Should teachers be able to forcefully restrain violent students or those damaging school property?

[True Dough]

Educators in Nebraska may get legislative support to do just that. This may be helpful in some instances, but may be abused by hotheaded teachers (who only constitute a small minority) in others. This is the part that gives me pause: "In addition, the bill would bar any type of legal action or administrative discipline against teachers using physical means to deal with students."

Legislative Bill 595 would allow teachers or administrators to use physical force or physical restraint to subdue violent students. Teachers or administrators could use physical restraint on students who are damaging school property.

Neither action would be considered corporal punishment under the bill. Current state law prohibits corporal punishment in Nebraska schools.

In addition, the bill would bar any type of legal action or administrative discipline against teachers using physical means to deal with students.

LB 595 would make clear that teachers can remove from their classrooms students who have been repeatedly or seriously unruly, disruptive or abusive. Under the bill, school principals could not return the student to class without the teacher’s consent.

http://www.omaha.com/news/legislature/bill-would-let-nebraska-teachers-use-force-to-deal-with/article_7ed41268-ddf8-11e6-ad26-db051aec2c4a.html

[tblue37]

1. We had a large copy of the periodical table of the elements in my 9th-grade science class.

It was hung over the hole in the blackboard where the science teacher, Mr. A, slammed a student's head through the blackboard for sassing him. This was in the early 1960s.)

I understand that sometimes students are out of control and teachers do need to be able to assert some reasonable sort of physical containment, but some teachers. . . .

My main concern is the apparent attempt to protect abusive teachers from any sort of repercussions if they go too far:

In addition, the bill would bar any type of legal action or administrative discipline against teachers using physical means to deal with students.

[Girard442]

6. Typical.

They never imagine their kid coming home with a black eye and missing teeth after a beating from a psycho teacher.

[Mike Nelson]

2. If...

...the act threatens the safety of the violent student, other students or staff - then, yes. If not, no.

[Hoyt]

3. Teachers need to wear video cameras just like police.

Not sure whether I'm serious or not.

[HoneyBadger]

5. How about if they just call a cop or a school safety officer

[Orrex]

7. What will the cop or safety officer do when they eventually arrive?

You've already taken forcible restraint off the table, because surely a cop can abuse that power as readily as a teacher.

What exactly should a cop's response be when faced with a violent student?

[HoneyBadger]

9. Cops have a different role than teachers

Most people accept cops restraining viloent offenders.

[Orrex]

16. That's essentially a matter of expectation, and it leaves many questions

How many officers should be deployed at each school? Under what circumstances? One in each room? One for every 10 or 20 or 50 students?

What means of restraint should they have at their disposal? Handcuffs? Billy clubs? Tasers? Pepper spray? Semiautomatic shotguns?


You're asserting that teachers--extensively familiar with their students and the students' behavior--can't be trusted to restrain a violent student. But you're perfectly willing to outsource that duty to a cop who probably doesn't know anything about any given student in that situation beyond "stop the violent offender."

Also, as we've clearly seen, such situations can easily escalate even if a noble cop is serving as the enforcer.

In addition, you're creating a delay in response time. What if two or more students are violent at the same time at opposite ends of the school? Do the teachers ask him to be patient until a cop arrives to deal with him?

[kcr]

19. Your reasoning is used to excuse all kinds of abuses of power

Just like this law being proposed. Let's just give teachers the power to abuse students with no legal recourse whatsoever and ignore all the horrible consequences because cops can be slow. Jesus christ...

Yes, there may be instances where a violent student might get out of hand. But you're ignoring the imbalance of power. And making that imbalance even stronger. If a teacher is so worried about that possible scenario, then they shouldn't become a teacher, just like a cop being worried about getting shot shouldn't become a cop. That is the answer to their fears. Not to tip the power imbalance even further in their favor and expose the other side even more to their power abuse.

[Orrex]

27. Rather the reverse, I should think

I'm saying that cops--with a demonstrated history of abuse of power--are not fundamentally better positioned than teachers are to defuse hostile student confrontations without themselves escalating violence.


Of course, it's a favorite rhetorical tactic used by Person A to claim that this or that question from Person B is "used to justify" this or that abuse. It's a handy way to shut down discussion and to camouflage the fact that Person A's solution isn't much of a solution, either.

[kcr]

29. It's also a favorite rhetorical tactic to claim a rhetorical tactic is being used

Because see, abuses are justified. All the time. It is simply a fact that shielding people from legal consequences is a huge abuse of power. You seem to be perfectly happy with that and are justifying it with your argument of slow police response.

I am not one to support the use of police in schools. Far from it. In fact, I think schools that prohibit teachers from touching students go way too far. But this is not the answer. This will get kids killed.

[Orrex]

36. But I'm not justifying anything

However, now that I see your position better, I think we might actually be on the same page here. I had misunderstood you to be arguing that teachers should not intervene in anyway ("schools that prohibit teachers from touching students,&quot when in fact you're saying the opposite.

The proposal indicated in the OP is absolutely a bad idea, and you're right that kids will get killed. This seems frankly inevitable.

[AngryAmish]

8. Somehow I made it through12 years of school without cops or safety officers

Did have nuns wielding rulers, tho.

If your kids go to school with cops or safety officers in them, you need to move.

[HoneyBadger]

10. That statement is discriminatory

Last edited Mon Jan 23, 2017, 09:27 AM - Edit history (1)

Catholic school aka private is not an option for most. Moving probably is not either.

[AngryAmish]

12. The statement is elitist, not discriminatory.

And I would never send my kids to school that needs those things. So I don't.

You don't think it is screwed up that you need cops in schools? If you can't see that than you have bigger fish to fry.

[HoneyBadger]

13. Telling someone that is too poor to move due to historic racism is discriminatory

And I have no problem with cops or school safety officers in schools. They are there to protect the kids. If that means protecting kids from other kids, that would be tgheir job. Same goes with fire drills, soft lockdown drills, school nurses, and even metal detectors and locked doors.

[Orrex]

37. All or nun, right?

Heigh-o!

[FarCenter]

11. Better to have the teacher deal with the situation early, rather than waiting for it to deteriorate

The key is being able to manage the classroom so that no significant physical restraint is needed.

The shop and ag teachers had some of the toughest kids in their classes, but they tolerated no crap and ran orderly classrooms.

But that was back in the day when we had teachers who were actual WW II combat veterans.

[HoneyBadger]

4. Never

because it is power that can be abused. Would rather deal with the consequences of a violent student.

[Coventina]

14. Even if that student was beating the crap out of your kid?

[HoneyBadger]

15. If a student is beating the crap out of my kid, I want Seal Team 6 to drop him in Supermax

However that is not my position on anyone else's kid

[Coventina]

17. Well, I guess then you're a selfish hypocrite?

[HoneyBadger]

18. That is reasonable

[kcr]

20. I would be much more worried about a school where adults could do whatever they pleased

without fear of legal retribution. That is fucking dangerous.

[Coventina]

21. I don't think they're talking about beating kids, just restraining them, against their will if

necessary.

My mother worked as a teacher's aid, and there was a girl in the classroom that repeatedly beat up on other children.
Her behavior would get steadily worse during the course of the day, so it was mom's job to walk her home at lunch time.
She would curse and beat on my mother the whole way as well.

My mother was a saint, I guess, because one day of that and I would be out the door.

The mother of this girl had sued the district when they tried to expel her for being a danger to other students, and she won.

So, all her classmates got beat on, every day for half a day.

Ridiculous.

[kcr]

23. That's not how the law works.

Under this law, if someone is bullying your kid and they finally decide to do something about it and a teacher breaks your kids neck while they slammed your kid against a wall attempting to break it up, you have no legal recourse against them, and the school decided to do nothing about it, there is nothing you can do. That's what this law says.

[Coventina]

24. in that case I would agree with you. It's not acceptable to take away people's ability to appeal to

the court system.

[kcr]

25. Yes. That's the part I really have a problem with.

Districts that come down too hard on teachers when they touch violent students are problamatic. I realize that. But I think this bill goes too far in the other direction.

[LanternWaste]

34. Would that it were the only power that could be abused, your point would contain validity

Would that it were the only power that could be abused, your point would contain validity. But it doesn't.

[kcr]

22. This law goes way too far. The question in the OP doesn't show how bad this law is.

Teachers should be able to break up a fight or stop a student from harming another. But there should not be a blanket shield of protections from legal consequences from harming students. That is dangerous. I also object to the part of the law that allows them to bar students from the classroom. For the day or some sort of brief cooling off period? That is reasonable. Beyond that this is more abuse of power.

[True Dough]

31. I did highlight that issue in the OP

It's not in the thread title but right before the excerpt. It's a major part of the equation in whether this proposed law should be passed or revised (or ditched all together).

[Turbineguy]

26. Typical republican thing.

Little thought given to unintended consequences.

These things are better dealt with on an individual basis.

[procon]

28. Define "physical force or physical restraint".

What does that even mean? Who decides which child gets coldcocked, choked down and hogtied, or just slapped and manhandled? There's a huge difference between restraining someone and physical force. It doesn't look like there's any differentiation between a kid who's being aggressive and belligerent, or a kid with developmental problems. And just because you're a parent doesn't mean that you relinquish your rights, and everyone has the right to challenge unconstitutional laws and demand justice and redress from the state.

[MichMary]

30. That's my question, too

Physical restraint could mean wrapping your arms around a kid from behind, could mean handcuffs. Physical force can mean anything.

When my son was in first grade I did a lot of volunteering at his school. (All first- and second-graders.) One of the staff mentioned to me that there was a little girl with some serious behavioral problems. One day she went ballistic, started overturning desks (!) and a lot of other behaviors that posed a serious risk to the other children, as well as staff. The teacher called the child's mother to have her come and take her home. The mother's refused, and said "When she's in school she's YOUR problem."

What do you do with a 7- or 8-year old kid who is that out of control, and whose parents are either unable or unwilling to support the school? In that case, an adult (teacher or aide) grabbing her and holding her tightly for even a few minutes might have given her a chance to get herself under control and defuse the situation.

[RayOfHope]

40. That is a great question. I'm a teacher, and at our school, restraint can ONLY be done

by certain staff who go through a very thorough and specific training (CPI) and get certified. They are trained in ways to restrain that don't hurt the student, safe transport from one place to another, and to do it in ways that help keep both student and staff member safe. I teach elementary aged kids though, so I'm sure it looks different at the secondary level.

Its important to add that a big portion of this training is in de-escalation and those techniques are always used first.

[True Dough]

32. Some interesting exchanges in this thread

I still don't know where I stand on this issue, other than I believe it would be a mistake to remove any liability from teachers who decide physical force is required. And the points about defining "physical force" are certainly valid.

As for the debate over whether it's a task best left to police or school safety officers, sometimes key seconds could be lost summoning those authorities. But then if the teacher is a man or woman of small stature or meek character and the violent student is a large, strong male at the high school level, some sort of back up is likely going to be required anyway.

It's a real dilemma, at least in some circumstances.

[NoGoodNamesLeft]

33. My response to a law like that would be immediately switch to virtual homeschool

If you are unable to build a mutually respectful relationship with students you have no business being a teacher.

[LanternWaste]

35. What specifically and objectively leads you to make that unsupported premise?

If you are unable to build a mutually respectful relationship with students you have no business being a teacher."

You then believe that to be an absolute, lacking any additional qualifiers or exception? What specifically and objectively leads you to make that unsupported premise?

[cynatnite]

38. Is there a surge of violent kids in school that a law is necessary?

Are teachers under siege by violent students that they need to be protected?

I just see this as unnecessary. My youngest grandson has developmental issues. The teachers had a very difficult time and they would call me or his mother to the school to help deal with him. In time, he settled down. It took a lot of patience and work to make things easier for him.

This kind of law seems like they don't want to deal with troubled kids. They want them out and gone. Out of sight, out of mind.

[Orsino]

39. Is there a shortage of trained security guards?

Or is this just another make-the-teachers-do-it framing to justify budget cuts and gun purchases?