3 ms·

This was basically how things have worked and continue to work in (particularly rural) areas where policymaking is lacking and people are left to their own devi

This was basically how things have worked and continue to work in (particularly rural) areas where policymaking is lacking and people are left to their own devices. "Bullied" kids seek help from their immediate peers, from their/their peers older siblings, and from adults, roughly in that order. Parents typically do not hesitate to suggest aggressive escalation as a conflict resolution strategy. This strategy is often applied successfully. I'm suggesting that the current "zero tolerance" approach practiced in North America does more harm than good by halting this process before it can resolve conflict - thus harming both the bullied and the bully.

mcguire 4y ago
One notes that rural teens and young adults die of suicide at nearly twice the rate of those in urban areas. (https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapediatrics/fullarticle/2195006 https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapediatrics/fullarticle/...)
anotherman554 4y ago
"This was basically how things have worked and continue to work in (particularly rural) areas where policymaking is lacking and people are left to their own devices." So in rural areas if a child in school grabs another child, throws them on the ground, and starts beating them in the middle of math class, the teacher will not attempt to intervene? Sorry but I don't believe this.
bentley 4y ago
The problem with American zero tolerance policies is not that they attempt to stop violence, but that they find the bullied to be as culpable as the bully, because “participating” in violence is what’s considered wrong, not instigating it.
bentley 4y ago
My own experience growing up in rural America is not so romantic. Bullies were sometimes those who had a numeric advantage when it came to having relatives who were peers and adults at the school. Their victims, often, outsiders who were not physically strong, had no big siblings to protect them, and were not “favorites” of the teachers. Such children would not benefit from your strategy.

mcguire 4y ago

One notes that rural teens and young adults die of suicide at nearly twice the rate of those in urban areas. (https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapediatrics/fullarticle/2195006 https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapediatrics/fullarticle/...)

anotherman554 4y ago

"This was basically how things have worked and continue to work in (particularly rural) areas where policymaking is lacking and people are left to their own devices." So in rural areas if a child in school grabs another child, throws them on the ground, and starts beating them in the middle of math class, the teacher will not attempt to intervene? Sorry but I don't believe this.

bentley 4y ago

The problem with American zero tolerance policies is not that they attempt to stop violence, but that they find the bullied to be as culpable as the bully, because “participating” in violence is what’s considered wrong, not instigating it.

bentley 4y ago

My own experience growing up in rural America is not so romantic. Bullies were sometimes those who had a numeric advantage when it came to having relatives who were peers and adults at the school. Their victims, often, outsiders who were not physically strong, had no big siblings to protect them, and were not “favorites” of the teachers. Such children would not benefit from your strategy.