Quote:
|
Originally Posted by liquidlight
But you've just defeated your own arguments! This disciplinary methods very likely involved this type of escalation that she hadn't reached suspension/explusion on, even outright fighting rarely results in suspension/expulsion for a first offense, so why shouldn't this girl still have been in class for the second occurence, having been given a chance to hopefully correct the problem.
|
Assuming the news articles out there about this story are accurate, no I didn't defeat my own argument. The kid had been a holy terror many times before. The kid's mother had called the school and said they were not to lay a hand on the kid or she'd sue them. Those two elements should have been enough of a clue to the administration of the school that this kid was not manageable - in part because the kid is a little shit, and in part because the mom is threatening legal action if they DO discipline her. If a kid is not manageable, then the kid should be shipped out.
The school allowed themselves to be held hostage by the mother. They acted as though the mother is allowed to tell the school what rules it's allowed to set. In reality, it should have been the other way around. The school sets the rules, if the mom/kid don't like the rules, they leave. Easy as that.
Furthermore, back to the original question as to whether the handcuffing was necessary - the kid was sitting down and not going nuts when the cops got there. Why did they handcuff her? There was absolutely no reason for it.