What on earth was the Principal thinking? Firstly, this dumb idea encourages children to fight gunmen with baked beans cans instead of running for cover, and secondly, it encourages parents to panic about a scenario that is both remote and strictly hypothetical.
A US high school has asked parents to arm their children with cans of food as part of its response plan against gun-armed intruders.
School officials from W.F. Burns Middle School in Valley, Alabama, wrote a letter to students’ parents, asking them to buy their children “an 8 oz canned food item (corn, beans, peas etc.) to use in case an intruder enters the classroom”.
“We hope the canned food items will never be used or needed, but it is best to be prepared.”
The strategy was inspired by the ALICE Training Institute, a company founded by a former police officer and a former primary school principal.
The institute follows the mantra of: Alert, Lockdown, Inform, Counter and Evacuate, and the cans of food are only a small — but still important — part of the whole procedure, school officials wrote.
“We realise at first this may seem odd; however, it is a practice that would catch an intruder off-guard,” the letter read.
“The canned food item could stun the intruder or even knock him out until the police arrive. The canned food item will give the students a sense of empowerment to protect themselves and will make them feel secure in case an intruder enters the classroom.”
Since the letter was sent out, it has been shared thousands of times, with some questioning its effectiveness.
But Chambers County School Superintendent Kelli Moore Hodge told CNN via email that the point of the training “is to be able to get kids evacuated and not be sitting ducks hiding under desks”.
Since the year 2000, the US has suffered through more than 100 school shootings, including the horrific 2012 Sandy Hook massacre, which claimed the lives of 27 people, 18 of them children.
Click on the link to read Nine-Year-Old Writes a Stunning Letter to Teacher After He Reveals He is Gay
Click on the link to read What’s in a Name?
Click on the link to read 10 Ways to Move Forward in Teaching as Well as Life in General
Click on the link to read 5 Ways the System Could Better Recognise Teachers
Click on the link to read Teachers, Lay Down Your Guns
As a teacher it distresses me greatly that schools are becoming less progressive, less inviting and less humane. Problems are dealt with in nonsensical extreme measures. The political correct police have all but taken over and the fear of lawsuits prevails in place of a desire to accommodate the true needs of its student population.
Introducing a no-contact rule as a means to prevent schoolyard injuries isn’t just reactionary, it’s insane!
Guess what? Children hurt themselves. It’s a fact of life! To ban contact sports, hugging and high fives as a result of incidental knocks and bruises reduces the playground atmosphere to that of a doctor’s waiting room. Is that what we want for our children?
Parents claim they were not told directly of the new rule, which extended a ban on contact sports to a ban on any physical contact at all, such as playing “tiggy”, hugging or giving each other high-fives.
They claim the new rule was explained to pupils over the public address system, and students were left to tell their parents.
One parent, Tracey, said her son was winded on the playground yesterday and, when his friend tried to console him by putting his arm around his shoulder, the friend was told his actions were against the rules.
The friend then had to walk around with the teacher on playground duty for the rest of lunch as punishment, Tracey told radio 3AW.
“I’m just a bit outraged that it has come to this. There must be other ways,” Tracey said.
Another parent, John, said his children were told they could not high-five each other.
“I have a couple of children, and they have been told that if they high-five one another that’s instant detention, and if they do it three times they will be expelled,” John said.
“I mean, what are they actually trying to teach?”
One child was reportedly told that if students wanted to high-five, it would have to be an “air high-five”.
Principal Judy Beckworth said it was “not actually a policy, it’s a practice that we’ve adopted in the short-term as a no-contact games week”.
She said the new practice was introduced yesterday after students suffered a number of injuries on the playground in recent weeks, and the new no-touching rule was only due to last for one week.
However one parent, Nicole, claimed that the school was backpedalling because some parents were told by the school that the new rule would be in place for a minimum of three weeks, which would be extended if the children did not behave themselves.
Whilst I can’t understand why a teacher wouldn’t have spotted their students performing oral sex in the classroom, I don’t think that the teacher’s role in this story is the critical one. What I want to know is how on earth do 8 year olds end up behaving like that in the first place?
An unnamed teacher at Tallulah Elementary School in Tallulah, Louisiana has been fired from her job as a teacher for not noticing two third graders engaged in oral sex underneath a table, according to the local News Star.
District Superintendent Lisa Wilmore made it clear to the paper that the teacher was fired because the incident occurred on her watch.
Wilmore said, according to the News-Star,
“The principal felt that she was not monitoring the classroom adequately. The principal made a decision, and I supported the principal. We have to make sure we have people in these classrooms who are monitoring our students.”
The district of Tallulah has been dealing with several problems this year. Recently another teacher was placed on leave for a substance abuse problem.
The School District also announced that while the two children are going through counseling they are not going to be disciplined or have their studies hurt.
Both teacher dismissals were part of what Wilmore is calling her program of “Changing the culture” in the school district.
I am a big believer in free speech. I consider myself very lucky to be in a country where my thoughts and feelings can be expressed freely without recriminations. But like all other laws and freedoms there are boundaries. I might have free speech, but I am also restricted by sensible limitations to what I can say.
When students use social media to call their Principals names like a “big fag”, “whore”, “hairy sex addict” and “pervert”, and the consequence for their actions is nothing more than a suspension, I think they should count themselves very lucky. To then sue on the grounds of freedom of speech and win says a lot about the judicial system and the difficulties educators face in earning basic respect.
A middle school principal in northeastern Pennsylvania was shocked to see his photo online along with a description of him as a “hairy sex addict” and a “pervert” who liked “hitting on students” in his office.
A high school principal north of Pittsburgh saw a MySpace profile of himself that called him a “big fag,” a “whore” and a drug user. And in West Virginia, a school principal found out that a girl had created an online site to maliciously mock another girl as a “slut” with herpes.
All three students were suspended from school and filed suits against the principal and the school districts. They argued the 1st Amendment protected them from being punished for postings from their home computers. And in the two Pennsylvania cases, they won.
Whilst these awful slurs may technically be classified as “free speech”, verbal bullying of any kind can also be defended under the guise of free speech. Is this what we want? People supported by the courts to demoralise, slur and denigrate others? How are principals supposed to tackle bullying when they can’t even deal with bullies who are attacking them?
The exploitation of free speech will see bullying, especially cyber bullying, continue to gain momentum. These students should never have been suspended. They should have been expelled!
If your school is being effected by intoxicated students, why shouldn’t you be allowed to do something about it?
I am very passionate about the importance of firm but fair leadership, especially when it comes to cleaning up a school’s culture and environment. Coming to school drunk is completely unacceptable and should not be tolerated.
Whilst it is never ideal for a Principal to make his/her students take a breathalizer test, doing nothing about the problem is far less ideal.
A high school principal in northern British Columbia has been asked to stop using a breathalyzer to test students in school for alcohol use.
A youth said that she and a friend were suspended from Fort St. James Secondary School last week after a blood alcohol screening test showed traces of alcohol.
Civil rights activists call the incident extraordinary and disturbing, but the Ministry of Education has no policy on the use of breathalyzers in public schools.
Kecia Alexis, a first nations student in Grade 11, said she and the other student were suspended after principal Ken Young confronted them when they arrived at school late after lunch.
Both agreed reluctantly to take the test after being threatened with suspension. Ms. Alexis, who said she hadn’t been drinking, said the device gave two “error” readings before she blew the lowest reading, a blood alcohol level of 0.01. (For drivers, the “warn” range for a blood alcohol level is 0.05 to 0.08, while a “fail” is over 0.08.)
Ms. Alexis said she argued with the findings, “but he said he doesn’t talk to students who are drunk. I said, ‘I’m not drunk.’”
She was given a three-day suspension. Despite high drop-out rates for first nations youth, Ms. Alexis returned this week determined to finish her schooling. She said she wants to be a teacher.
Civil rights activists can be a pain in the neck and this is a prime example of their constant interferences. When kids turn up to school and are suspected of being under the influence, it is surely the Principal’s right to do something about it. Breathalizing establishes that there is a problem and therefore fairly allows the Principal to metre out appropriate consequences.
It’s not as if a breathalizer test is invasive or painful. It’s not a blood test or vaccination – just a deep breath.
By not allowing Principals to effectively deal with the problem, civil rights activists are giving tacit approval to kids who decide to turn up to school under the influence. How is that a good thing?
