Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You guys are having an interesting discussion. Here's a thought to add. Uneven application/impact of punishment. In my school I often observed that the students most often to "break the rules" would receive minimal, slap on the wrist punishments. Whereas honor students would typically get the maximum for a single event. For the kid who is trying to get into a top school, some punishments are almost a "death penalty" with long term impacts whereas for others the same punishment would be more like a reward.
I have posted about that many, many times, including in this thread. None of the people who bullied me were ever punished, yet I'd be punished for defending myself, and would also be punished for very minor incidents. Also, I've mentioned how a suspension would cause disqualification from honor roll, and possibly disqualification from honors and AP classes. None of those punishments meant anything to a weaker student who didn't care about school and wasn't taking honors or AP classes anyway. So, it would allow the "bad" kids to do anything that they wanted, with no real consequences, while forcing the "good" students to just accept bullying. Also, keep in mind that a punishment such as a 0 for the day or a 0 on an assignment or exam as a punishment would also disproportionately impact stronger students, while having minimal effect on weaker students.
A few theories that I have:
1. Most teachers and administrators were not high achieving students, so perhaps they relate better to the weaker students.
2. Many teachers and administrators were former school bullies, so perhaps they relate better to the bullies, and want to reward the bullies, and punish anybody who tries to stop the bullies?
3. Maybe they think that bullying somehow builds character?
4. Maybe they think that punishment would be ineffective on bullies, and would see it as a mark of honor, so there is no way to stop them. But by punishing the people who stand up to bullies, and/or people guilty of very minor offenses, it gives the appearance that they are being tough, while doing nothing to stop the real bullies.
5. Maybe they think that the bullies will force their victims into some sort of compliance, which they think will benefit us in the real world?
6. Bullies tend to be sly, so they rarely get caught, and they may be reluctant to punish somebody when they don't see it themselves. But the bullying victim who fights back will very likely get caught, and the bullies know how to make their victims look as bad as possible.
7. In some cases, teachers and administrators may be afraid of the bullies and their parents, so they don't punish them, whereas they assume that the "good" kids will just cheerfully accept their punishment, no matter how unfair it is.
8. Like most people, teachers and administrators are looking for the easiest way to get through the day. So they may find that punishing victims is the easiest option.
One incident (not involving myself) that I think involves several of these theories. In 8th grade, a notorious bully (who was never punished for anything) put gum in a girl's hair on the bus. Another girl was laughing at her. The guy who put the gum in the girl's hair was not punished, but the girl who laughed at her was given detention, and was told that if she did that again, she'd be banned from the bus. This was the same assistant principal who tried to ban me from the bus permanently (but the head of transportation override his decision) because of that same bully. This assistant principal probably justified his decision, saying that the gum could be removed from her hair, but that she was somehow scarred for life by that girl laughing at her. Obviously a ridiculous argument. In reality, he was probably afraid of that bully. The assistant principal lived nearby, and that bully was allegedly burglarizing houses, but nothing could ever be proven. The assistant principal was probably worried that his house would be the next to be burglarized. Also, the assistant principal was likely under pressure to be tough on bullying, so in this case, he was able to claim that he was tough on an emotional bully, while allowing the real bullying to continue. But, another possibility is that maybe he knew that punishing the bully would mean nothing to him, and he'd take it as a mark of honor. But by punishing the "good" girl who laughed, she would likely never laugh at a bullying victim again, and others would be afraid to do the same, and perhaps the bully would find bullying less appealing if he wasn't getting others to laugh at his victims. Don't think that worked.
Quote:
Where this gets really interesting is when you consider was the minor nature of the punishment a reason why they were so often the problem children? That is, the cost of punishment was so small compared to the pleasure gained. As in the example I've given earlier where a couple of students had the power to get the entire senior class punished.
I've posted about that too, including in this thread. When the entire class is punished, it gives power to the bullies, who will misbehave in order to punish the people that they don't like. They themselves don't care about the punishment. I don't know why it is that people think it's good to punish an entire class. It should be so obvious that it does not work.
Quote:
For example I never once saw a bully being punished for being a bully. But I often saw the target punished for fighting back.
Yes, as I keep saying.
The most extreme example of that (again, not a situation involving me) was in 3rd grade where we had a substitute teacher who happened to be the mother of a bully. Her only rule for the day was "no tattling". A notorious bully pulled out the chair from under a girl, and hurt her and made her cry. The girl was written up for tattling. The bully was not punished at all.
That is typical dunce cap routine. I think I got that one time in first or third grade.
I also remember how they would remove privileges blame it on you and then walk out of the classroom.
We had the heads down treatment but some students would also sit back ( because it is an option for there back health ) and look up and keep there eyes closed.
Honestly I have been sent to the Principal as well and honestly nothing happens. I have also been given notice to deans and then raced home to erase the message.
I have posted about that many, many times, including in this thread. None of the people who bullied me were ever punished, yet I'd be punished for defending myself, and would also be punished for very minor incidents. Also, I've mentioned how a suspension would cause disqualification from honor roll, and possibly disqualification from honors and AP classes. None of those punishments meant anything to a weaker student who didn't care about school and wasn't taking honors or AP classes anyway. So, it would allow the "bad" kids to do anything that they wanted, with no real consequences, while forcing the "good" students to just accept bullying. Also, keep in mind that a punishment such as a 0 for the day or a 0 on an assignment or exam as a punishment would also disproportionately impact stronger students, while having minimal effect on weaker students.
A few theories that I have:
1. Most teachers and administrators were not high achieving students, so perhaps they relate better to the weaker students.
What do you base this theory on? Statistics? Link?
2. Many teachers and administrators were former school bullies, so perhaps they relate better to the bullies, and want to reward the bullies, and punish anybody who tries to stop the bullies?
Again, what do you base this on? This has NOT been my experience with teachers or admin.
3. Maybe they think that bullying somehow builds character?
4. Maybe they think that punishment would be ineffective on bullies, and would see it as a mark of honor, so there is no way to stop them. But by punishing the people who stand up to bullies, and/or people guilty of very minor offenses, it gives the appearance that they are being tough, while doing nothing to stop the real bullies.
5. Maybe they think that the bullies will force their victims into some sort of compliance, which they think will benefit us in the real world?
6. Bullies tend to be sly, so they rarely get caught, and they may be reluctant to punish somebody when they don't see it themselves. But the bullying victim who fights back will very likely get caught, and the bullies know how to make their victims look as bad as possible.
Agreed. Bullies do things in ways to not get caught and schools' hands are tied if they punish without proof they can end up getting sued by the bully's parents. Many times the bully comes from bully type parents.
7. In some cases, teachers and administrators may be afraid of the bullies and their parents, so they don't punish them, whereas they assume that the "good" kids will just cheerfully accept their punishment, no matter how unfair it is.
8. Like most people, teachers and administrators are looking for the easiest way to get through the day. So they may find that punishing victims is the easiest option.
No, this is not the case. It isn't a "what is easier on us" scenario. But hands are tied and they can't just punish without proof. It isn't always easy to get the proof.
One incident (not involving myself) that I think involves several of these theories. In 8th grade, a notorious bully (who was never punished for anything) put gum in a girl's hair on the bus. Another girl was laughing at her. The guy who put the gum in the girl's hair was not punished, but the girl who laughed at her was given detention, and was told that if she did that again, she'd be banned from the bus. This was the same assistant principal who tried to ban me from the bus permanently (but the head of transportation override his decision) because of that same bully. This assistant principal probably justified his decision, saying that the gum could be removed from her hair, but that she was somehow scarred for life by that girl laughing at her. Obviously a ridiculous argument. In reality, he was probably afraid of that bully. The assistant principal lived nearby, and that bully was allegedly burglarizing houses, but nothing could ever be proven. The assistant principal was probably worried that his house would be the next to be burglarized. Also, the assistant principal was likely under pressure to be tough on bullying, so in this case, he was able to claim that he was tough on an emotional bully, while allowing the real bullying to continue. But, another possibility is that maybe he knew that punishing the bully would mean nothing to him, and he'd take it as a mark of honor. But by punishing the "good" girl who laughed, she would likely never laugh at a bullying victim again, and others would be afraid to do the same, and perhaps the bully would find bullying less appealing if he wasn't getting others to laugh at his victims. Don't think that worked.
I've posted about that too, including in this thread. When the entire class is punished, it gives power to the bullies, who will misbehave in order to punish the people that they don't like. They themselves don't care about the punishment. I don't know why it is that people think it's good to punish an entire class. It should be so obvious that it does not work.
The theory is that peer pressure and kids telling the bad kids to stop the behaviors, will change the class. Does it work? Sometimes. Sometimes not.
Yes, as I keep saying.
The most extreme example of that (again, not a situation involving me) was in 3rd grade where we had a substitute teacher who happened to be the mother of a bully. Her only rule for the day was "no tattling". A notorious bully pulled out the chair from under a girl, and hurt her and made her cry. The girl was written up for tattling. The bully was not punished at all.
1. Most teachers and administrators were not high achieving students, so perhaps they relate better to the weaker students.
What do you base this theory on? Statistics? Link?
First of all, most people in general are not high achieving students. Secondly, most teachers that I had (admittedly, not a scientific survey) openly admitted to being poor students, although there were exceptions. Thirdly, I've been told that schools do not want to hire high achieving students as teachers, since they do not make the best teachers.
Quote:
2. Many teachers and administrators were former school bullies, so perhaps they relate better to the bullies, and want to reward the bullies, and punish anybody who tries to stop the bullies?
Again, what do you base this on? This has NOT been my experience with teachers or admin.
Based on my experience. Again, I'll admit, not a scientific study. But keep in mind that the teachers that a student has is not random, since students tend to have teachers that were hired by one district during a fairly short period of time. So it does not mean that my experience was wrong, nor does it mean that your experience was wrong.
Quote:
6. Bullies tend to be sly, so they rarely get caught, and they may be reluctant to punish somebody when they don't see it themselves. But the bullying victim who fights back will very likely get caught, and the bullies know how to make their victims look as bad as possible.
Agreed. Bullies do things in ways to not get caught and schools' hands are tied if they punish without proof they can end up getting sued by the bully's parents. Many times the bully comes from bully type parents.
The question is, what can be done about it? You are right that the schools are afraid of being sued by the bullies parents. But they could punish people like myself, knowing that my parents would do nothing. Maybe the parents of "good" kids need to be willing to sue the school, or at least escalate matters when their kids are punished for things that they did not do, or for defending themselves against a bully.
Quote:
8. Like most people, teachers and administrators are looking for the easiest way to get through the day. So they may find that punishing victims is the easiest option.
No, this is not the case. It isn't a "what is easier on us" scenario. But hands are tied and they can't just punish without proof. It isn't always easy to get the proof.
I think that we are both right. The question is, what can be done?
Quote:
I've posted about that too, including in this thread. When the entire class is punished, it gives power to the bullies, who will misbehave in order to punish the people that they don't like. They themselves don't care about the punishment. I don't know why it is that people think it's good to punish an entire class. It should be so obvious that it does not work.
The theory is that peer pressure and kids telling the bad kids to stop the behaviors, will change the class. Does it work? Sometimes. Sometimes not.
It never worked in all the years that I was in school. What were the specific cases where you saw it work? Do you agree that it gives power to the bullies, by being able to punish the entire class by misbehaving? Do you agree that it takes away any incentive to behave, knowing that you'll be punished anyway? Do you agree that it causes the "good" kids to hate the teacher?
Nuns making you hit yourself on the hand with a metal ruler, until you cry. And they could tell if you were faking.
The Catholic grammar school I attended the nuns did the hitting. I witnessed a nun hitting the back of a boy's hand because he wasn't able to quickly (per her standard) solve a math problem that was on the blackboard. The Golden Rule(r)? ? ?
Up to what grade? My favorite of your punishments would have been sitting and staring at the wall for 3 hours. I'd rather get whacked. It's over with a lot faster.
Through Jr. High. In tenth grade some teachers still used it, mostly shop, gym, art, one biology teacher. then in upper grades it died out, either because we were older or because society was no longer permitting it, not sure.
'
I had a teacher in high school who insisted everyone call him "Sir" I told him I would use a title of high respect when he earned high respect. He made me do push ups and made fun of me when I could not do that many (which was funny because he was fat). I had to do push ups every day and just lay on the floor when I could not do any more. It became a contest of wills. Finally he went to the principal and he me removed from his class. It lasted a couple of weeks and I got considerably stronger. I even took a phys ed class the next semester which I had been terrified of. As the result of that class, I became a runner and eventually competitive in cross country skiing and also joined the weightlifting team. So his discipline worked in a way he had not intended.
Through Jr. High. In tenth grade some teachers still used it, mostly shop, gym, art, one biology teacher. then in upper grades it died out, either because we were older or because society was no longer permitting it, not sure.
'
I had a teacher in high school who insisted everyone call him "Sir" I told him I would use a title of high respect when he earned high respect. He made me do push ups and made fun of me when I could not do that many (which was funny because he was fat). I had to do push ups every day and just lay on the floor when I could not do any more. It became a contest of wills. Finally he went to the principal and he me removed from his class. It lasted a couple of weeks and I got considerably stronger. I even took a phys ed class the next semester which I had been terrified of. As the result of that class, I became a runner and eventually competitive in cross country skiing and also joined the weightlifting team. So his discipline worked in a way he had not intended.
I never had a teacher make MO or other kids do pushups, but I did have a "battle of wills" with two different teachers, at the same time, both of whom gave me detention over and over and over again.
Prior to that, I had feared getting into trouble, but this also had the unintended effect of making me largely unconcerned about having the school's primary punishment imposed on me. That made me much more willing to go outside the rules to have some fun. All the punishment I got just liberated me feom my fear of such petty punishments, and that turned out to be a permanent benefit. I guess that was the opposite of the intended effect.
Last edited by dazzleman; 06-04-2019 at 10:00 PM..
I never had a teacher make MO or other kids do pushups, but I did have a "battle of wills" with two different teachers, at the same time, both of whom gave me detention over and over and over again.
Prior to that, I had feared getting into trouble, but this also had the unintended effect of making me largely unconcerned about having the school's primary punishment imposed on me. That made me much more willing to go outside the rules to have some fun. I guess that was the opposite of the intended effect.
Detention lost it's threat somewhere in Junior High as a punishment. The real threat from detention wasn't the detention itself, but the punishment your parents would give because you got detention. Basic concept was you got punished three times -- once by the school for what you did; once by your parents for what you did; and then again by your parents for embarrassing them by getting punished for what you did.
I've never seen it used, but I'd think one of the biggest deterrents for high school students would be taking away parking privileges. What high schooler wants to give up their car and have to bum a ride from friends or horrors, their parents.
In my era of schooling our punishment was a wood paddle with holes drilled in it. You were sent to the principal and he paddled your rear. And yes it smarted.
Today he'd be going to jail, times have really changed.
Detention lost it's threat somewhere in Junior High as a punishment. The real threat from detention wasn't the detention itself, but the punishment your parents would give because you got detention. Basic concept was you got punished three times -- once by the school for what you did; once by your parents for what you did; and then again by your parents for embarrassing them by getting punished for what you did.
I've never seen it used, but I'd think one of the biggest deterrents for high school students would be taking away parking privileges. What high schooler wants to give up their car and have to bum a ride from friends or horrors, their parents.
My schools didn't have detention prior to 9th grade, except recess detention which was nothing. So I never experienced after school detention until 9th grade. My parents never really knew about my detentions since the school didn't have explicit notification for routine disciplinary sanctions, though they would call in a more serious case. Once I served detention a few times, I came to regard it as a minor inconvenience and my main concern was that my parents not find out and punish me further. My arrogant attitude at the time was that I had already been punished and nobody had any business imposing additional punishment.
The idea about parking privileges is any good one, though the impact would be uneven since not every kid had a car. But I'm glad my school didn't use that sanction at the time. All the times I was in detention in 11th and 12th grade, it was nice to have the car waiting for me in the lot when I finally got out.
Did your parents always find out when you got detention? What was their reaction?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
