[dontknownuthin]

With another school shooting in the news this week, I am at a loss over claims in the media that the shooter was not treated well. I've read in some articles about this student being aggressive and inappropriate frequently, having a warped understanding of the communications of others, and being expelled because his behavior was so concerning. My worry is that this violent episode in which this rampaging person, who clearly had serious problems, will be blamed on those he shot - most of whom were from other countries, and whom he claimed, made fun of him for his English language skills. I find highly doubtful that other ESL students were making fun of his English skills unless it was part of shared, reciprocal ribbing over the shared challenge of learning a different language.

I'm wondering what others think about bullying being blamed for such rampages -which seems to me to often take responsibility away from the perpetrators improperly. I do not condone or tolerate bullying but I also know of circumstances where a student, or an individual in any setting for that matter - such as an office - can be a huge disruption. Thinking of my own school years, I am reminded of two students who were teased but both were disruptive, grossly inappropriate students who contributed greatly to the way they were received by others. One would make outlandish remarks, often embarrassing and rude, to other students - she had no "filter". Students responded in kind. She got more than other students in terms of abuse because she offended many people, and many then abused her back. Others had just her being abusive to them, she had dozens of people she had first abused who responded in kind.

In my son's high school, the zero-tolerance bullying policy has itself been abused. I know of a girl who was suspended for calling her boyfriend a "jerk" in the hall because he had said something unflattering to her. If she were suspended for name calling, I would not have had an issue with it - she was suspended for bullying. The two kids are still dating - the boy wasn't even offended. It was just a disagreement between two kids. Not that calling someone is a jerk is appropriate, but a staff person might have met with the two kids instead and coached them on how to speak respectfully to one another - it was a lost teaching opportunity. Those who say staff don't have this kind of time, note that it took hours of staff time to suspend her.

My own son was suspended after telling a boy at his lunch table to sit elsewhere. This is not very nice, I agree, but there were serious mitigating circumstances that the school acknowledged had happened, but which they ignored in determining that my son was a "bully". Their zero-tolerance policy does not permit consideration of mitigating events and factors. This student my son so-called "bullied" is a highly disruptive kid who had stabbed two of my son's friends with pencils at the table, breaking the skin both times. He told my son and others daily that he hated them. He threw food, stared at kids to deliberately annoy and unnerve them and said very insulting things. Just prior to my son telling him to sit somewhere else, the boy had told my son's friend that his mother was "a whore". My son served his two day suspension, returned to school and was threatened by this student, who said "I'd like to see a bullet hole between your eyes". My son called me from a bathroom in the school and I came to pick him up. Administrators ignored my son's reporting of the threat until I called the police and my son met with them in the front office of the school, filed a formal complaint and obtained an order of protection from the student barring him from being within 20 feet of my son. The school attempted to give my son a detention for using his phone in school to call me - I threatened a law suit if they did so and they dropped it. Before any of this had happened, my son had met with a disciplinary dean to request that someone step in and help him in managing this student, who my son considered a credible threat. He was told, "a strong athletic kid like you has nothing to fear from a wimply kid like that". In other words, a good looking athlete can't be bullied. I then intervened and was told that the other child had a learning plan for a disability and could not be disciplined for his behavior. My son has ADHD and also has a learning plan, but they did not hesitate to suspend him.

I have noticed a pattern in this high school, and have heard of it occurring in other high schools in my area, by which it is presumed that if a kid is involved, bright, popular, attractive and particularly if they are athletes, it is presumed they are always the aggressor in any bullying complaint. If a child is unpopular, has learning problems, is unattractive, uninvolved, lacks friends - it is assumed that kid must be a victim if there are disagreements. What is disregarded is that sometimes kids are unpopular because they annoy others and don't know how to fit in or get along. My son has twice been moreorless stalked by kids who wanted to be friends with him. In both cases he welcomed the friendship until the kids became highly inappropriate and difficult to manage, at which point he tried avoidance. In both cases my son was WAY over his head dealing with these students, both of whom had diagnosed behavior related problems. The school would not consider these circumstances in blaming the entire situation on my son.

As we mainstream more and more children with various behavioral problems, social challenges, etc. we have to recognize that the kids we put them with do NOT have professional expertise nor experience nor the maturity to manage the predictably inappropriate behaviors to which the are witness or subjected. We expect kids to manage these situations without any conflict whatsoever but we don't expect this of staff. Whole wings of schools are reserved for special education teachers who are specifically taught things like physical restraint and psychological methods for disrupting difficult students. Staff/student ratios are adjusted so that there is back up assistance available. In some cases kids are sent to alternative schools. It is common sense that students with social challenges need to be coached on appropriate social interaction and require greater adult support in social settings. But often a decision is made to mainstream such a student, with little regard for how it impacts the rest of the population of the school. I think it's appropriate to mainstream the students, but there needs to be greater oversight, and these behavioral problems need to be considered in evaluating how the other students respond to these kids. These kids do not have the benefit of a diagnosis or college degree to know that their classmate "can't help" it - they just know they are being annoyed, tormented, bothered, their personal boundaries are being violated and to that, they respond.



Personally I think bullying needs to be addressed strongly and swiftly and not tolerated. Suspensions for it are appropriate. But zero tolerance policies have an unintended impact of making every disagreement and every difficult interpersonal interaction become defined as "bullying" incidents, including those involving students with emotional, mental, social or other challenges which might cause them to act inappropriately or to do things to embarrass or ostracize themselves socially.

What do others think of this perspective?

[Fr_Chuck]

There have been bullies in school for as long as their has been schools. Part of the issue I see is that today's culture does not teach them "life is tough" it is not easy sometimes and that you have to get though it and tough it out sometimes. In a society where we try and teach that everyone should feel good about theirself is getting too far out of control.

What ever happening to telling a child to stand up to the bully,