At the risk of asking rather unpopular questions, don't you think this has its roots not in any cowardice or contempt for educators or healthcare providers, but rather in a legal system and society, that's very sympathetic to those that engage in anti-social behavior?

As I understand it, influential activist organizations have spent decades demonizing something called the "school-to-prison pipeline" - schools assisting in the prosecution of criminal students. Can we really expect the school district to back up its teachers against the criminal actions of its students in such an environment?

Zero semblance of customer service.

Going off on a bit of a tangent now, but it might still be relevant to education.

I have noticed with healthcare, as I have dealt with it more in the last five years than my whole life combined times ten, is that when they fuck up or make a mistake, at best you will maybe get a sorry. What you will not get is a "yeah, we made a mistake, we'll eat the cost and do it again".

They never have to eat costs or take an L. There is no loss when they fuck up. They only thing they respond to is "lawsuit", which is normally a wildly expensive years long endeavor for everyone. This is all complicated by insurance being the picture too, who ostensibly would be the ones to get a refund in most cases. But the net result would be cheaper insurance for everyone, and less careless behavior from healthcare professionals.

The problem is particularly serious in some countries, like South Korea.

A recent popular Korean tv serial "teach you a lesson" became wildly popular despite being not-so-politically-correct, precisely because of the severity of the problem.

highly recommend you watch it.

The common thread is that nursing and grade-school education are both female-dominated professions.

A lot of hospital have armed tactical teams. Though I would guess that in major metro areas they would be more hidden, and so less used.

They don’t have budget to put food on their teachers tables or supplies in the classroom.

We put teachers in an impossible situation — “raise the next generation with no investment from current generations” — and then get pissed off when they fail?

Our world has become a Kafka-esque nightmare.

Your dog whistling argument can be easily countered by peeling a few more layers of the onion... The trouble is, as usual, some things we just dont talk about.

I agree that boys are on average more violent ... but young men violence was going down for years overall.

Yes, conservatives are trying to make it go up, but statistically speaking, they are not succeeding.

Classic bleeding-heart prog backwards thinking.

The students are treated like prisoners because they were ALREADY acting that way.

Use your brain. Schools install metal detectors and hire guards because the kids were getting into fights and bringing guns/knives to school. Acting like adding a metal detector is what causes kids to bring guns to school is insanity.

If it has gotten to a jury, it has already taken a significant amount of time and resources from the district and the teacher.

That moves it to an earlier point where it is dismissed much sooner. If it is not dismissed before discovery (and why would it be?), then that too takes a lot of resources from the district and the teacher.

So it then moves to a "the district settles early so they don't have to deal with the lawsuit" and it becomes a "sue the district and get a payday since they'll settle."

To get it moved to a "this can be dismissed as a matter of law rather than a matter of fact", then the corresponding laws need to be in place to protect the teacher.

You can't even touch student and don't even think about slap. Some years ago I witnessed the case where teacher grabbed the student (14y old) who ran around screaming, kicking things and other students. A teacher was charged with a criminal offense (physical violence against a minor) and must now comply with behavioral supervision. What happened with kid? Nothing. He had a bad day and don't have skills to regulate his emotions yet.

I advise against using Google for things like that, because Google results are very dependant on how Google classified you, and it might differ from how Google classified me.

Are you sure you wanted to point me to some Facebook post, which is the nr. 1 result for me?

In many cases (not this one) parents are also the scapegoat of system failure. This occurs in debates about age verification. People say "why can't parents just parent" like it's a thought-ending cliche.

> teachers, who are underpaid, under resourced, and being asked to deliver far beyond what they can accomplish on their own

Look at the recent Nicole Hannah Jones article on regretting her daughters education choices. The 'bad' school with the disruptive children had 52K of funding per student. Something is up but I'm not sure it's underfunding.

> Like management and shareholders aligned against workers, parents and administrators are aligned against teachers, who are underpaid, under resourced, and being asked to deliver far beyond what they can accomplish on their own.

Teachers are not underpaid. We live in a free market society and they have extensive collective bargaining agreements. If anything, they’re overpaid vs a totally free market.

Those who can and want to use those same talents in a different progression are free to do so. Nobody is forced into the progression (okay maybe grad students but that’s something else…).

> I recommend being a teacher to no one, and will help any teacher who wants out into a better career or industry.

People who genuinely want to teach should be teachers. Just as people who genuinely want to cure the ill should be doctors.

> and then what? they become adults that live large on food stamps and medicaid.

And if they stay, they become adults who live large on food stamps and medicaid, and on top of that seriously hurt or permanently disable teachers, staff, or other students. It's as if letting them pummel teachers in the face will somehow result in them becoming upstanding citizens.

"and then what" is the common retort to when people suggest removing the problem students, it's practically a cliche now. Then what is the students are held accountable now and won't be able to harm the education of their classmates and continue to harass their teachers. Then what is we don't have to pad grades as much and lie so that we can meet a fake metric. Then what is we stop doubling down on an approach that doesn't work.

This is hilarious, LIVE LARGE ON FOODSTAMPS. Insane tier words.

>they become adults that live large on food stamps and medicaid

That often happens regardless. You might as well spare the poor teacher from dealing with them so they can focus on kids that are still redeemable, because otherwise, if you force them, the teachers will just choose to leave the system entirely, only because you had misplaced empathy for the irredeemable bottom % of society, when you weren't the one actually having to deal with that problem you want fixed. It's easy to write cheques you don't have to cash but most people, just like you and me, have limits to the amount of abuse they will take at work, even for humanitarian jobs like nurses and teachers.

Well, not exactly. Have you ever seen the quality of life of someone on substantial government assistance? It’s not a life I’d want. No one lives on food stamps and Medicaid because they enjoy it.

They'd have done that anyhow. By removing them, you improve the outcomes of everyone else.

So if we are going to pick on people who live off of a government-sponsored subsidy, can I ask if the home interest mortgage deduction also counts as a government-sponsored subsidy?

and if not, why not? is it because people who have a house are good people and deserve it, while CHILDREN who are born to the wrong parents are bad people and don't?

> live large on food stamps Are you satirizing retarded republican talking points, or are you this delusional?

let’s adopt laws that force women to give birth without support services to properly raise a child.

while we’re at it, let’s take public money away from public schools and give it to private schools with no audit requirements.

that will solve the issue, right?

>The correct response to this situation is focus on finding better ways of helping those kids.

With who's resources and at the expense of what other things could be done with those resources. Money is fungible. A dollar spent warehousing problem kids is a dollar spent not helping the decent kids become good and the good kids become great. Education is a numbers game.

I'll volunteer: in every single video of American teachers being assaulted I've glimpsed over the years, the assailants were black.

I'm sure someone could take their time and find a few rare instances of that not being the case (if they can manage to do it before I inevitably get -4 points [flagged][dead] for this callous sacrilege), to which I will preemptively reply that someone equally invested in the argument could easily find ten videos confirming my anecdotal observation for each one you provide.

Vagueposting is a new term online for this kind of behavior - it stems from people getting absolutely destroyed online for various opinions, resulting in people not feeling safe to say what they really mean. Sometimes it's hateful opinions, sometimes it isn't. The end result is people will become unable to simply state their opinions and we won't be able to pick apart people with terrible ideas from the good ones, because no one wants to talk!

Suspension and expulsion rates are closely watched, as well as graduation rates. Changes in these numbers trigger federal investigations. Meanwhile, disciplinary actions in general are closely watched for DEI/civil rights considerations and there is a significant pressure to under-report them because it makes the school look better.

We're talking about schools in the US, which means we're talking about black and latino students. This trips the culture war wires, so people get wink winky.

Because some things are politically incorrect to say.

If those things are left unsaid and everyone still understands what's being referred to (even generally) there can be some alignment on the issue.

Some people with ideological axes to grind like to pick fights on particular points, even (perhaps especially) when it is not constructive.

It's not rocket science, certain kids showing up as getting impacted by punitive measures looks bad on certain government measures. So they stop getting punished. Problem solved!

Yeah I read that and gave up. It's also one of those "let me explain Smittywergermanjensen's Law to you"

Probably because what this poster seems to be implying is a sort of inconvenient or unpopular truth. The kinds of things that there's no point actually saying out loud no matter how true they are, because they just make people angry and being explicit about it just paints a sort of target on you instead of actually driving anything towards a solution

We already have a lot of studies and statistics about problems with education, but the narrative about education problems seem to focus on the wrong things, things that the studies and statistics don't really support.

OK — Under-represented minorities would be expelled at higher rates than whites and asians, and the district would get sued for discrimination.

Because these things are for unfortunate reasons of historical happenstance, correlated with race. And if you let race into the discussion the evil people who peddled all this bad metrics and bad policy can use it to sow division and get everyone arguing with each other while they quietly dodge blame.

"...so weird".

"weird" is two years ago. Time to update your firmware.

Because he would immediately get massively downvoted and flagged.

Preemptively jail minority and special ed children and make them work their way up from prison to school.

OP doesn’t seem to have an answer other than “equally apply the rules and outcomes” but he hasn’t shown us that non-minority students are expelled (or whatever punishment) at a higher rate currently, it’s currently his vibes based hypothesis that he’s afraid to openly state.

Well if you look at how much prisons cost per day (median of 167$ / day in the US), it's quite obvious that therapy combined with confinement at home would be magnitudes cheaper... My personal guess: it's got to do with the fixation on reward / punishment that's so present in our societies.

We don't need indefinite money, we just need to realize that spending more on care has better outcomes than doing what's immediately cheaper. A rehabilitated prisoner is less likely to re-enter the system, but we don't measure that cost.

This is the same with healthcare and schools. We let the system be run by a bunch of short-term get rich quick charlatans who get in the way of more long-term prosperity for everyone. It's easier to measure the immediate cost, so we cut there and ignore the long-term expense it creates.

What's worse is that there are many examples for the US to learn from abroad but generations of propaganda have lead us to believe that our deficiencies are what makes us exceptional.

How often, though, are these not really "cost saving" measures so much as "nobody gets a free ride" measures?

Some schools spend a lot of staff effort managing bad behavior, to everyone's harm, that could be greatly reduced by just making sure every kid had breakfast and lunch. Feeding the kids is "communism", so it's bad, but needing to spend more on non-teaching staff to manage behavior, and getting less instruction out of teaching staff because they spend half their time dealing with behavior issues is worse.

How will they become productive in school? Instead of wasting at home or on the streets, we could send them to the therapy they need. School shouldn’t be that therapy, it degrades the other students’ education.

And maybe subsidizing them is the cheapest outcome: better we give them a small amount of money and get them to leave us alone, than spend more trying and failing to get them into schools, the workforce, or prison.

My high school principal once told me after expelling me for a few days, don't worry it's not a big deal. When I was your age I was permanently expelled from half the schools in the county.

Expulsions are not a sentence to prison. There are other schools. The objective is not to correct the behavior of the violent minority but to protect the rest of the student body and educators.

The expelled student will eventually learn to tone down their behavior, they don't need to become saints or model students just to stop hitting people.

That's how all other organizations work in the world, try hitting a waiter and then returning to the same restaurant. Why would hitting a teacher be different?

What about the kids they assault while not being expelled?

They will likely never become productive members of society.

how are they ever going to become productive members of society?

By learning, for likely the first time in their lives, that actions have consequences.

Even if expelling students doesn't reform them: first, it protects other students; second, ex ante, it's an incentive to behave better in the first place. In fact there's quite good evidence that this works well. (You can check the evidence yourself, by asking ChatGPT "What's the evidence on expelling badly behaved students from schools?" or a similar question.)

It's society's problem regardless. Not expelling them just means the school itself is an incubator and breeder for antisocial behavior, and when they get out of school, they're still a problem.

These schools certainly aren't reforming misbehaving students.

They are already societies at large problem keeping them in the school degrades the function of the school for everyone while providing nothing of value to violent students.

The bottom quintile (of stock, not of class) has always been society's problem. What changed is how they're dealt with.

What do you propose other than “lol” and sarcasm?

Society at large has tools and systems in place to better deal with a violent person, student or otherwise.

Special Ed is a special case- those kids are specifically segregated because they cannot be taught at grade level or be expected to behave safely for their size.

To be fair, the precise reason violence against teachers is normalized is because liberalism (I.e. the supporting ideological structure of modern Western society) posits a theory of human psychology and sociology on the basis of the fact that this theory feels good.

It essentially just asserts a particular model of human psychology and sociology and the moral structure of the universe and also makes discussion about its assumptions impossible.

The fundamental tenet of liberalism being that people are basically good and any sort of bad behavior from someone is the fault of a societal failing inflicted upon them. So when a student attacks a teacher this is society failing the student, the teacher being an agent of society and therefore at least partial responsible for being attacked.

To question this is to question liberalism itself which no one, not even the people who do have a sense that this is wrong, are prepared or have the capacity to do.

I'm not skeptical that teachers are being assaulted by students, and there's nothing unbelievable about this story, just not getting the impression that it's real.

Shouldn’t we be holding the writing of a teacher in a published magazine to a high standard? If they can’t write well, why are they teaching?

So the.magazine for teachers - FOR TEACHERS - should be okay with having poor writing style? Is that all they deserve? And you accept that?

nah dude, my mom and dad both worked full time, if they ever dreamed i was disrespectful to a teacher i'd be grounded for a month.

I see in Switzerland teachers being constantly required to fill in for missing colleagues. They might be lured in with good pay, but in the end are unable to cope - so they leave. And then the administration keeps wondering "how much money they want???" instead of hiring more teachers...

That source has nothing to do with 'on teacher' violence, just general violence. A school fight would count as an incident for instance.

Which rights? What does that mean?

When it’s bleeding hard progressivism that causes these issues, it’s pretty obvious!

It wasn’t republicans that trashed California public schools in the name of ‘racial equity.’

Right to self defense. It is much harder to attack someone who can fight back!

Conservatives believe that people need to meet the same standards, and that it is racist to not hold people to those standards. This means if a black kid at a poor school hits a teacher it's treated the same as if a white kid at a rich school hits a teacher - very seriously.

Liberals believe in intersectionalism, and that marginalized groups need unique affordances. This means accepting that if a black kid at a poor school hits a teacher, it may be because of poverty and racism and we should understand the issue in that context.

I would argue conservatism is the cause of this problem. Their constant attacks on educators and education in general are so pervasive.

Additionally, there's no world in which they want these parents to actually succeed. If there's ever a scenario where someone tries to improve the lives of these people, conservatives will argue that they do not deserve it because they don't contribute to society like conservatives do.

Government has a lot of control over public schools

I believe they meant the administrations of the schools/districts

People who went to college in the past 15 years saw something very different from others. Even Fox boomer news complaining about liberal colleges doesn't know the full extent of it.

> When he gives structure to them they behave much better, while interesting enough behaving at home worse. At least he told from stories about the parent-teacher meetings he had.

Could be. A lot of kids only have so much good behavior for a day... act out at school or at home, pick one.

But also, the student who has to live with expectations at school may set expectations at home, and that may be seen as worse behavior by the parents.

Yes. At this point they know what they're getting into, and if they don't it's because they don't pay attention.

Not invalidating your point, but I personally don’t have a story of a teacher like that.

> Because the bottom tier of teachers have done wrong, it invalidates the whole system?

Potentially, yes. Doubly so when those terrible teachers are kept in those roles year after year. The whole system defends and backs these teachers, even knowing they create horrible outcomes and dread for everyone.

> We all have a story of a favorite teacher, someone who inspired through story, who asked more from us, even when ourselves didn’t believe we’d achieve.

Nope. We all dont. It also depends on if you went to a "good public school" or a "bad public school", or rather worse or well funded.

> Violence is not acceptable, verbal and physical.

True. But saying bad words is *not* violence. However threatening violence is absolutely actionable.

> Even if their home life is a train wreck. It can be an explanation, but not a justification.

Again, this is looking at individual choices over what im arguing as a system based failure. The whole way the system is constructed is a failure to students and teachers both.

Look at how schools are funded. Property tax. Means poor property locations get shittier schools, worse teachers, low funded classrooms. And this also shows the students' housing is also likely just as poor. Food insecurity, whole lot of trickle down poverty effects. I came from a poor funded rural school. I had no choice in that matter.

27 unarmed black men were killed by police in 2019 according to the Mapping Police Violence database. (Despite this, 53.5% of people identifying as "very liberal" estimated that 1,000 or more unarmed black men were killed. Only 15.71% correctly estimated "about 10."[1]) There are 800,000 police officers in the United States, so I am not sure you can say they generally enjoy killing unarmed black men based on a few dozen deaths a year.

[1]https://research.skeptic.com/content/files/2025/02/Research-...

"unarmed" is doing a lot of heavy lifting there.

This type of puerile thinking is so common, there really aught to be severe social consequences for saying this type of thing in a public forum.

A 6’6”+ unarmed man of any race could easily kill 90% of the population in a 1 on 1 encounter. We’re talking about a basic physiological reality and we have adults who can freely assert the opposite of this to the extreme detriment of society.

Having someone who thinks that simply being “unarmed” makes them a non-threat is actually a dangerous person to have around other people because they don’t have a theory of human relations that understands the role of physicality and violence and how that should be properly understood and mediated. This is someone too dangerous to operate in an office environment for example.

I don’t think that view holds up to data, for instance you’re more likely to get shot by police as an unarmed white person than black person, when adjusted for population/crime. Even ignoring this, the number of unarmed black people shot per year is usually <20, so it’s not like the problem is endemic.