Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
The Role of a Teacher
andyrobyn
Veteran
My 15 year old daughter asked me to watch this video and thought it may interest the people I chat to online.
We were both very aware this occured in a class specifically for children diagnosed with special needs.
We were both very aware this occured in a class specifically for children diagnosed with special needs.
0
Comments
I'd like to think and hope it's an isolated situation.
I think I'd be wrong, but I do believe that thankfully it's rare.
Matters like this make sensational headlines, and cause outrage because they're NOT the norm.
it is sad though that whatever authorities were in charge, they covered and hushed up, rather than dealt with publicly to the father's satisfaction.
My daughter told me the video has spread very quickly and is being seen by many she has contact with online due to the need to expose such treatment by a teacher to her student.
Based on the tapes, there was certainly just cause in this situation.
it's shameful that people like this are allowed to even be near children.
Seriously, what the fuck?
But, there's a new news story out this morning that the exact personnel identified by the father in the audio tape was not in the classroom when the worst things happened. This will all work its way through the court system, and while we can clearly say there was terribly inappropriate behavior here, perhaps we need to be just a tad careful that we don't jump to a conclusion about a specific person.
Just to say a little more about firing teachers:
I think in our society we unfairly sometimes jump to the conclusion that when anyone makes a mistake they ought to be fired (I'm not talking about this specific situation, just in general, and not only just in the field of education). A waitress goofs and the customer demands she be fired, for example.
In general, in schools, when a teacher makes a serious mistake here's what's looked at:
1. Isolated incident, and if so, why? Then generally there will be a verbal warning. Another similar mistake, a written warning. Another similar mistake, a written warning with a statement something like, "If this happens again, we will consider moving toward termination". Of course, there are things so serious -- such as what we are hearing about in this news report -- where you would skip far forward in the process, perhaps even to immediate (with due process) termination.
2. Pattern of behavior or isolated incident? Teacher counseling? Teacher retraining? Transfer with counseling or retraining?
this treatment of an autistic child is absolutely despicable, and 'ignorance of the facts' is no excuse.
these people should be supervised and they should be under surveillance at all times.
Secure Institutions, special schools and establishments of this kind, in this country all have CCTV.
With vulnerable children, who often cannot control their own impulses if they have an emotional outburst, such surveillance should be mandatory.
When we put cameras on school buses due to bullying, there was quite a controversy over it among parents, and more were against having their kids "watched" all the time than were for it.
And, I'm not sure all special ed parents would be in favor, either. When parents disagree in IEPs about the level of services their child is receiving (either too much or too little), they sometimes get the benefit of the doubt...at least I gave them the benefit of the doubt (when there was real doubt). Surveillance tapes would almost certainly become evidence in such IEP cases, and my guess is that they would favor the diagnosis of the school personnel more often than the parents.
And, if we open that door, to surveillance video in classrooms, well...Big Is Watching...and to be honest, there would be far more evidence for suspensions and expulsions...which again, parents would hate.
I'm not saying it's a bad idea or a good idea, but I'm not we should jump to that solution without some extensive open debate about the issue.
It's a godsend.
It's the old adage... If you're behaving and have nothing to hide - you have nothing to fear. In fact, it contributes to safety in a bigger way than first intended...
If CCTV is in operation, there have to be prominent and visisble signs, by law, making you aware of the case... but to be honest with you, so many people become oblivious to them, they forget they're around.
I'll tell you what though - those who need to call on them for any security purposes, are damn glad they're there.
When i was a school governor, we informed parents that CCTV surveillance cameras were being installed, and where.
Parents kindly responded - by telling us other places they wanted them also installed.
They wanted the playgrounds overseen, and also the staff room.
In the end, the only places that had no cameras was "The Quiet Room" - and the toilets.
we never came cross any complaints, any misgivings were completely unfounded and i reckon - as did everyone else - they were one of the best things implemented at the school.
I remember that one parent was particularly outspoken against CCTV, but was then equally outspoken when his son was bullied by two other children in the car park - and demanded to know why a CCTV camera had not been put there!
The counterpoint is that the film shouldn't be used for purposes of knit picking imho.
this was at a time, in a particular part of the UK, where there had been dangerous incidents concerning and involving young children.
the local Education authority suggested in the strongest terms to all educational establishments that CCTV be installed, and such installations were subsidised and partially funded by the authorities.
the incidence of situations concerning and involving minors fell rapidly. the whole region became a safer place, virtually overnight. culprits were identified, and perpetrators brought to task.
It made a difference, and those who had fears in the 'Big Brother' line of thinking, had their concerns quickly laid to rest.
There will always be people who will complain about excess intrusion, and unwanted invasion of privacy - but I bet this little boy's dad would have been grateful for it....
When we tried to have a cell phone tower installed, our parents went berserk, and yet in other communities they didn't blink an eye.
I saw more than others at times because I was a substitute teacher. It was always so frustrating to have teachers not be the quality I thought I was at just starting out, and should be expected after years of teaching. Fortunately I saw nothing horrible or that put children in danger. Of course I would have let someone know about that.
My best friend's son's special education driver was very mean to the children. Obviously not the type to drive a special needs bus. I think they eventually got him moved off the assignment.
However I must agree with Vinlyn that often parents would see what they did not want to. There were reports in my program of a teacher kicking a student in the butt that were proven false by cameras in the school. In the case of my friend's son he had to be moved after attacking a teacher and it was recommended he be placed outside the home. I think that video of that would be hard to argue with since he pulled out a chunk of hair. Other children in our program have been caught doing things and cannot go to the bathroom with anyone else or are separated, in the worst case we had to call district safety and security.
I don't know how your school systems work in the UK, but depending on where you are in the US, school systems have varying degrees of parent involvement in management. I know of school systems in California, for example, where this kind of proposal would have to be voted on by the parent community. I know of other school systems where the BOE could just dictate it. In my old school system, the BOE could dictate it AFTER extensive public hearings and, my guess is that the political fallout in some of the school communities would be so extensive that BOE members would reopen the issue to more public debate.
But the second issue is $$$$$. In my old moderate-sized middle school there were about 28 classrooms, 2 gyms, a library, the hallways, the little theater, the cafeteria, the outside PE spaces, counselor and administrative offices, and more. So I'm estimating the need for a minimum network of 60 cameras. And based on this incident, you'll want them to be microphoned (which most CCTV systems are not). And, you can't say that, "well, it's only the classrooms with autistic children", because with mainstreaming, autistic kids can be in any classroom space in our building. Then you have to decide if you only want a "real-time" system (which requires hiring more personnel), or a recording system, which means another 60 pieces of equipment. In my system, multiply that times 213 schools...there's way the system can afford it.
I know you have a good intention. But I don't see it is practical, or -- and this is another whole realm of issues -- always beneficial.
As elected representatives of the parents, we overwhelmingly voted it in.
and while i certainly take your point about $$$$$.... frankly, we decided - and I admit, part of the instalment was subsidised - but not all of it - we decided that the safety and well-being of the children outweighed the cost.
And I'm not trying to be holier-than-thou, or insinuate the USA cares less about its children - I'm just saying we had the financial situation to consider, too.
but we raised money through various means, had funds in the coffers and parents made donations too.
In what way would you think it NOT beneficial...?
Let me give you a couple of examples where it would not have been,
First, in regard to special ed. I can easily imagine such cameras be used in an evidentiary way to determine the legally proper level of placement. Which sounds like what you'd want, but I can think of at least two specific cases where we fudged a child's condition to keep him (in both cases boys with autism) at a local school setting (which the parents wanted), where technically the boys probably belonged in a formal institution.
Also, in regard to general discipline, sometimes the lack of evidence is actually beneficial. We had a discipline system that in certain types of offenses led to automatic penalties out of the hands of the principal -- often permanent expulsion. Even as the principal, in such cases I had no leeway. So in such cases, when the evidence was just a little fuzzy, it allowed me to keep the child in school and work with the child and the parents, and often, though serious, it would turn out to be a one-time offense where we made a great deal of progress with the child. If expelled, some parents could not afford private school and would literally have to move their family out of state...a terrible hardship for a one-time offense. (Of course, there were some offenses that were so terrible that I wanted to proceed with expulsion to keep the other kids safe).
But I do see your point, and if the surveillance were very limited in scope, I'd agree.
the first instance actually involves some deception - and however righteous and justified it was, it still meant pulling the wool over somebody's eyes in order to effect an advantage.
the second is a story of compassion over standard guidelines, and to be honest, letting the heart rule the head.
In both cases there was an instance of exercising personal moral judgement and evaluating the individual circumstances from very angle, for the benefit of the child.
because these instances involve directing and guiding the future of the child, and hinge on a composite of situations, surveillance is merely a mitigating factor, not the sole fulcrum upon which final decisions are made.
It was the same at our school.
Video surveillance was extremely helpful in many matters - but the decisions regarding outcome and consequence, still lay in the hands of people who had a broader spectrum of material available upon which to base their decisions.
Filmed evidence alone is never - and should never - be used, in isolation, to direct an outcome. That would be insane.
I have found when I have been videotaped during my work ( when developing counselling skills. like narrative therapy and other activities, like psychodrama ) it was helpful for personal development.
I support, as has been stated already, that whenever CCTV is in use, good signage informing of this is ethically sound.
We have it at our workplace, in the reception area and entrance and exits and mostly we forget about it on a daily basis.
There has to be prominent signeage, by Law.
At the state government community mental health centre where I am based, we have signs with a picture depicting the camera.
However, I am aware that in some public places here - like shopping malls there are outside cameras and I do not know how they are signed and if their locations are highlighted.
I'm kidding......
Actually, I was thinking this earlier, because social customs vary so much, even between countries which in so many ways, appear so similar.
I think you just don't know how it will be received until it's tabled....
Thanks vinlyn, nice discussion.
Maybe u don't know what it FEELS like to send your nonverbal child into a school . when they protest to the point of exhaustion, hide schoolbag etc. For me , it is the single most horrible thing I'm forced to do . Day in and day out. I would love to insist that my daughters class install these cameras. It would be the ONLY way I would feel any relief at all. Individuals who protest are suspect ,in my view.
Maybe you don't understand what I was saying.
First, I said that perhaps cameras in a few limited situations might be productive.
Second, I said that many parents in some schools, perhaps the majority of parents, would not approve of cameras everywhere.
Third, I said that in my school system the cost would have been prohibitive.
Fourth, I said there are times that cameras would produce legal evidence that would be counterproductive to what a good school should be about.
I never said that cameras would always be bad and should never be considered under any circumstances.
The problem I have with your post is that you say, "I would love to insist", while others who would insist on their viewpoint "are suspect".