What did the student do to be disruptive to the point of getting in the way of teaching? Was she yelling? Cursing? I haven't seen one report that said she was disruptive other than telling the teacher "no."

 

What's the harm in letting her sit there and then punishing her after class? Instead, we get a big scene.

 

Did they just randomly pick a student out and decide to beat her up? I don't think so.

Some have stated in this thread to take all other students out of the room as a first step in "resolving" this situation, and keeping them out till it's resolved...how long that could be who knows. A couple have said do nothing, continue with class as if nothing is going on then confront it later. Some have agreed with these techniques. I'm sorry, and maybe I'm just stubborn, blind, don't understand, or just old school, but to me these two suggestions are the absolute WRONG way to handle it. Why? Because you are giving absolute control of the situation to the disrupter, and to me that's not a good thing. You don't think other students won't tune into this and learn that disrupting the class won't get them in that much trouble and other students will look at them as "cool" for doing it. Got a big test? Hey Bubba, disrupt the class so everybody will go to the cafeteria and get out of it today. Or maybe they see that they don't have to listen to the teacher, they can get on their phones and do what they want. Hey look, Alice is still on here phone after teacher telling her 3 times to get off, and nothing happened to her. I'm getting on mine too. If you don't think some kids think this way, then you don't know kids. Some kids will keep pushing, trying to move the "line" but won't cross it if/when you stand your ground. Some will cross it and need to be dealt with accordingly.

 

I'm not defending the actions of the SRO here...yes I think he crossed the line along the way and it could have been approached from a different angle, but even with that it STILL may very well resulted in a physical altercation. But handing control of the situation to the student is NOT the way to go about it, in my opinion. If someone can persuade me differently, I'm listening.

 

I think a lot of people have just spitballed in here about how to handle the situation without violence. I'm certainly not an expert in how to deal with students and behavior problems. The people who have experience and training with these situations, like Bengal Maniac and TB&G, have given great answers. In fact, TB&G's strategy does exactly what you want, it takes control of the situation away from the disruptive student. What this school did was give the student control. They gave her ultimatums that she was able to refuse and by refusing it gave her a spotlight, both of which gave her power in this situation. The authority figures looked like chumps and it probably led to the officer's ego getting the better of him.

Agreed with Clyde. Nothing about this situation screamed out to me that getting this student out of class was the most important thing in the world. So she ignores directions from teachers and principal. Heck, maybe she would have even thrown a temper tantrum. Guess what, she's probably not going to be in the class the next day or probably any time after that. Problem solved, Sgt. Slam doesn't have to toss around a kid, and this school isn't in the news.

 

I am amazed there are people defending this. I guarantee every teacher/administrator/cop/authority figure has had situations where this is exactly what you wanted to do, and what the "perp" probably deserved. That doesn't mean you are allowed to do it, and if you do it, it doesn't mean you are immune from punishment for your own actions, just like the student isn't immune to punishment either.

 

I don't disagree. Believe me I have had my share of situations as a coach where I wanted to...as my recently passed dad used to say..."jerk a knot" in their tails. I have had kids say things/do things to me that I would have never thought in 100 years of saying/doing when I was a kid. But times are different today...I know that. And maybe my form of punishment, swift and direct, doesn't fit in with todays society. Again I'm not saying what the SRO did was the right thing in that situation, but what I am saying is that I think the punishment should be swift and direct, when the situation dictates that punishment is needed.

Good call on just letting her go as long as she wasn't disrupting the class. Just let others deal with the problem without disrupting the education of the other kids.

 

I would hope all schools would be taking a look at this and figuring out a better way to handle it.

 

So are we saying this is the teacher's fault for calling an administrator?

I think a lot of people have just spitballed in here about how to handle the situation without violence. I'm certainly not an expert in how to deal with students and behavior problems. The people who have experience and training with these situations, like Bengal Maniac and TB&G, have given great answers. In fact, TB&G's strategy does exactly what you want, it takes control of the situation away from the disruptive student. What this school did was give the student control. They gave her ultimatums that she was able to refuse and by refusing it gave her a spotlight, both of which gave her power in this situation. The authority figures looked like chumps and it probably led to the officer's ego getting the better of him.

 

First bolded. I see it as exactly the opposite. She is given instructions, she doesn't follow them, she stays on the phone...she is in control at that point in time. Other students see this and think...hummm, maybe I'll get on my phone too.

 

2nd bolded. I don't know how to answer this really, cause in my day you just didn't decide to not follow directions. And if you refused to leave a classroom when told...well you really didn't have an option cause you were going to leave the classroom.

 

Me, personally, were I the SRO in this situation, I probably would have left the class room after confronting this young lady so it wouldn't have devolved into what it did...let her know that if she didn't want to come now, I would be waiting for her in the hallway when class was over and that I wound NOT be very happy with her, and that what ever punishment she was going to receive she was only making worse by not leaving now. Heck, maybe this is the same thing as waiting her out, I don't know, but she would not have looked forward to class ending and coming out into the hallway to see an unhappy SRO waiting to escort her to the office.

Your first point is wrong. She was disruptive.

 

.

 

I missed that. How was she disruptive?

Did they just randomly pick a student out and decide to beat her up? I don't think so.

 

No. She didn't respond to a teacher by what I gather. The teacher told her to put her phone/device away. She apparently refused.

 

Is the phone disrupting class? If the teacher says "OK - we'll handle this after class" and moves on how is the class being disrupted? Did she yell? Did she starting singing? I have read nothing to indicate that she was truly disruptive.

No. She didn't respond to a teacher by what I gather. The teacher told her to put her phone/device away. She apparently refused.

 

Is the phone disrupting class? If the teacher says "OK - we'll handle this after class" and moves on how is the class being disrupted? Did she yell? Did she starting singing? I have read nothing to indicate that she was truly disruptive.

 

If a subordinate (student) refuses to do what an authoritative figure (teacher) says to do...subordinate is indeed being disruptive.

So are we saying this is the teacher's fault for calling an administrator?

 

We're not saying the teacher is at fault for the SRO's actions.

 

We are saying that the teacher could have handled this differently which would have prevented the need for the SRO and the disruption.

 

Again, I am going off of what I've read about her not disrupting the class to the point of stopping the teacher from being able to teach.

If a subordinate (student) refuses to do what an authoritative figure (teacher) says to do...subordinate is indeed being disruptive.

 

There are many different definitions. Yours is one.

 

If she said "no" and the teacher said "OK - we'll deal with this later with the principal" and moved and the student sat there quietly then class was not disrupted. It definitely wasn't disrupted like it was as soon as you call the SRO.

 

Wins: Teacher gets to teach class. Students are not disrupted. Students KNOW that punishment is forthcoming just in case they think they can get away with it.

 

Bringing in the SRO is a last resort and should only be used if a student is TRULY disrupting or is violent. Schools handled this before SROs were ever around.

Sorry but the teacher is the dog and the student is the tail and the tail sure as heck don't wag the dog.

Sorry but the teacher is the dog and the student is the tail and the tail sure as heck don't wag the dog.

 

This isn't the military. It's not out on the streets.

 

You can't let egos get in the way. That's what happened with this officer.

First bolded. I see it as exactly the opposite. She is given instructions, she doesn't follow them, she stays on the phone...she is in control at that point in time. Other students see this and think...hummm, maybe I'll get on my phone too.

 

Except she's not going to get off the hook. If she's going to make her bed by refusing to do what she's told, then they need to make her lie in it. That could mean all sorts of punishments up to being expelled or sent to some type of alternative school (I don't know if these things exist everywhere, but just an example). Then you tell the class "see what happens when you disobey me?"

 

This means that 1) she loses power in the situation because 2) the authority figures didn't give her an ultimatum where they put their credibility on the line versus her ability to keep sitting and 3) she gets punished severely.

 

I think your response about what you would do as the resource officer is very close to this.

He did not have to remove her from the chair. He could have just as easily slid her and the chair out the door by dragging the chair across the floor. Saw it many times when I was in high school with stubborn kids. She was wrong; force was excessive, and we just have to wait and see how it plays out beyond him being fired.

 

To add to my comment, today parents are not allowed to physically discipline their kids unless being "attacked". What give this officer the right to "physically to the point he took" remove her from that seat when she was posing no physical threat (as far as we can see)?

I missed that. How was she disruptive?

 

She disobeyed 2 rules in front of the class. First of all, she had her phone out after everyone was instructed NOT too, hats strike 1. 2nd rule, she was told because of breaking the rule first to leave and report to the office. She refused, multiple times. Strike 2. That is being both disruptive and defiant in my book. If you don't think so then our definition of disruptive is different and we aren't going to agree on this.