That’s not very sporting. First you disarm the kids with metal detectors and zero intelligence tolerance policies, then you start beating the crap out of them.
Sounds like Kansas is run by a bunch of abusive, raging alcoholics.
If this become a law, I’m sure that any teacher who is enough of an asshole to take advantage will only pick on the smaller, more defenseless children, lest some high school jock knock his/her teeth out in retaliation.
“We must [post darkly sarcastic forum comments] at man to avoid crying for him.” – Napoleon Bonaparte
I don’t think we’re in disagreement on the point that this is a horrible, regressive law, bound to be maliciously and disproportionately applied.
I live in the Bible Belt and know a couple dozen teachers. Can’t think of any that would advocate for corporal punishment. However, there is some fear of the students. There are a few that should not be mainstreamed. Mental or behavioral problems so extreme, they pose a real danger.
One teacher in the district was stabbed in the eye. Not nicked. Skewered. Not his student. Just walking into a neighboring classroom and BAM! Yet the student stayed in the class because their IEP says the school must make allowances for their violent outbursts. It’s true, the kid has some issues that are light-years out of his control. But sheesh!
Another stabbed 13 kids with pens or pencils in one year (usually their own). Same result: still in school with other kids.
So having to work in an industry where being physically assaulted and having no recourse makes one edgy. And not being able to protect the kids you are responsible for is nerve wracking. Corporal punishment won’t help one iota. But the current student immunity really is a problem.
On a side note, my wife taught a behavioral disorder unit. Had a body guard and was trained to physically restrain students if attacked. She did wonders before burning out. She’ll be the first to tell you that every kid should be taught. But not responding to problems just breeds more of them.
Thank you for reading my rant …
Here’s the bill:
http://www.kslegislature.org/li/b2013_14/measures/documents/hb2699_00_0000.pdf
I’m might be reading it wrong, but I think that given the way they exempted whole sections, you would be allowed to cook meth with your children as long as you are also beating them. (Rather, cooking meth with your kids wouldn’t count as child endangerment… if you hit them. Cooking meth would still be illegal.)
The little I knew of Kansas was probably in the large due to Kansas City and Jazz, so, yes - I’d always assumed that it was one of the more realistic states, and was thus rather shocked to see this sort of thing happening. But that’s those city folk for ya. Unrealistic expectation engenderment.
Can’t help but ask what you’re doing different in Kansas. It’s hard to believe that no other state in the union has similarly problematic behaviours to contend with.
And you think spanking them is going to have any impact? If someone already has mental illness you can’t beat them back to health and sanity. If someone is coming at you with weapons, you have a right to protect yourself from harm. How does spanking accomplish anything?
Editing to apologize to you, since you weren’t advocating for corporal punishment. Still, I have to wonder if some of the mindset is derived through the types of examples of problematic children that you brought up.
Maybe I missed something but it sounds like no spanking can take place without prior parental consent.
I was always fond of this…
http://www.wygit.net/revoke.html
So what you are saying is that you aren’t 100% behind this. You are in fact lying.
Ah, well there’s your mistake…relying on science instead of fee-fees.
Charles Blow wrote about exactly this issue in the NY Times this week: The Bias Against Black Bodies.
I think you must have missed the part of Dioptasel’s comment that said:
So, in answer to your question, I think Dioptasel’s reply to your question would be, well… it is right there in the comment.
I’m not in Kansas. Which was part of my point: The problems of Kansas are not synonymous Bible Belt. They have their own unique version of crazy. Our nutters could probably put them to shame, but are distinctly different.
It’s all about maintaining children as chattel. We can do anything to them that would be illegal if done to an adult, because we own them. Thus, we might still be committing crimes, but having our children with us during these offenses is not wrong…it’s simply our choice, as much as choosing to bring a Glock with us instead of a Baretta.
It’s a Fermi 100%.
Fair enough.
“Liberal” and “Democrat” are not synonymous, no matter what the simplified world of TV news tries to teach you. In the South, you have quite conservative Democrats. In the Northeast, we have quite liberal Republicans.
I think it has a lot to do with the budget cutbacks and general dismantling of public welfare, which “coddles” the mental health sector, and takes the hard-earned cash away from our bootstrap-pulling taxpayers.
Kansas (as a governing body) is hell-bent on becoming a tax-free state, even if it means committing social and political suicide.
In the Northeast, we have quite liberal Republicans.
Name one.
