Well, I meant the statement to mean, “If you take a job that involves being a policy-maker for an institution that is given in loco parentis authority and responsibility over children, then you should be ensuring that negative things that you know can happen are given as little chance to happen as is possible – from the day you take the job.”
And I do expect a principal to be on top of what is happening in and around the school building that he is the principal of, and for the children for whom he has responsibility – that’s his job. And an Associate Superintendent, by having accepted a job where she is in charge of teachers and principals, has taken on the responsibility of ensuring that the job they’re hired to do gets done.
You know, like Cardinal Law? Nobody said he committed moral turpitude – his crime was in not ensuring that it didn’t happen, that if it did happen it got stopped, and that those who did it didn’t get another chance to do it.
If you’re saying that nobody has any responsibility for preventing bullying, then you’ve just made the best possible argument for the abolition of public schools. If you’re trying to put the responsibility somewhere else, then you apparently have no concept of chains of authority – which doesn’t sound like you in the past.
And thank you, but this is not a criminal charge. Teachers and principals are not bound by the Code of Criminal Procedure or the Fifth and Sixth Amendments in identifying what the heck happened while their back was turned.
Is this an element of neo-conservativism? Along with laissez faire market values, you hold that children are to have no protection from adults?
I’ve already conceded that it’s possible the boy is not telling the truth about bullying. But I find it quite reasonable to presume that he is until some evidence to the contrary comes down the pike.
And IMO that quote I inserted in the OP sounds much more like CYA than anything else.
My basic point and the reason for the “historical junk” was, that it is a possibility that should not be discounted. Given that it does happen, it needs to be considered. There is not enough real information in the news article to make a definite decision, but that does not negate the questions. All hail our great lord Cthulhu, Squid King.
Not just for him - for anyone. There is always bullying, there are frequently teachers and administrators who don’t care.
My wife has written numerous articles on bullying, and has a book published with a section on it. There are ways for teachers who pay attention to tell what is going on. There are more ways for them to ignore it.
I’m sure the adminstrators at Columbine had no idea bullying was happening. We should be happy this kid just took the car.
I never got bullied, not because I was big, or didn’t get picked on, but because I was so stubborn that I always fought back and never, ever let anyone stop me from doing what I wanted to. But I’ve always been obnoxious that way, and people who aren’t don’t deserve to be abused.
Kricket, congrats for fighting for your kid. Did I read you right that there was a teacher present at the time? And your kid still got suspended? I’d demand a review of policy, and even threaten to take it to the school board if the policy is as absurd as you say. It is not right for the recommended response is to hide from the bully.
I think I understand the oppositions side: every time we see the word “bully” in a news article it is our duty as protectors of children to rush to the keyboard and demand an action committee be formed.
Fair enough. Under your standards (or anyone else’s realistic standards), bullying can and will continue to happen (if for no other reasons than the ones outlined by ~tom and others). So again, you haven’t demonstrated that she didn’t do all she could in that regard.
Wow…you’re not seriously comparing a Cardinal who oversees priests that he has some role in hiring/assigning with an associate supt who has NO role in choosing the kids walking in the doors of her school? The abuse in Law’s case was done DIRECTLY by people he had supervision over. He KNEW ABOUT it and transferred them.
The “alleged” abuse in THIS case was done by children. You have NOT demonstrated that the supt knew about it (and again, as ~tom and others have pointed out…it often DOES happen without knowledge of adults). You have NOT demonstrated that she knew about the incident and tried to cover it up.
Shame on you for trying to make such a comparison.
Good thing I said neither. Did ~tom and the other posters make the claim that you think I am making?
I have no idea what you mean here. If a kid is bullied in the bathroom or bullied in a hallway where there are no teachers present (you know, because they’re teaching) or bullied at a bus stop etc… should the teacher/principal automatically KNOW about it? If so…please explain how?
And you feel it perfectly ok to slam the assoc supt “until some evidence to the contrary comes down the pike”. Yeah, we all get it.
Sorry that the assoc supt, when presented with vague mention of a “possible” bullying action (that apparently even the parents didn’t know about or bother to raise a fuss about) didn’t give the “correct” response on the phone to an AP reporter…because THAT would certainly demonstrate their seriousness as regards to bullying. :dubious: