Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta

Teacher suspended for washing student's mouth out with soap watch

Announcements
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sire)
    Of course she shouldn't be sacked. For all you people who voted yes, ask yourself this. If you were in that same situation, would you have just let it go by with a simple "how dare you?!" comment?
    No I would have kept my temper and remembered that the law says that teahers can't use physical violence against childre and sent him to the senior teacher to be punished.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by randdom)
    No I would have kept my temper and remembered that the law says that teahers can't use physical violence against childre and sent him to the senior teacher to be punished.
    Even though the punishment simply isn't working in regard to this particular child. The teacher stated that she didn't wish to see the child suspended for yet another week of school. You may as well throw pebbles at a brick wall. Everyone knows that they won't break through the wall, but you can always try.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by randdom)
    No I would have kept my temper and remembered that the law says that teahers can't use physical violence against childre and sent him to the senior teacher to be punished.
    The law you speak of should be changed. It was changed once, it can be changed again.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sire)
    The law you speak of should be changed. It was changed once, it can be changed again.
    No it shouldn't. The law as it is protects children from teachers who can be abusive and allows freedom of expression which is something my parents didn't have in the cane ruled class room. And what about the teachers who don't want to use the cane is it fair to them? It has also been mentioned before what if the boy was allergic to the soap or one of it's ingrediants he could have died.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by zizero)
    Actually, it does do harm if you swallow soap. Soap is a base and when it arrives in the stomach (which contains lots of acids) it reacts with acids and forms salt. That can't be digested and if there's to much of it in your stomach, it will do you serious harm.
    A greater problem is that many soaps contain nitrate groups (NO3) which can be reduced by the hydrochloric acid in the stomach to form NO2-. NO2- ions are highly reactive cancerogenic radicals and can potentially cause some serious health problems. Furthermore, many soaps contain large ammounts of parfume, and if a child suffers from some allergy, swallowing the ester compounds could give quite nasty sympthomes. Some sopes contain antibacterial compounds such as organic enzymes and antibiotics. Uneccessary to say, a product develop to kill bacteria and fungus is not very suitable for drinking.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sire)
    Of course she shouldn't be sacked. For all you people who voted yes, ask yourself this. If you were in that same situation, would you have just let it go by with a simple "how dare you?!" comment?
    If you are uncapable of handling children without using physical punishment you should not be a teacher in the first place.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jonatan)
    If you are uncapable of handling children without using physical punishment you should not be a teacher in the first place.
    i think thats a slightly ambitious suggestion. i would hesitate on commenting before youve actually stood in front of a classroom. the unanimous support from the parents would suggest her method was nothing more than a harmless lesson.the fact that the unruly child said nothing would imply that no injury or harm was caused and in all likelihood he learned from his mistake.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    No. It was a good thing for her to do that. It caused no harm to the child. It seems to me a bit pathetic to sack somebody over something so harmless. People these days have become too over-reactive, and cry out at the first opportunity. If I was the child, I would have felt disciplined, not harmed. If I was the parents, I would be glad to have my child disciplined if he was rude to someone else. Suspend the boy, not the teacher. Ooh...physical punishment...I'm so weak I can't take a bit of soap in my mouth...come on it's not like she smacked him round the face with a cricket bat.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by glance)
    Ooh...physical punishment...I'm so weak I can't take a bit of soap in my mouth...come on it's not like she smacked him round the face with a cricket bat.
    But like it was said before what if he had been allergic and died.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vienna95)
    i think thats a slightly ambitious suggestion. i would hesitate on commenting before youve actually stood in front of a classroom. the unanimous support from the parents would suggest her method was nothing more than a harmless lesson.the fact that the unruly child said nothing would imply that no injury or harm was caused and in all likelihood he learned from his mistake.
    The problem is that next time things may not turn out that well. The teacher should not be suspended for the harm he caused to the child, but because it is important that laws protecting children from abuse are followed. In some cases you may look between the fingers, but this was to serious a violation to let it go unnoticed. If you were to ignore the incident you would risk that the border is constantly pushed further and further. In addition, the consequences could have been much more serious. Merely because I didnt kill anyone, it doesnt mean I should not be charged for driving drunk.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by glance)
    No. It was a good thing for her to do that. It caused no harm to the child. It seems to me a bit pathetic to sack somebody over something so harmless. People these days have become too over-reactive, and cry out at the first opportunity. If I was the child, I would have felt disciplined, not harmed. If I was the parents, I would be glad to have my child disciplined if he was rude to someone else. Suspend the boy, not the teacher. Ooh...physical punishment...I'm so weak I can't take a bit of soap in my mouth...come on it's not like she smacked him round the face with a cricket bat.
    So if I was mad at you for whatever reason and took teh matter into my own hands the courts should pass a sentence on you rather than me? You cant have a law for every situation but we would not want a system composed of a few million Clint Eastwood clones either.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by randdom)
    No it shouldn't. The law as it is protects children from teachers who can be abusive and allows freedom of expression which is something my parents didn't have in the cane ruled class room. And what about the teachers who don't want to use the cane is it fair to them? It has also been mentioned before what if the boy was allergic to the soap or one of it's ingrediants he could have died.
    That cane ruled classroom you ridicule so easily is responsible for your parents being the people they are today, and indeed for you being the person you are today. If you take any pride from your ability to put forward an argument, then you my acknowledge that the cane ruled classroom contributed to that. The law is too lenient. Sure it protects the children, but what of teachers who are assaulted at school by a child. They are only allowed to do anything if they can prove beyond reasonable doubt that their life was in immediate danger at the time. The law is wrong, and I would expect you to know it.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jonatan)
    If you are uncapable of handling children without using physical punishment you should not be a teacher in the first place.
    Wrong, some of the best teachers are those who can't handle even a small number of children. Their skill lies in teaching, not management. Get it right please.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vienna95)
    i think thats a slightly ambitious suggestion. i would hesitate on commenting before youve actually stood in front of a classroom. the unanimous support from the parents would suggest her method was nothing more than a harmless lesson.the fact that the unruly child said nothing would imply that no injury or harm was caused and in all likelihood he learned from his mistake.
    Indeed, a point I made in my earlier post on this topic. Being a good teacher, and being a good manager aren't the same thing. She taught the lesson beautifully, and weighed the circumstances rather well. One drop only remember people. It was her management skills that were lacking, but the parental support should speak for itself. Those who criticise the cane ruled classroom (thanks Randomm) are generally those who have never experienced it. Whereas the support comes from parents who are at least old enough to remember times when the cane was in use.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sire)
    That cane ruled classroom you ridicule so easily is responsible for your parents being the people they are today, and indeed for you being the person you are today. If you take any pride from your ability to put forward an argument, then you my acknowledge that the cane ruled classroom contributed to that. The law is too lenient. Sure it protects the children, but what of teachers who are assaulted at school by a child. They are only allowed to do anything if they can prove beyond reasonable doubt that their life was in immediate danger at the time. The law is wrong, and I would expect you to know it.
    I do think that teachers should be allowed to defend themselves but I stand by my statement that the cane has no place in the class room. My parents had the cane I didn't have the cane. I am heading for the same A-level grades that they did and am planning to go into the same career. So I don't see why they couldn't have done the same if they had not had the cane in their classroom. I also know that my parents dislike the cane and think that it stoped them from being able to express themselves as well as kids today do. Haveing spoken to them I think that I had a much more rewarding and enjoyable time at school that they did.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by randdom)
    I do think that teachers should be allowed to defend themselves but I stand by my statement that the cane has no place in the class room. My parents had the cane I didn't have the cane. I am heading for the same A-level grades that they did and am planning to go into the same career. So I don't see why they couldn't have done the same if they had not had the cane in their classroom. I also know that my parents dislike the cane and think that it stoped them from being able to express themselves as well as kids today do. Haveing spoken to them I think that I had a much more rewarding and enjoyable time at school that they did.
    Then it is clear that you are not speaking from experience. You just seem to be a rather good student who I'd love to have in my class. But you're forgetting that you're parents would have guided you by learning from their experience. They saw people learn the hard way about what is acceptable and what is not. They put these lessons into you so that you would not face the same predicament. You freely criticise something that has the positive externality of helping you get those A-levels you speak of.

    All that aside, I believe the cane to be a little extreme, but methods similar to that are what is needed for maintaining a measure of discipline in schools today.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by randdom)
    But like it was said before what if he had been allergic and died.
    The soap came from the sick bay or something did it not? They are extremely choosey about what can be used around children these days you know. Granted the risk was there, but the teacher used only one drop, and the report said nothing of ingesting any of the soap.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jonatan)
    So if I was mad at you for whatever reason and took teh matter into my own hands the courts should pass a sentence on you rather than me? You cant have a law for every situation but we would not want a system composed of a few million Clint Eastwood clones either.
    That all depends on how far you went by taking the law into your own hands. The law states that a punch to the face is assault and can be charged as such. But one of the best known conflict resolutions is indeed a punch in the face. So long as it is only one.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    I have experianced bad incidents in school. I mean my school is by no means perfect. I have seen someone knock someone out with a chair and observed the aftermath of a stabbing. However I still don't think that caneing is a good idea or any sort of physical violence. I think that it is a power that can be so easily abused.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by randdom)
    I have experianced bad incidents in school. I mean my school is by no means perfect. I have seen someone knock someone out with a chair and observed the aftermath of a stabbing. However I still don't think that caneing is a good idea or any sort of physical violence. I think that it is a power that can be so easily abused.
    Which is why they got rid of it in the first place. I'd have to agree that caning is a little too severe, but the pendulum swung right over to the other side on that one. In the space of a year, teachers went from being able to send a student to the principal to receive a few whacks of the cane, right through to not being able to touch a child with the exception of serious circumstances that threatened life. No! Meanwhile, a teacher decides to use an age old disciplinary measure, and dulls it down a few shades, but faces the prospect of losing her job. Even though the punishment worked, and the majority of parents seem to be pushing to keep her instated as teacher.

    Naked force has solved more disputes throughout history than any other means, and it will continue to do so. Simple as that. If the boy doesn't want the soap in his mouth again, he won't ever use such language around that particular teacher, or any teacher if a miracle happened and the law was changed accordingly.

    That is effectiveness. Pure and simple.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you like carrot cake?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.