, affective, and appropriate education for our son, yet he has not advanced a grade nor advanced his educational goal. We find it ironic that when you demand what the United States Supreme Court has already repeatedly told schools they must supply, you become a trouble maker who is unreasonable. We simply ask after two years, and now going into a third when are we supposed to become worried about our son’s long-term outcome. Autism has a window of opportunity in formative years and must be both CAUGHT and SERVICED to yield better outcomes. We contend that 45 minutes a day of special instruction is nothing close to intense intervention. We too contend that we have asked repeatedly for alternative placement inside the school only to be told the “law” says he has to be in a normal classroom.
We want our son’s accuser to know that after many tears and much searching for belief that humanity is not gone from mankind, we realize that she is just a soldier in a battle. We hope for her sake that she hasn’t been used as a diversion to the root causes that have lead to her incidence with our son.
We believe and allege that our son has been denied civil rights, due process, equal protections, a right to self-determination, and even self worth by some people and some policies in his school district and if not the policies then their failure to follow them.
Contrary to the superintendent’s statement to the media, we believe that in whole the district is a good school system, and even submit that for students without special need it is very, very good. We, indeed have three other students who thrive there and are exceptional students. We simply say that some employees there that work with children who need extreme assistance and patience may be feeling that they are forced to work harder than they are paid to work and that may lead to disdain for those they claim to serve. Still, even if the problem is pay or funding, we all, as parents, citizens, and as advocates both for education and special children have a right and a duty to make sure this isn’t the case. We hold that our son and other witnesses have allegedly seen denial of his rights and mistreatment of his person. Would any of us be better parents if we did not ask for answers when such things occur? If the problems are rooted in the above then we all must ask is the above criminal or is it all to ride on our son? This nation must soon look at the laws commonly called “zero tolerance” and at our education funding policy with eyes that politics cannot glaze. How can our nation reward, monetarily, a school for improving its test scores yet, not have oversight to make sure that it isn’t an incentive to push problem and special needs children away. Then ask our leaders how a set of laws---again known as zero tolerance---- can be so easily, without regard for the sanctity and sanity of families, used as a means for this push away form dignity and rights. Columbine and all other such tragedies that drew forth these laws were tragedies that sickened and terrified everyone with a stake in education and rearing children. Still, as loving parents, we will scream ( even to the detriment of our persons) out to whoever will hear that our six year old child, who performs at the development of a four year old and who is mentally and emotionally troubled also in other ways, was not at those tragedies and will not pay for them. Laws cannot serve their purpose if they are not used for their purpose. Why is common sense so uncommon? The Darnell Family issues and supports all the above.”
Here's the Press Release put out by the parents.
The parents of Nathaniel Darnell, special minor child accused of assault, release the following statement to the press.
“We do not, cannot, and will not deny our son’s accuser (Glenda Schiltz) her right to due process just because we disagree that this criminal case is the best thing to modify the future actions of and outcomes for our son. We have not, nor has our precious son, denied his action and poor behavior. We have not anytime in our son’s three year academic career hidden the fact that our son is a child with multiple disabilities, both emotional and mental. We only deny that our son has NO worth and no equal protections, due process, or civil rights. We were and are angered that the actions taken were seen as the only way to help a child with multiple emotional and mental disabilities. We believe that our son can learn nothing from this action except that he is “different” and that he is undesirable and separate.
We have simply asked the school, going on a third year now, to provide a free, affective, and appropriate education for our son, yet he has not advanced a grade nor advanced his educational goal. We find it ironic that when you demand what the United States Supreme Court has already repeatedly told schools they must supply, you become a trouble maker who is unreasonable. We simply ask after two years, and now going into a third when are we supposed to become worried about our son’s long-term outcome. Autism has a window of opportunity in formative years and must be both CAUGHT and SERVICED to yield better outcomes. We contend that 45 minutes a day of special instruction is nothing close to intense intervention. We too contend that we have asked repeatedly for alternative placement inside the school only to be told the “law” says he has to be in a normal classroom.
We want our son’s accuser to know that after many tears and much searching for belief that humanity is not gone from mankind, we realize that she is just a soldier in a battle. We hope for her sake that she hasn’t been used as a diversion to the root causes that have lead to her incidence with our son.
We believe and allege that our son has been denied civil rights, due process, equal protections, a right to self-determination, and even self worth by some people and some policies in his school district and if not the policies then their failure to follow them.
Contrary to the superintendent’s statement to the media, we believe that in whole the district is a good school system, and even submit that for students without special need it is very, very good. We, indeed have three other students who thrive there and are exceptional students. We simply say that some employees there that work with children who need extreme assistance and patience may be feeling that they are forced to work harder than they are paid to work and that may lead to disdain for those they claim to serve. Still, even if the problem is pay or funding, we all, as parents, citizens, and as advocates both for education and special children have a right and a duty to make sure this isn’t the case. We hold that our son and other witnesses have allegedly seen denial of his rights and mistreatment of his person. Would any of us be better parents if we did not ask for answers when such things occur? If the problems are rooted in the above then we all must ask is the above criminal or is it all to ride on our son? This nation must soon look at the laws commonly called “zero tolerance” and at our education funding policy with eyes that politics cannot glaze. How can our nation reward, monetarily, a school for improving its test scores yet, not have oversight to make sure that it isn’t an incentive to push problem and special needs children away. Then ask our leaders how a set of laws---again known as zero tolerance---- can be so easily, without regard for the sanctity and sanity of families, used as a means for this push away form dignity and rights. Columbine and all other such tragedies that drew forth these laws were tragedies that sickened and terrified everyone with a stake in education and rearing children. Still, as loving parents, we will scream ( even to the detriment of our persons) out to whoever will hear that our six year old child, who performs at the development of a four year old and who is mentally and emotionally troubled also in other ways, was not at those tragedies and will not pay for them. Laws cannot serve their purpose if they are not used for their purpose. Why is common sense so uncommon? The Darnell Family issues and supports all the above.”
Ethel
09-24-2007, 01:59 AM
Quote:
This is very sickening
Yeah, and really scary. Special needs or mainstream, is criminal action against a little child of six ever appropriate?
09-24-2007, 04:41 AM
Yes, and not lean over them when they're having a tantie - that's how I got the head butt! I feel ashamed for that teacher. Those of us who deal with little kids professionally, be they four, five, or six, should KNOW that they're neither reasonable nor responsible, and we shouldn't be surprised when they act their age! Now that teacher needs to act hers.
Alison
Alison
09-24-2007, 11:12 PM
What a pity the same doesn't apply to schoolyard bullies, though. If they knew they'd be accountable for their actions, they might think twice. There was an item today in one of our current affairs news stories about a boy who'd been bullied so badly in primary school that he was physically scarred for life, and he'd attempted suicide. Now, he is about to start high school and guess what? The boy who bullied him is in the same school YET AGAIN.
Alison
Alison
09-25-2007, 09:45 AM
Yes, she's obviously unable to handle the demands of the job. I also think it's ridiculous for little kids to get charged with minor acts when others at older ages who do really terrible things get just a slap on the wrist from the (in)justice system.
09-26-2007, 11:56 AM
Surely the case against the six year old should be seen as an example of vexatious litigation?
09-30-2007, 01:59 AM
What a pity it had to reach such ridiculous proportions before being squashed. I just hope that teacher is not still going to be in contact with the child. She obviously hasn't got a clue.
Alison
Alison
09-30-2007, 09:11 AM
Finally, some sanity prevails. I do hope that this boy is not forced to stay in the same teacher's class though. She probably stirred him up by acting insensitively.
We had a tragic case in Australia a few years ago, involving a 9 year old boy and his headmaster in a country school. They had got into an altercation and the boy headbutted the man in the middle of his chest. This resulted in the headmaster's death.
Normally, it wouldn't have but there is a rare event where a blow to the chest between two heartbeats stops the heart. People playing sport who have been hit in the chest by a ball have also died this way on occasion.
I don't know if anything much happened. The boy had previous behaviour problems and was considered a handful. I think it was decided it was a tragic accident and that he didn't have any idea of the consequences his actions would have. So, if a 9 year old can be considered to have diminished responsibility, why not a 6 year old.
Even in religious circles, the age of reason is considered to be 7 ie. an age where a child can start to realise if their actions are morally "bad" or "good". However, they would still not have full knowledge until adulthood and only if they were of sound mind with no conditions or circumstances that would impair their moral judgement.
We had a tragic case in Australia a few years ago, involving a 9 year old boy and his headmaster in a country school. They had got into an altercation and the boy headbutted the man in the middle of his chest. This resulted in the headmaster's death.
Normally, it wouldn't have but there is a rare event where a blow to the chest between two heartbeats stops the heart. People playing sport who have been hit in the chest by a ball have also died this way on occasion.
I don't know if anything much happened. The boy had previous behaviour problems and was considered a handful. I think it was decided it was a tragic accident and that he didn't have any idea of the consequences his actions would have. So, if a 9 year old can be considered to have diminished responsibility, why not a 6 year old.
Even in religious circles, the age of reason is considered to be 7 ie. an age where a child can start to realise if their actions are morally "bad" or "good". However, they would still not have full knowledge until adulthood and only if they were of sound mind with no conditions or circumstances that would impair their moral judgement.
09-30-2007, 10:30 AM
Yes indeed. Autistic children often hate being touched suddenly or shouted at (nobody likes that) for example and teachers need to be mindful of possible triggers for meltdowns. If the Australian situation is anything to go by, teachers are given very little specific training in handling autistic children and this makes it so much harder all round.
09-30-2007, 10:41 AM
I couldn't agree with you more.
I had a colleague who recently disagreed with me on the best way to "handle" an autistic girl in our class. She thought that repeatedly getting the child to look into her eyes when she spoke was the best way to "get through to her". When she stuttered, she was told repeatedly to go back and start again, with the result that the kiddie clammed up and refused to say anything.
Luckily I was able to pull rank on this colleague, as she's two levels down from me, training-wise, and get her to back off. When she got stroppy about it ("what do you know about it anyway?") I told her I was autistic. To add insult to injury, she didn't believe me and told me, "No, you're just weird." Hmmm.
Anyway, I've applied for extra training in the needs of special children, including autistics. It's a field that's hugely underrepresented as far as pre-school teachers go.
Alison
I had a colleague who recently disagreed with me on the best way to "handle" an autistic girl in our class. She thought that repeatedly getting the child to look into her eyes when she spoke was the best way to "get through to her". When she stuttered, she was told repeatedly to go back and start again, with the result that the kiddie clammed up and refused to say anything.
Luckily I was able to pull rank on this colleague, as she's two levels down from me, training-wise, and get her to back off. When she got stroppy about it ("what do you know about it anyway?") I told her I was autistic. To add insult to injury, she didn't believe me and told me, "No, you're just weird." Hmmm.
Anyway, I've applied for extra training in the needs of special children, including autistics. It's a field that's hugely underrepresented as far as pre-school teachers go.
Alison
09-30-2007, 12:13 PM
Yes indeed. These behaviours were cruel and sure to provoke an outburst even in the most mild-mannered children if persisted with.
09-30-2007, 12:27 PM
I think one of my bosses must have considered me very rude because I didn't like looking her in the face. She had bad breath and some green teeth and had bullied me a fair bit and i just wanted to get as far away from her as possible, so this not looking people in the face thing can persist into adulthood and is also something for employers to consider when hiring aspies.
10-20-2007, 11:21 PM
And how ridiculous is it for a kid to be charged with throwing a sausage at an old man (or anybody) - they should have taken the issue to community mediation instead of wasting the court's time! Goodness knows there are so many more serious cases to consider without getting all bent out of shape over a sausage.