Chinuch: A lot of ranting (spinoff defending spouse)

cookiecutter

Sun, Aug 17 2014, 9:01 am

1. People were complaining about how nowadays, teachers can no longer touch their students the way they used to. Some posters referred to the overwhelming success of the previous generations' chinuch.

I disagree with that. Why should a teacher have to hug a student? As long as it was fine, it was fine. But the idea that it's necessary is based on an outdated (IMO) model that ought to be dead. I don't need hugs from my cashier or my attorney. If it were allowed until now, and in 2014 the evil czar issued an edict banning it, I might regret the loss of closeness with my accountant, but I would not think it ruined professional services in America. I want my childrens' teachers to be competent professionals who know how to administer to a class, not a nice aunt or friend of the family who knows a little math and is willing to give my kid some pointers.

The story one poster wrote is emblematic. A rebbi noticed that one of the students had difficulty conforming to the format of the test, but was otherwise able to understand the lessons. The rebbi could only tutor and test this boy in a private locked room with no one around (?), and because of the tutoring, the boy made tremendous progress. This is exactly what I DON'T think is important. The rebbi should not treat learning disabilities with "warmth". Learning disabilities should be assessed and addressed by trained professionals, as should learning generally. Services like this are widely available; and "chinuch roundtable" style education is no longer defensible.

For similar reasons, I thoroughly disagree with the idea that the previous generations' chinuch was overwhelmingly successful, but that is a discussion for another time.

2. On the other hand, there are perfectly legitimate activities that are now limited because of the fear of accusations. Teachers can't have a two minute conference with a student unless whatever "policies" are complied with. Furthermore, you can't possibly have a policy for everything, and people will inevitably begin to think of safeguards upon safeguards as the letter of the law. I don't see a need for regular "bed jumping" with counselors but I can envision a bunch of activities that are innocuous for the overwhelming majority of people but are now looked at askance because .002% of the population engage in unwanted zexual activity. I hate when that happens - it's like when two people out of 300 million leave their baby in the car for eight hours in 90 degree weather, and now I am homicidal if I leave my eight year old in the car in my driveway on a 68 degree day while I run in to get my purse.

3. The two points above lead to the question of what reasonable safeguards are. For some reason I am more comfortable with safeguards for opposite gender situations. If you work for a male boss, it makes sense to have a door-open policy because most men are attracted to women and most women are attracted to men. A door open policy avoids even ill-advised consensual activity or things that stop short of wrongfulness. But a policy regarding same-gender teachers and students should be limited to more unique activities, like meeting the student outside of school or extended one on one time in locked rooms. A draconian "no-yichud" policy in a same-gender context is basically accusing all teachers of being pervertss because the limitations on legitimate activity are only justified if there is some level of suspicion.

I think a no-touching policy is reasonable for teacher-student because unless you're learning Yoga, what's the point of touching? But for counselors or Yoga instructors, it would be too restrictive.

Thoughts?

black sheep

Sun, Aug 17 2014, 12:27 pm

cookiecutter I totally agree with all of your post.

I was thinking about the other thread, and I think people are looking at this backwards. people are assuming that the reason many teachers and schools and camps are switching to a hands off and open door policy is to avoid false accusations. this is backwards. the reason for these precautions is to protect children from abusers. because s-xual abuse starts with casual touching. unwanted touch starts with wanted or tolerated touch. by setting up boundaries which are clear and well known by all, children and parents know immediately when a boundary is crossed. abusers thrive on the vagueness of what is happening. these clear cut boundaries take away the vagueness.

I find it especially ironic that posters on the other thread are pointing to at risk children from dysfunctional families as examples of children who need the hugs and private time with their teachers, since this is the most targeted population for child predators.

there are certainly children who are not getting the hugs they need at home. however, there is no substitute for a parents physical affection, and anyone who tries to give it has crossed a boundary and placed a child in danger.

5*Mom

Sun, Aug 17 2014, 12:34 pm

black sheep wrote:

I was thinking about the other thread, and I think people are looking at this backwards. people are assuming that the reason many teachers and schools and camps are switching to a hands off and open door policy is to avoid false accusations. this is backwards. the reason for these precautions is to protect children from abusers. because s-xual abuse starts with casual touching. unwanted touch starts with wanted or tolerated touch. by setting up boundaries which are clear and well known by all, children and parents know immediately when a boundary is crossed. abusers thrive on the vagueness of what is happening. these clear cut boundaries take away the vagueness.

I find it especially ironic that posters on the other thread are pointing to at risk children from dysfunctional families as examples of children who need the hugs and private time with their teachers, since this is the most targeted population for child predators.

there are certainly children who are not getting the hugs they need at home. however, there is no substitute for a parents physical affection, and anyone who tries to give it has crossed a boundary and placed a child in danger.

Aaah, this this this, all of it. Thank you.

FranticFrummie

Sun, Aug 17 2014, 12:37 pm

I think that all sides have valid points, pro and con. What's missing in the world is not hugs OR discipline, it's seichel. Common basic sense in parents, students and teachers alike.

DD is a hugger. She loves to hug her teachers. The school has been giving her social skills in her IEP, and teaching her to stop and ask "Can I give you a hug?" instead of the unexpected flying tackle of love. Surprised

As she's getting older she's also much more aware that she is not touching men or boys, and has lost the desire to hug them too. Some is maturity, some is from the school teaching. Also, boys are icky! LOL

Her school doors all have fairly large windows in the doors, so anyone walking by can see pretty much the whole classroom at a glance. The rooms where they do one on one tutoring have even bigger glass panels, and the doors are never locked. There is never any student - teacher contact after school hours without a parent present. Even though it's a public school, it's like they're acutely aware of yichud (and lawsuits).

Jeanette

Sun, Aug 17 2014, 1:55 pm

black sheep wrote:

I think 95% of those who would affectionately hug or pat a child in the past were totally innocent. They were just not aware of how it could be misconstrued. So, yes, no-touching policies have the effect of protecting the 95% innocent adults who meant no harm to the child while also protecting a child from the 5% who use welcome touch to progress to inappropriate touch. That does not mean that the 95% were doing something wrong, bad or dirty.

cookiecutter

Sun, Aug 17 2014, 2:08 pm

amother wrote:

Sorry dont agree. A teacher is not just to give your kids the math reading and writing skills they need. They are there to nurture and care for them. Listen to their issues help them problem solve help them cope with life. When a student is obviously having a rotten day and when inquired whats wrong bursts into tears and says I havnt seen my mommy since yesterday morning, physical touch is appropriate. A pat on the back, hug around the shoulders. Kids spend alot of time in school and it would be silly to think thay a child would not need warmth and care during those 8-9 hours of the day.

But why? I don't think you or I are intrinsically more correct about why a teacher is there. The teacher is there to fulfill expectations, and it's up to the school and/or parent body to determine what their expectations are. I think expectations ought to be that teachers not go beyond what they are hired to do. Many, if not most schools have a social worker on staff who is specifically trained to deal with students' personal issues. The schools that don't, should. In an era when every second BY graduate is a trained social worker, why should we allow and expect such things to be dealt with by "instinct" of a 19 year old girl fresh off the plane from seminary?

Of course in the context of giving over the lessons, teachers should comport themselves with a nurturing demeanor. Of course they should be part of any plan for helping a child deal with emotional upheaval. But I don't think they should be the solution when there are better alternatives; without even considering any far flung suspicion that the teacher is a predator.

As I alluded to above, it's possible that my viewpoint arises from my feeling about the chinuch by instinct that my generation suffered through. Sure, the schools were more "l'sheim shamayim" and the personalities were more memorable but the mindset it instilled was terrible. And I say that as someone who was not particularly troublesome either scholastically or emotionally.

cookiecutter

Sun, Aug 17 2014, 2:21 pm

black sheep wrote:

I appreciate your agreement, but I am not sure I agree with you! Smile

People who in all innocence express physical affection are not placing children in danger because other people will engage in wrongful physical contact. If rules must be passed that everyone must adhere to, so be it. But innocent conduct is not "child endangerment" simply because other people do it not innocently, just like opening the door to my friends house is not burglary even though a burglar might also do it.

And as I posted above, it's true that clear guidelines can be useful but the guidelines have a cost. That cost must be weighed against the benefit of added child safety and faculty credibility. If the guideline severely constrains legitimate activity with little benefit to safety then it should not be implemented even though it sets a "clear line".

Barbara

Sun, Aug 17 2014, 5:15 pm

amother wrote:

I think you're putting a whole heckuva lot of responsibility on teachers, expecting them to be parents in absentia for parents who cannot or do not nurture their own children, while at the same time teaching a class.

Imagine if they were to take on that role for 20 students in a class. When would they have time for anything else?

Warmth and care does not always demand touch. My husband was very ill when DS was in 3d grade. His teacher took a couple of minutes a day to ask him about it, and he was able to express his worries to her more than to me, because he knew I was worried myself. She did this without hugging. And it was lovely of her. And beyond what I would expect of a teacher. But kids with serious neglect problems need more help than teachers should be expected to give.

Remember, at camps, the counselors -- who are also sleeping in the bunk and using the same showers as the campers -- can't touch. But they can and must report problems they see to a division head, camp head, camp mom. And they can try to look into the problem. Just like a teacher who sees a troubled child who cannot be reached through normal means like talking in an open classroom can consult the school psychologist.

IOW, the dichotomy is not touch or abandon. It's touch or help another way.