Watching these videos filled me with explosive anger.

[Triforcer]

http://www.sptimes.com/2005/04/22/Southpinellas/Video_shows_police_ha.shtml

Two video links are on the right hand side.  This just shows the utter emasculation and fagtardery of the current educational system.  This kid needed to be SPANKED until her behind was raw by the teacher in the very first instance.  Its all this BS nonsense about not being able to touch kids that spawns terrors like this.  I remember even when I was young at my tiny, rural public school that teachers even grabbing a kid on both arms and dragging them into a corner or the principle's office or a closet did wonders for their behavior.  I saw kids even get hit in high school.  And did anyone sue?  No, if you went home and whined to your parents that you were disciplined they would say "good, if you were misbehaving you deserved it".

An ounce of prevention at an early age is worth a pound of cure.  I know that vice principal and teacher meant well, but all their effete simpering in telling the kid "you have to make good choices" and "you have no right to hit me" does more damage to kids than new laws or more funding can ever cure.   

[Abagadro]

The irony is thick with this one.

[Strazos]

I'm all for more (justified) child abuse.

A couple weak smacks upside the head of a young child fixes any and all problems right quick.

[Polysorbate80]

On a personal level, I think the kid needs a good spanking.  The child clearly understands authority when it's presented in the form of police; she ought to have a similar respect when it's in the form of the principal.

On a professional level, I understand why they did what they did; I train my wife's employees in similar techniques.  We teach physical restraint as well, however, for those times when it's called for.

Having said that, while I don't see anything improper with the methods they used, I think they let it go on far too long.  I would have called the principal and escorted the little terror to the office within (at most) a couple of minutes and let the principal work on the problem there, up to and including the police if need be.

And don't let the kid back in school until the parent provides proof they've done something about the discipline issue.

[Der Helm]

On a professional level, I understand why they did what they did; I train my wife's employees in similar techniques.  We teach physical restraint as well, however, for those times when it's called for.

What was the job of your wife again ?

[Stephen Zepp]

This is completely and totally unacceptable behaviour in any environment.

The mother needs to pay for all of the items that were destroyed, publically apologize for the actions of her child to the parents of the entire class, publically apologize to the teachers and principals, and be required to place her child under pyschological evaluation.

She also needs to be required by law to attend parenting classes, and her child should not be allowed in any public education payed for by taxpayers until she has been evaluated as being able to interact normally with society.

This is the type of kid that 2 years from now, will be carrying a knife or a gun and kill people unless she is straightened out RIGHT now. Arrest was too good for her--her parents need to spend at least a night in jail for the actions of their child.

[Samprimary]

This kid needed to be SPANKED until her behind was raw by the teacher in the very first instance.  Its all this BS nonsense about not being able to touch kids that spawns terrors like this.

Spanking probably is far from an optimal 'solution', but it does work in the immediate short term in terms of coopting a form of obedience.

Models aggression as conflict resolution, though, so as a means of punishment, i don't reccomend it.

Would make things way simpler for the school, though.

[Murgos]

Just to add insult to injury the entire Tampa area news medias only concern with those videos is that the police put hand-cuffs on the kid.  Meh, I watched the videos, they only used just enough force as neccessary to keep the child from hurting herself.

The editorials are making statments about how this is going to be how the world views american police as brutal thugs that abuse children.  I'm thinking more people need to have been beat as children because they have no concept of what the term brutality means.

[Paelos]

The kid trashes a room and the mother takes her side. Grats on parenting there. Let me guess, why wasn't daddy available for comment? 10 to 1 says because he's in another state or in the state pen.

[voodoolily]

Maybe the little girl was acting out at school because she knows her ass won't get kicked there. My household was a total dictatorship when I was a kid, and the only time I ever acted out was at school. Granted, I never woulda acted like that little girl, because I knew I would've been walking funny for a week if I tried to pull any of that shit. One time during parent-teacher conferences the teacher showed her "good" and "bad" behavior chart. When my dad saw all the bad marks, I knew I was in trouble. But he first took my side and harshly criticized the teacher for making a spectacle of kids who were acting up. Then he took me home and I got my spanking.

The fact that the girl knew she was in trouble only when the cops came is startling at best. But I never saw a better candidate for Ritalin in my whole fucking life.

Edit: hitting kids only serves the purpose of making them fear the punisher. Fear spawns hate, hate spawns more violence. Even though I turned out fairly okay having grown up getting hit when I fucked up, I actually question my own future ability to parent sometimes, because my first instinct is to hit a kid throwing a tantrum (I don't have kids).

[schild]

The fact that the girl knew she was in trouble only when the cops came is startling at best. But I never saw a better candidate for Ritalin in my whole fucking life.

Screw that. Teachers in some schools should be allowed to have tranquilizer dart guns with specially made little-kiddy-darts.

[Furiously]

So - the kid destroys property. Gets arrested.

Action...Consequece. Seems like a good lesson to me.

[voodoolily]

Everyone (who's taken Psych 101) knows that the most effective way to get someone (or a pigeon) to do something you want is to reward them. And withholding rewards is actually more effective than administering punishment. That little girl prolly doesn't have much left to take away but her freedom. It makes me sad, but reinforces my belief in my own fucked-up, Orwellian law. People should be put on manditory sterilization until they can prove they're fit to parent.

Edit: typo

[Roac]

Everyone (who's taken Psych 101) knows that the most effective way to get someone (or a pigeon) to do something you want is to reward them. And withholding rewards is actually more effective than administering punishment.

Problem with children that reach this stage is that they have learned that this kind of behavior is what earns them what they want.  Fuss enough, and people will give you whatever to shut you up.  Coupled with timeouts and instruction, spankings can be a good way to establish authority.  Unfortunately, too many parents think swatting at a behind whenever you get upset is good parenting. 

[voodoolily]

Everyone (who's taken Psych 101) knows that the most effective way to get someone (or a pigeon) to do something you want is to reward them. And withholding rewards is actually more effective than administering punishment.

Problem with children that reach this stage is that they have learned that this kind of behavior is what earns them what they want.  Fuss enough, and people will give you whatever to shut you up.  Coupled with timeouts and instruction, spankings can be a good way to establish authority.   

That's because people reward undesirable behavior by caving whenever the kid throws a tantrum. That always infuriates me. I know! Offer Timmy a cookie whenever he starts kicking and screaming in the grocery store! That'll be SURE and deter him from doing it again!

A good parent should be able to establish authority without falling back on their obvious physical superiority. Being the hand that giveth and the hand that taketh away should suffice if it's done from the get-go.

[Fargull]

A good parent should be able to establish authority without falling back on their obvious physical superiority. Being the hand that giveth and the hand that taketh away should suffice if it's done from the get-go.

Yes.  There are very few instances where phsyical punishment is warranted, the only spanking my son has received was after he was told not to do something dangerous (this case play at the top of the stairs) and only after first a stern verbal warning and time out.  He started playing in the same spot again about thirty minutes later and earned his first spanking, this was almost a year ago now (he is four and a half).  Reward for good behavior and denial for bad.  It works.

[Abagadro]

I'm curious how many people on here have kids.

[Daeven]

Everyone (who's taken Psych 101) knows that the most effective way to get someone (or a pigeon) to do something you want is to reward them. And withholding rewards is actually more effective than administering punishment.

Problem with children that reach this stage is that they have learned that this kind of behavior is what earns them what they want.  Fuss enough, and people will give you whatever to shut you up.  Coupled with timeouts and instruction, spankings can be a good way to establish authority.  Unfortunately, too many parents think swatting at a behind whenever you get upset is good parenting. 

You just said the same thing she did. The kid thows a hissy fit. Gets what they want. Positive reenforcement for teh win!

[Polysorbate80]

I don't know what the school has in the way of rewards that can be withheld, except maybe recess.  Been a long time since I was in the public educational system.

I do understand behavior support.  Regardless, there are umpteen other kids in the classroom.  While it's good that the kids see the teacher resolving conflict through non-physical, least-restrictive means, it's inappropriate to have the child disrupt the class for that long.  Kids seeing the teacher acting civilized and that nobody is getting hurt is good; kids seeing teacher be ineffective is bad.  It damages the relationship between the teacher and the children.  Especially with kids, who do require limits in their life to feel safe.  Children like to know where their boundaries are.  They test them, but they need them and ultimately feel better for having them.

At some point in your behavioral crisis management, you have to quit giving options and set some limits instead, and lay out the consequences if those limits are not heeded.  

Sometimes those consequences do involve the police.  My wife has had to have more than one of the developmentally disabled folks she works with arrested for things like assaulting a staff member--not because she wanted to or the staff member wanted to, but because it was the inevitable consequence society imposes on things like assault, and it's necessary for them to learn that.

[HaemishM]

That is fucking atrocious. Just an absolute insanity.

You can find blame in this scenario in one fucking place. This child's fucking mother is a complete waste of fucking space whose uterus should be scraped out and left on the side of the road with a "No entry" sign on it. She is obviously an unfit parent.

The child had absolute no respect for authority. None. Had I screamed at a teacher "NO!" once when I was that age, my mother AND father would have tanned my hide. The teachers were allowed to paddle me then. Not only would my parents have spanked me (not beat, spanked, there is a difference), but I'd have had a lot of other consequences to deal with that did not involve physical punishment. More chores, restriction on play time, early bed times. Had I done this bullshit, I'd probably have been sent to military school.

The child didn't fear authority, and didn't respect authority, and that's solely on the parent(s). The mother has not only not instilled any respect on the child, it appears she has actively rewarded this kind of "acting out" behaviour. If it were me as the head of the school board, I wouldn't let that little shit anywhere near any of the public school's in my district, nor any other children of this fucktard parent. Let the bitch pay for private schooling. Make HER pay since she obviously doesn't want the kid to have any consequences.

The fact that she's fucking suing the police for restraining the kid is just priceless. Would she rather the police just hand her a fucking baton or a gun and let her have her way with that too? Fucking ridiculous.

[SuperPopTart]

I want to first say that I would -never- advocate violence against a child but on that same token, I would never tolerate violence -from-a child either. That was a disgustingly sickening video of parental abuse and neglect, to me that signals unbelievable problems at home stemming from the mother and/or the father, or the lifestyle in which the child is brought up in. And if not that, then a very severe behavioral problem that needs to be addressed specifically, targeted and quarantined. This child is under developed and in no way deserves to be around other children or in any place that does not have restraints and doctors.

That child is beast like. In every fashion. Beating at the teacher like that and wrecking walls.

I never advocated spanking in the classroom -  Until now.


Oh and by the way, about the Tranquilizer Dart. I completely agree with that. All teachers should be certified and allowed to use physical restraint and/or method of tranquilizing a dangerous student if the correct criteria is met and it is extreme. If my child starts beating you as a teacher. you have the right to restrain him or her in the best and safest way you see fit and laws allow.  In no instance would my child -ever- be allowed to hit another teacher and/or student OR act in the way this little demon spawn did.

[Roac]

I'm curious how many people on here have kids.

I do.

You just said the same thing she did.

Not quite.  She stated excluding negative reinforcement (spanking, etc) is the way to go.  I stated my preference to included it as part of overall discipline, which includes positive reinforcement.  It's not a disagreement whether positive reinforcement should be a factor (and IMO, even a dominant one), just whether negative reinforcement should play any role.

[Roac]

Oh and by the way, about the Tranquilizer Dart. I completely agree with that.

On a side note, I have an uncle and his wife who are both teachers.  They have both stated their feelings that teachers should have the option to neuter some of the children they teach.  The statements are usually only half-jest.

[voodoolily]

Not quite. She stated excluding negative reinforcement (spanking, etc) is the way to go. I stated my preference to included it as part of overall discipline, which includes positive reinforcement. It's not a disagreement whether positive reinforcement should be a factor (and IMO, even a dominant one), just whether negative reinforcement should play any role.

Actually, I stated that witholding positive enforcement (e.g., no dessert) is more effective than inducing negative consequences (e.g., spanking). But positive reinforcement of desirable behavior is the most effective of all tactics. In the case of brats throwing tantrums, many parents inadvertently reward the tantrum by giving in.

Let's all go out for ice cream! Yay!

[Stephen Zepp]

Everyone (who's taken Psych 101) knows that the most effective way to get someone (or a pigeon) to do something you want is to reward them. And withholding rewards is actually more effective than administering punishment.

Problem with children that reach this stage is that they have learned that this kind of behavior is what earns them what they want.  Fuss enough, and people will give you whatever to shut you up.  Coupled with timeouts and instruction, spankings can be a good way to establish authority.   

That's because people reward undesirable behavior by caving whenever the kid throws a tantrum. That always infuriates me. I know! Offer Timmy a cookie whenever he starts kicking and screaming in the grocery store! That'll be SURE and deter him from doing it again!

A good parent should be able to establish authority without falling back on their obvious physical superiority. Being the hand that giveth and the hand that taketh away should suffice if it's done from the get-go.

You are making a tacit assumption here that the child understands not only cause and effect (which they probably should due to simple evolution, but not always), but that the parent knows how to demonstrate the cause and effect, and the reward as well.

And from a pure behaviour modification standpoint, positive reinforcement only works when the reward is something that the subject wants more than they want to perform the action itself...just look at doing a shit job that pays $75 an hour...it's easy to say that "sure, I'd live underneath a latrine and shovel shit as it falls for $500 an hour", but I'd venture to guess not for very long...

[Polysorbate80]

Physical restraint is dangerous with children, btw, especially small children (under about age 5.)  No restraint is perfectly safe, even when done correctly--and it's real hard to do it properly on a child.  It's also fucking annoying to deal with afterwards, since federal law requires monitoring of the child for the next 24 hours in case of delayed physical consequences of the restraint.

[Roac]

No restraint is perfectly safe

That child, left undisciplined, will become unsafe to fellow students and staff.

[Stephen Zepp]

No restraint is perfectly safe

That child, left undisciplined, will become unsafe to fellow students and staff.

I didn't watch the entire video, but didn't someone say the child physically attacked the teacher? At that point (and yes, I know there are considerations, but still) it's assault by a minor, and the teacher has the right to defend themselves with reasonable force--obviously, the force needs to be quite reasonable since it's a 5 year old, but you don't give up your own rights by being a teacher if you are assaulted.

And I have to agree as well with someone that noted that the only "public" reaction (other than here) has been against the cops, not the parent: I still feel the parent needs to go to jail, or at a minimum no longer be granted the rights of public schooling--that's OUR money that kid is taking up.

[voodoolily]

You are making a tacit assumption here that the child understands not only cause and effect (which they probably should due to simple evolution, but not always), but that the parent knows how to demonstrate the cause and effect, and the reward as well.

And from a pure behaviour modification standpoint, positive reinforcement only works when the reward is something that the subject wants more than they want to perform the action itself...just look at doing a shit job that pays $75 an hour...it's easy to say that "sure, I'd live underneath a latrine and shovel shit as it falls for $500 an hour", but I'd venture to guess not for very long...

I'm not really making an assumption so much as I am pointing out that you can get a pigeon to do a backflip if you give the fucker a food pellet. That's why I brought up the classical psychology experiments in which such feats were accomplished. Yes, the reward has to be worth it, but a candy or video is usually enough. These are kids, remember? The kid doesn't necessarily need to already understand the cause-and-effect relationship; this is what they're supposed to be being taught by the parent. A kid that touches a stove, gets burned, and doesn't put two and two together to figure out that stoves mean pain is probably autistic or profoundly retarded.

[Furiously]

/sarcasm

No - thats what the cops are for VDL....

[Stephen Zepp]

Not arguing with that, but it implies that the parent can actually show the kid "do the right thing, you'll be treated right". Obviously it seems that the parent can't do that, or the kid can't understand it!

Behaviour modification isn't an easy thing, and it doesn't sound like the parent in this case is particularly suited to be able to do it.

[kaid]

Frankly if one scary hour in police handcuffs convinces this kid that wrecking class rooms and punching at teachers is bad I am thinking it is a good lesson. I have to say that the teacher in the picture is patient beyond my feeble comprehension and needs a cookie or a stiff glass of vodka for putting up with that behavior and using the schools guidelines to try and deal with the issue as well as she did.

From my reading of the link and other articles she followed through exactally what she is permitted to do as well as humanly possible. 

If the handcuffing shocks the child into realizing that she was being very bad without actually harming her in anyway I could not fault the cops for it.

kaid

[voodoolily]

Not arguing with that, but it implies that the parent can actually show the kid "do the right thing, you'll be treated right". Obviously it seems that the parent can't do that, or the kid can't understand it!

Behaviour modification isn't an easy thing, and it doesn't sound like the parent in this case is particularly suited to be able to do it.

Yeah, I think the one thing we can all safely assume is that the parent in this case has not made any attempt to do any parenting. That kid is feral. But for most functional humans, saying "if you're good when we're in the store you can pick out a candy bar" is sufficient. By the time a kid is old enough to start throwing tantrums, they're old enough to be talked to and/or reasoned with (to an extent).

[HaemishM]

Here's my problem with the "No negative reinforcement" philosophy. It is in total and complete opposition to the way the world works once the child leaves the protection of childhood. Total. The world is a harsh bitch. She will rip out your guts and show them to you just because she can, whether you are acting positively or negatively. When you act negatively, often she responds with almost devestating negative force.

A child that has never seen negative consequences for his actions does not understand how the world works. He does not understand that the world is not just HIS oyster, but everyone's oyster. The child is ill-equipped to deal with being told no, with being rejected. Negative consequences are not just removing positive things, i.e. removing the video, withholding the favorite snack. Because those really only work when it's shown that that is just the first step. If that's the ONLY negative reinforcement the child gets, he quickly learns to do without for the momentary joy of doing whatever it is he wanted to do that was bad in the first place. Child's minds don't usually work on the long view, only the transitory short view. There has to be levels, because sometimes just withholding the positive will only encourage the child to act up further. You've already removed the only control method you have, you can't escalate it. They know it can't get worse than it is.

But with the negative reinforcement of spankings, you CAN escalate it. It should be the last resort. Always. But since it's never a pleasant thing, never a thing the child wants, it should be used when called for, or it should at least be a bargaining chip. It should be the ultimate show that, "While you are a free will and I love you, you will RESPECT MY AUTHORITY." Without that authority at the base of everything, what good are other authority figures? If you don't respect that your home will be one filled with punishment if you act up, neither school or eventually jail will be something the child fears or respects as a punishment.

Children need rules, and they need to learn that not everything comes their way. And they need to learn that there are others with authority over them, the alpha and omega of which are the parents.

[Polysorbate80]

No restraint is perfectly safe

That child, left undisciplined, will become unsafe to fellow students and staff.

Restraint is usually not your best option, especially when it's a small child.  When I say "unsafe", I mean "risk of death", to the tune of approximately 150 people per year.

Weigh your options, there's other methods, so don't go there if there's any other means.

I didn't watch the entire video, but didn't someone say the child physically attacked the teacher? At that point (and yes, I know there are considerations, but still) it's assault by a minor, and the teacher has the right to defend themselves with reasonable force--obviously, the force needs to be quite reasonable since it's a 5 year old, but you don't give up your own rights by being a teacher if you are assaulted.

You can defend yourself without ever restraining anyone. It would be a much simpler, safer and more matter to herd the child to another location where they can't disrupt class or endanger anyone else.