Virginia School Bans Touching - Of ANY Kind

[matcom]

<snip>

Fairfax County middle school student Hal Beaulieu hopped up from his lunch table one day a few months ago, sat next to his girlfriend and slipped his arm around her shoulder. That landed him a trip to the school office.

Among his crimes: hugging.

All touching -- not only fighting or inappropriate touching -- is against the rules at Kilmer Middle School in Vienna. Hand-holding, handshakes and high-fives? Banned. The rule has been conveyed to students this way: "NO PHYSICAL CONTACT!!!!!"

School officials say the rule helps keep crowded hallways and lunchrooms safe and orderly, and ensures that all students are comfortable. But Hal, 13, and his parents think the school's hands-off approach goes too far, and they are lobbying for a change.

"I think hugging is a good thing," said Hal, a seventh-grader, a few days before the end of the school year. "I put my arm around her. It was like for 15 seconds. I didn't think it would be a big deal."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/17/AR2007061701179.html

[femmocrat]

1. Read the entire article before judging, please!

It goes on: "Deborah Hernandez, Kilmer's principal, said the rule makes sense in a school that was built for 850 students but houses 1,100. She said that students should have their personal space protected and that many lack the maturity to understand what is acceptable or welcome."

"You get into shades of gray," Hernandez said. "The kids say, 'If he can high-five, then I can do
this.' "


I am a middle-school teacher. I can imagine the jostling and horseplay in the over-crowed hallways. I think the rule makes sense for their school situation. And they do give several warnings first. I have no problems with that rule. Children are taught from the first day of kindergarten to "keep your hands to yourself." There is no reason that should change in middle school.

[LostinVA]

3. Right -- the whole article explains things much better than the abstract

[cloudbase]

16. "You get into shades of gray," Hernandez said.

Because life is so black and white.

[Deep13]

2. Next: well-wishing, imagination and use of names banned.

How did we get so nuerotic?

[Midlodemocrat]

4. Thank God we don't live in Fairfax. TM would be expelled in minutes.

[matcom]

5. tell ME about it!

:hide:

[InternalDialogue]

6. Their wrestling team is gonna SUCK!

[Rabrrrrrr]

7. Maybe not - since they can't touch, maybe they will get to use bats!

[Orsino]

13. Let's support 'em anyway. Same-sex embracing is progressive...

...though the in-weight-class-only restriction is sizist.

[ChoralScholar]

8. While I can certainly appreciate their overcrowding problem

as I teach in a school with the same issue - I am not a fan of unnecessary rules. If they already have rules about inappropriate touching, sexual contact and such, then this is not needed.

"...should have their personal space protected and that many lack the maturity to understand what is acceptable or welcome."

AHA... so there we've defined what exactly needs to be taught. But implementing a zero-tolerance rule is so much easier than actually teaching children, isn't it?

"She has seen a poke escalate into a fight and a handshake that is a gang sign."

And this rule solves that. No one will ever be angry enough to be in a fight, and no one will be in gangs, now that they can't shake. Problem solved. :sarcasm:

Why do teachers and and administrators lack the ability to think sometimes?

[xchrom]

9. touch this.

[plcdude]

10. can they

touch themselves?

[liontamer]

11. i read the whole article and now I'm judging

The rule is silly. The rule isn't designed to be enforced as written. It's written in such a way, so that "inappropriate" can be defined after the fact. Which is useful. A handshake can be a tool of aggression (anybody ever play "mercy" as a kid?). It's designed to make intent an issue.

Unfortunately, it makes enforcement arbitrary, and potentially biased. It also sends negative messages, such as bodies are bad, and kids are incapable of any self control.

It would be better to redefine the rule to add language about respecting boundaries rather than saying all touch is potentially bad. How else are kids supposed to learn?

It's important that children learn not only how to respect others, but how to express what makes them uncomfortable. Rather than have a rule in place saying that no one can hug, period, the rule should explicitly discuss issues of consent and personal choice. Perhaps his girlfriend didn't like being hugged, at least not in the lunch room. Then his "simple" gesture does violate her, and he should be reprimanded. Writing a cut and dried "don't touch" rule, just delays when kids learn basic issues of social interactions, which is a dangerous thing, in my opinion.

[ThomCat]

12. One more handy rule they can use against kids they don't like.

You just know that the popular kids won't get punished for "accidentally" touching someone. But if a teacher or administrator doesn't like a kid, he's toast.

This rule will be a club to use against certain kids. It will have nothing to do with overcrowding or gang signs.

[meegbear]

14. When I think about Fairfax County middle school I touch myself

[DS1]

15. parked outside in your 78 Camaro with T-Tops?

I'll bet you do

[AngryAmish]

17. Exhibit #2-30495713=-0571-375 why educators are stupids

[Reverend_Smitty]

18. No Touching!

what a silly rule...and I'd hate to be a teacher enforcing it. I'm sure they have much more important things to do than be the "High-five police"

[LeftyFingerPop]

19. touching BAD!! oook! oook! touching BAD!! n/t

[Connonym]

20. We've still got teachers who hug the kids

and I'm perfectly fine with that. Kids know the difference between creepy sexual hugs and friendly supportive hugs. Banning touching will only lead to dysfunction in the kids not being able to sort out for themselves what is appropriate. If they're going to draw distinction between a high-five for a right answer and a high-five that's not permitted why can't they just distinguish any touch that is inappropriate from a touch that is appropriate. They way they're enforcing it isn't black and white so the rule shouldn't be black and white.

[AllegroRondo]

21. can I still touch myself?

or will that be outlawed?

[Javaman]

22. "thought of beating out the flames when Johnny was on fire but then I thought,

I would violating the no touching ban. I didn't want to spend my whole summer in detention. Sorry about Johnny."

[SocratesInSpirit]

23. I thought things were bad when I was in high school

about ten years ago - they banned trenchcoats after Columbine (I wonder how the meeting where this piece of brilliance was decided went: "Instead of addressing the actual problems/root causes that lead to these kinds of tragedies, let's do the easiest thing and ban a random, arbitrary piece of clothing that had the unfortunate luck of being the fashion choice of a deranged school shooter!").

Then they banned the color orange. That's right - they eliminated an entire color. Apparently there was a territorial fight between gangs over insignia, and the color was - you guessed it - orange. But of course, "Suzy Suburban" could still get away with wearing an orange shirt (I saw this happen many times), but if "Maria Mexicana" did the same thing - instant suspension.

Our school also tried to implement a similar "no touchie!" rule - didn't last long. They couldn't enforce it very well.

This is the dumbest in a long line of dumb rules. I read the entire article, and I still think it's dumb.

Whew! Long post...I guess this subject makes me a little "touchy". :rofl:

[Midlodemocrat]

24. He trolls the interwebs looking for news to disparage Virginians.

He's really quite a horrible person.