No Time Outs from their Time Out

The American Academy of Pediatrics publishes a journal whose title, to the surprise of few, is "Pediatrics."  Their latest issue includes a Policy Statement entitled "The Crucial Role of Recess in School."

I agree with MOST of what is in the Policy Statement, but vehemently beg to differ with their assertion that "In essence, recess should be considered a child’s personal time, and it should not be withheld for academic or punitive reasons."

It must be disclosed that during my grade school years, on account of certain of my personal childhood propensities, yes, I did spend many a recess period sitting at my desk or in the principal's office.  And my teachers, no doubt, would agree that I right well deserved those disciplinary disengagements.

This is yet another descent down the slippery slope of entitlements. Sending the child to the principal's office in lieu of recess teaches the lesson, and instills the value, of the relationship between rights and responsibilities.  Making recess the child's "personal time" which cannot "be withheld for academic or punitive reasons" can only give the troublemaking brat another entitlement to exploit, and does not facilitate the development of taking responsibility for his or her actions.

I hold pediatricians in high regard as a profession, and most of the ones I know in high regard as persons.  But when they stray from their area of expertise, they can cause all kinds of troubles and complications.

The late Dr. Benjamin Spock comes immediately to mind in that regard.

A Lesson for Teachers

Christine Rubino is still a teacher for the New York City Department of Education. The preceding sentence is couched in the adverbial because the Board of Education had attempted to terminate Rubino for a Facebook posting.

The incident transpired substantially as follows (there I go again with the adverbs):

In 2007, the NYC Board of Education, in partnership with Columbia University, opened up the Columbia Secondary School for Math, Science, & Engineering, an institution which, as its name implies, is a "selective, public, college preparatory school with a focus on science, math, and engineering." [It never ceases to amaze me that so many Columbia University alumni are always whining about the evils of elitism.].

On 22 June, 2010, a class of students from this select academy of higher learning, chaperoned by three teachers of supposedly commensurate qualification, went to Long Beach for an outing at the beach. Notwithstanding the signs advising that there were no lifeguards on duty, and notwithstanding more than one drowning incident at the same beach within the previous few weeks, the chaperones managed to allow the children to go into the water. 12-year-old Nicole Suriel did not come out of the water alive.

Of course, the news of the incident went viral amongst the New York City public school community and beyond. One of the individuals to whose attention the incident was swiftly brought was Christine Rubino, a tenured teacher at P.S. 203 in Brooklyn. Rubino's teaching day had been very frustrating. Rubino used her Facebook page to vent her frustrations:

"After today, I am thinking the beach sounds like a wonderful idea for my 5th graders! I HATE THEIR GUTS! They are the devils (sic) spawn!"

Disciplinary proceedings were brought against Rubino, and, following her due process hearing by the Board of Education, Rubino received her notice of termination.

Rubino appealed to the courts. Justice Barbara Jaffe did not take the First Amendment bait; she found that, free expression concerns notwithstanding, while Rubino's conduct was unbecoming of a teacher, the penalty of removal was too extreme for a single incident on Rubino's otherwise clean record. [Disclosure: Before she became a judge, Barbara did me a little favor which was a big help for my career as an attorney.].

The Rubino case is an exemplar of how the judiciary keeps the administrative agencies from going overboard; precisely the checks and balances dynamic intended by the Founding Fathers to operate amongst the branches. But the case also is an exemplar of what how the new technologies blur the line between the personal and the professional, between the public and the private, and between the adult and the child.

It is perfectly understandable that a teacher might experience frustration, especially during the last week of classes before the summer vacation (I do remember what I was like when I was a fifth grader). Rubino, then, is a cautionary tale of what to do -- and to not do -- to keep oneself in the clear when using the social media of the internet.


[To all of you who e-mailed, snail-mailed, called or visited us on our recent bereavement, I give my heartfelt gratitude on behalf of myself and my family. For the most part, we are continuing our normal activities, projects and pursuits -- which is certainly what Dad would want us to do.].

Flushing all Discipline down the Toilet

Now, some officials and parents are getting all upset because some students at Bronx's In-Tech Academy have apparently been tasked to latrine-cleaning as a punishment for misbehavior. See here, here and here.

[I have, with unusual and atypical self-restraint, resisted the temptation to insinuate some excretory pun into the title of this posting, but I cannot prevent you, dear reader, from thinking of any and grinning.].

I really, really, do not see what the problem is. The students misbehaved, so they were compelled to clean toilets as a punishment. So what?!?!?

The kids involved have misbehaved in school. This, while in no way commendable, is, within limits, normal.

The misbehaving kids were given some practical negative feedback (known in my day as "punishment" or "discipline") for their misbehavior. This, once upon a time, was normal, but all of the liberal sob sisters hung up on the rights of the poor misguided and deprived children have made it increasingly difficult for school teachers or administrators to mete out any meaningful punishment without being subjected to punishment themselves.

What is happening is that the perpetuators are being cast as victims. And the school administrators who tried to discipline them (who are the good guys/gals in this scenario) are now being vilified as wrongdoers.

And so, whatever disciplinary regime the school administrators have tried, against all odds, to maintain in their school, is now being flushed down the toilet!

Threats are No Joke

Okay, so the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has upheld the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York, which, in turn, upheld Richard Mabbett, the Superintendent of Schools for the Weedsport Central School District.

Aaron Wisniewski, one of the brats under Mabbett's charge, had sent out an AOL Instant Message to his buddies, said message entailing an icon depicting a pistol firing a bullet at a person's head, with splattered blood, and the legend "Kill Mr. VanderMolen." Aaron's English teacher was Mr. Philip VanderMolen. Aaron was suspended from school for a semester, and the lawsuit captioned Wisniewski v. Board of Education followed.

[As this post is being written, the judicial opinions seem to only be available on proprietary fee-based databases. The LEXIS-NEXIS cite is Wisniewski v. Board of Education, 2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 15924 (2d Cir. 2007), aff'g 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 41017 (N.D.N.Y. 2006).].

My commentary on the case:



1. Remember that the incident occurred in April 2001, which was before the Muslim terrorist attack of September 11, 2001. A few weeks prior to the incident, the student body had previously been informed that threats would not be tolerated and would be treated as acts of violence. Seems that Superintendent Mabbett and his subalterns knew, even in those halcyon pre-September 11th days, that terroristic threats are inimical to an environment conducive to effective education.

2. The lawsuit made some ado over the fact that the incident did not occur on school property, and did not use school computers. But Mabbett appreciated that his concern should not end at the boundary line to the school property. And the courts upheld him.

3. At the time of the incident, Aaron Wisniewski was a 15-year-old in the 8th grade. Having been duly apprised of the illegality of his acts, and of the potential consequences thereof, he chose to transgress, and he received the punishment. So far, so good. But then, his parents, Marty and Annette, got upset that their darling son's First Amendment rights to free speech were trampled upon, and brought the lawsuit. Maybe this is Aaron's real problem. Maybe he is the victim of piss-poor parenting. Maybe his parents ought to stop being terrorism facilitators and start being parents.

4. If truth be told, my own conduct in elementary and secondary school was not always that of the model student. I transgressed the rules on more than a few occasions, and the consequences of such transgressions, ranging from being compelled to stand in a corner to a one-day suspension, were imposed upon me. I didn't go home crying to Mommy and/or Daddy because I knew that Mommy and Daddy would invariably back the school principal every time. For that reason, the discipline imposed upon me was a success! I misbehaved, so I was punished! I eventually got tired of being punished, so I started to significantly curtail my misbehaviors. Works like a charm!

5. The plaintiffs in the case are "Martin and Annette Wisniewski, on behalf of their son Aaron Wisniewski." Of all of my youthful misbehaviors, not once did I ever threaten or harm any of my math teachers, and so, they were able to effectively teach me the subject in a nurturing environment. Applying the mathematical skills I learned back in grade school and high school, I figure that Aaron Wisniewski, who was 15 years old in April of 2001, is now 21 years old. And if indeed he is 21 years old, he should dismiss his parents from the case, accept the dismissal of his case, accept the one semester suspension he was given 6 years ago and then straighten out and fly right!