Teacher to Austistic Boy -Ignorant, Pathetic, Self-absorbed

[Superman]

Sometimes being on this board reminds me of the Clinton/Obama debate where Hillary bitched and moaned because Obama didn't "denounce" Louis Farrakhan and only "rejected" his statements. Do I really need to come out calling for this woman's head and declaring her evil incarnate, or can we all agree that what she did was unjustifiable and have a discussion about what may have happened here?

Way to miss the point.

[Darth Wong]

Sometimes being on this board reminds me of the Clinton/Obama debate where Hillary bitched and moaned because Obama didn't "denounce" Louis Farrakhan and only "rejected" his statements.

It's more like the former President Clinton spin-doctoring madly, with you playing the role of Bill. The fact is that you tried to portray "the kid might have provoked her" as an alternative to "the woman is a bitch", when the two propositions are not mutually exclusive. You also idiotically claimed that the original article was "completely one-sided" even though it gave the other side's argument.

I'm simply wondering whether this child was a perfect angel and the teacher just hates him for no reason, or if he has behavioral problems that are not being dealt with.

Name one person in this thread who has argued that the kid was a perfect angel.

[Patrick Degan]

I'm simply wondering whether this child was a perfect angel and the teacher just hates him for no reason, or if he has behavioral problems that are not being dealt with.

Immaterial. This teacher's method for handling the child was completely inappropriate, whether the kid was angel or brat.

[Big Phil]

Sometimes being on this board reminds me of the Clinton/Obama debate where Hillary bitched and moaned because Obama didn't "denounce" Louis Farrakhan and only "rejected" his statements.

It's more like the former President Clinton spin-doctoring madly, with you playing the role of Bill. The fact is that you tried to portray "the kid might have provoked her" as an alternative to "the woman is a bitch", when the two propositions are not mutually exclusive. You also idiotically claimed that the original article was "completely one-sided" even though it gave the other side's argument.

I wasn't intending to make this an either/or; simply offering two alternatives, one, both, or neither of which could be correct. The "one-sided" comment was clearly wrong, and withdrawn.

I'm simply wondering whether this child was a perfect angel and the teacher just hates him for no reason, or if he has behavioral problems that are not being dealt with.

Name one person in this thread who has argued that the kid was a perfect angel.

Nobody has, nor have I accused anyone of doing so. Since this is a discussion board, however, I was trying to start a discussion on the proper response to a parent being told that their child is having behavioral problems at school. To my way of thinking, no one (not the parents, the teacher, or the school administration) following up on reports of misbehavior two weeks into the school year (August/September of 2007!) is inexcusable. This situation never should have gone where it did, with this child suffering months of abuse from the teacher, with no one noticing.

Immaterial. This teacher's method for handling the child was completely inappropriate, whether the kid was angel or brat.

Wow, really? I had no idea the teacher's behavior was inappropriate. I guess where I said

...can we all agree that what she did was unjustifiable...

I was really saying the teacher did the right thing. Thanks for adding so much to the thread...

[CaptainZoidberg]

I dont think they can kick the kids out for doing crazy shit if it's part of their "disease" to do crazy shit. Or something like that.

Surely they'd be placed in some sort of special class with special ed teachers?

Mainstreaming them is better than putting them in a special class:

1. A large part of learning comes from watching how others act and trying to emulate them. In a closed off special-ed class, the role model is other kids with severe disorders. But in a mainstreamed class, the students can see others

2. In my personal educational experience classes are better when there's a good diversity of intelligence levels. The slower kids can learn a lot when the faster kids explain things to them, and the faster kids can solidify their own knowledge in that environment. I personally am able to understand physics much better when I get to teach it to someone else.

3. It gives the kids the perception that they're generally normal kids, but have some issues. In an isolated special ed class, there's the perception that the kid isn't normal, because they're being placed in a totally different community.

[Starglider]

2. In my personal educational experience classes are better when there's a good diversity of intelligence levels.

Do you have any experience of properly setted/streamed education?

Certainly in my experience education works a lot better when teaching can simply proceed full speed without having to slow down and repeat things or worry about different curriculums for different students in the same damn room.

The slower kids can learn a lot when the faster kids explain things to them, and the faster kids can solidify their own knowledge in that environment.

This is entirely unpredictable and unreliable; there is no guarantee that the 'faster kids' will care about 'explaining things', particularly to disruptive retards who keep holding up the class. Furthermore the kids in question may be awful teachers and/or have it wrong themselves. This is why expecting children to do the teacher's job is just stupid.

I personally am able to understand physics much better when I get to teach it to someone else.

Solving lists of problems provides a much more thorough and reliable check on your ability.

It gives the kids the perception that they're generally normal kids, but have some issues. In an isolated special ed class, there's the perception that the kid isn't normal, because they're being placed in a totally different community.

Frankly they're not normal and I'm not sure it's sane to try and pretend otherwise. If they want to be 'normal', they're going to have to put in some effort and shape up, that fact has to be absolutely clear or there won't be any motivation.

[Darth Yoshi]

This is entirely unpredictable and unreliable; there is no guarantee that the 'faster kids' will care about 'explaining things', particularly to disruptive retards who keep holding up the class. Furthermore the kids in question may be awful teachers and/or have it wrong themselves. This is why expecting children to do the teacher's job is just stupid.

To add on to this, it is far more likely that any "help" provided is simply kids copying off another. That does no one any good.

[Patrick Degan]

Immaterial. This teacher's method for handling the child was completely inappropriate, whether the kid was angel or brat.

Wow, really? I had no idea the teacher's behavior was inappropriate. I guess where I said

...can we all agree that what she did was unjustifiable...

I was really saying the teacher did the right thing. Thanks for adding so much to the thread...

Laughable coming from the man still trying to excuse the red herring you brought forth in this thread.

[Big Phil]

Immaterial. This teacher's method for handling the child was completely inappropriate, whether the kid was angel or brat.

Wow, really? I had no idea the teacher's behavior was inappropriate. I guess where I said

...can we all agree that what she did was unjustifiable...

I was really saying the teacher did the right thing. Thanks for adding so much to the thread...

Laughable coming from the man still trying to excuse the red herring you brought forth in this thread.

To which red herring are you referring?

[Patrick Degan]

Wow, really? I had no idea the teacher's behavior was inappropriate. I guess where I said I was really saying the teacher did the right thing. Thanks for adding so much to the thread...

Laughable coming from the man still trying to excuse the red herring you brought forth in this thread.

To which red herring are you referring?

The kid's own alleged behaviour, retard. The one you're getting your ass kicked all over this thread for.

[Warsie]

It's a common right-wing belief (which means that the majority of Americans believe it, since the entire country leans right).

no. Some regions in general do. I'd say it's half and half given the past 2 elections. As an example, The North Side of Chicago has a different leaning, than say the South Side.

Probably best expressed in the South Park episode where they made fun of ADD, implied it didn't really exist at all, and then recommended that parents smack their kids around in order to cure it.

South Park is actually a very good barometer of how the typical American "centrist" thinks: in this idiotic redneck beer-swilling mindset, there is no child psychology problem which can't be solved by smacking kids around.

You are SO correct....but it's not just the "idiotic redneck beer-swilling mindset". Especially the Corporal Punishment past. Seeing people have to pander to be 'mainstream' in politics and the like can be annoying.

Frankly they're not normal and I'm not sure it's sane to try and pretend otherwise.

If people were to pull a devil's advocate, you could go into "what is normal"

[CaptainZoidberg]

Do you have any experience of properly setted/streamed education?

Yes, in fact, my High School did mainstreaming quite well. Severely autistic and mildly mentally retarded children were integrated into easier classes and electives.

Certainly in my experience education works a lot better when teaching can simply proceed full speed without having to slow down and repeat things or worry about different curriculums for different students in the same damn room.

Well, yeah. Everyone should be able to understand the material. But if one kid is at the point where they can really get it, and see the entire relationship, while another kid is just struggling to do a single problem - than there's real opportunity for cooperative learning.

This is entirely unpredictable and unreliable; there is no guarantee that the 'faster kids' will care about 'explaining things', particularly to disruptive retards who keep holding up the class. Furthermore the kids in question may be awful teachers and/or have it wrong themselves. This is why expecting children to do the teacher's job is just stupid.

Well, perhaps at the Elementary level it wouldn't work. But I've seen it work at the Middle/High school level. Faster kids want to explain things because they're passionate and excited about the material.

Solving lists of problems provides a much more thorough and reliable check on your ability.

The idea here is to summarize the knowledge and abstract it. Just doing more problems won't do that. Doing problems is important, but it doesn't provide the experience you get from re-teaching the material, at least for me.

Frankly they're not normal and I'm not sure it's sane to try and pretend otherwise. If they want to be 'normal', they're going to have to put in some effort and shape up, that fact has to be absolutely clear or there won't be any motivation.

No amount of motivation will make a mentally challenged student "normal". What's important isn't that they become normal, what's important is that they see how normal people act and behave - and have a good role model for behavior.

At my high school mainstreaming was very well done. We elected a girl with severe down syndrome our homecoming queen, and mentally challenged students were integrated well into some classes.

I'm unsure if this is a typical outcome or not...

[Big Phil]

Laughable coming from the man still trying to excuse the red herring you brought forth in this thread.

To which red herring are you referring?

The kid's own alleged behaviour, retard. The one you're getting your ass kicked all over this thread for.

You mean the documented behavior that everyone ignored and did nothing about for some reason?

Other than trolling this thread, do you have a reason for being here? You're certainly not adding anything to the discussion.

[Patrick Degan]

To which red herring are you referring?

The kid's own alleged behaviour, retard. The one you're getting your ass kicked all over this thread for.

You mean the documented behavior that everyone ignored and did nothing about for some reason?

Other than trolling this thread, do you have a reason for being here? You're certainly not adding anything to the discussion.

You certainly aren't, no matter how much you wish to believe otherwise by continuing to argue an issue which is utterly irrelevant to whether the teacher's own conduct was justifiable or not.

The only relevant question is whether or not the teacher had any right to engage in psychologically abusive behaviour toward an essentially defenceless kid. Whether or not that kid has behaviour problems is irrelevant to that question. It is presumed that a teacher or anybody acting in loco parentis is supposed to have the capacity to handle such a situation intelligently and if not, that person has no business in that job. It is certainly the case that a grown up adult should not be taking out his or her frustrations on a five year old.

Furthermore, at one point in this thread, you attempted to argue that nobody was following up on outlining a behavioural plan after the teacher blew off the stepfather. But it does seem that there was weekly monitoring on his reports from school, and the stepfather had not been led to believe there was a particular problem going on given the kid's home behaviour was not disruptive or unruly to any extreme degree, until the last two weeks before the incident, when the parents decided to get a tape of what was going on —as per the original article.

So, tell us, exactly what are you contributing toward a meaningful discussion here...?

[Big Phil]

You certainly aren't, no matter how much you wish to believe otherwise by continuing to argue an issue which is utterly irrelevant to whether the teacher's own conduct was justifiable or not.

Are you a fucking moron? There is no argument whether the teacher's conduct was justifiable, and you're getting pissy because that's all you want to argue about.

The only relevant question is whether or not the teacher had any right to engage in psychologically abusive behaviour toward an essentially defenceless kid. Whether or not that kid has behaviour problems is irrelevant to that question. It is presumed that a teacher or anybody acting in loco parentis is supposed to have the capacity to handle such a situation intelligently and if not, that person has no business in that job. It is certainly the case that a grown up adult should not be taking out his or her frustrations on a five year old.

How the fuck is that question even up for discussion, and who's attempting to discuss it? Are you a fucking moron, are you unable to read? I didn't argue the teacher had the right to abuse the kid, so who the fuck are you arguing with?

Furthermore, at one point in this thread, you attempted to argue that nobody was following up on outlining a behavioural plan after the teacher blew off the stepfather. But it does seem that there was weekly monitoring on his reports from school, and the stepfather had not been led to believe there was a particular problem going on given the kid's home behaviour was not disruptive or unruly to any extreme degree, until the last two weeks before the incident, when the parents decided to get a tape of what was going on —as per the original article.

Let me quote the relevant text for you:

"He said Gabriel's reports had both "smiley faces" for good behavior and "frown faces," which indicates the student needs help in a certain area.

Gabriel's reports said he was sometimes "disruptive" and didn't keep his hands to himself.

Two weeks into the school year, Edwards said Woodward talked about setting up a "behavioral plan" for Gabriel, but when he approached Woodward to discuss the plan, she allegedly said, "I don't have time for this."

Two weeks into the year the teacher talks about setting up a behavioral plan, and then does nothing about it. For nearly the entire school year (apparently) there are reports indicating this kid is disruptive and has behavioral issues, and the parents didn't think to address it? The teacher didn't think to create a behavioral plan? The school administration saw no problem having a disruptive student in the classroom? Are you fucking kidding me?

I've been saying nearly from the beginning that nobody addressed the kid's behavioral issues. The parents, the teacher, and the school all failed the kid; you can keep on claiming that I'm justifying the teacher's conduct, or you can discuss the actions (or lack thereof) to address this child's behavioral problems, or you can shut the hell up.

[Zwinmar]

Of course the teacher could just be a vindictive bitch. I saw that with two of my brothers, the teacher actively tried to sabatoge them by falsifying their grades and not keeping her word, and not teaching them. It didnt help that the principal later fled the school in disgrace after embezzeling over $3 Million.

Dunno why she did it, but she just better be glad I was deployed during most of that time.

Regardless of how the kid acted, no teacher should ever put down a child like this bitch did, from her recorded words alone she should be fired, at the very least.

[Patrick Degan]

You certainly aren't, no matter how much you wish to believe otherwise by continuing to argue an issue which is utterly irrelevant to whether the teacher's own conduct was justifiable or not.

Are you a fucking moron?

Look who's talking

There is no argument whether the teacher's conduct was justifiable, and you're getting pissy because that's all you want to argue about.

Wrong —that's all anybody else except you wants to argue about because it's the only fucking issue that's relevant.

The only relevant question is whether or not the teacher had any right to engage in psychologically abusive behaviour toward an essentially defenceless kid. Whether or not that kid has behaviour problems is irrelevant to that question. It is presumed that a teacher or anybody acting in loco parentis is supposed to have the capacity to handle such a situation intelligently and if not, that person has no business in that job. It is certainly the case that a grown up adult should not be taking out his or her frustrations on a five year old.

How the fuck is that question even up for discussion, and who's attempting to discuss it? Are you a fucking moron, are you unable to read? I didn't argue the teacher had the right to abuse the kid, so who the fuck are you arguing with?

Is it really going to be necessary to quote you in detail to demonstrate how YOU brought up the red herring of the kid's behaviour in the first fucking place?!

Furthermore, at one point in this thread, you attempted to argue that nobody was following up on outlining a behavioural plan after the teacher blew off the stepfather. But it does seem that there was weekly monitoring on his reports from school, and the stepfather had not been led to believe there was a particular problem going on given the kid's home behaviour was not disruptive or unruly to any extreme degree, until the last two weeks before the incident, when the parents decided to get a tape of what was going on —as per the original article.

Let me quote the relevant text for you:

"He said Gabriel's reports had both "smiley faces" for good behavior and "frown faces," which indicates the student needs help in a certain area.

Gabriel's reports said he was sometimes "disruptive" and didn't keep his hands to himself.

Two weeks into the school year, Edwards said Woodward talked about setting up a "behavioral plan" for Gabriel, but when he approached Woodward to discuss the plan, she allegedly said, "I don't have time for this."

Two weeks into the year the teacher talks about setting up a behavioral plan, and then does nothing about it. For nearly the entire school year (apparently) there are reports indicating this kid is disruptive and has behavioral issues, and the parents didn't think to address it? The teacher didn't think to create a behavioral plan? The school administration saw no problem having a disruptive student in the classroom? Are you fucking kidding me?

Maybe the parents getting shot down early on in the process by the kid's own teacher discouraged them from taking a more proactive course until he started showing that something really wrong was going on, because apparently his behaviour didn't start to radically deterioriate until something changed —that something being his teachers turning on him.

I've been saying nearly from the beginning that nobody addressed the kid's behavioral issues. The parents, the teacher, and the school all failed the kid; you can keep on claiming that I'm justifying the teacher's conduct, or you can discuss the actions (or lack thereof) to address this child's behavioral problems, or you can shut the hell up.

Liar. I didn't bring up that accusation. Mike already did and you're still try to backpedal from it, Mr. "I hate to argue Golden Mean here".

And when you get the authority around here to tell me whether I have any place participating in this thread or not, then you can tell me to shut up. Otherwise, you can go fuck yourself.

[Big Phil]

There is no argument whether the teacher's conduct was justifiable, and you're getting pissy because that's all you want to argue about.

Wrong —that's all anybody else except you wants to argue about because it's the only fucking issue that's relevant.

15 people all saying the same thing is neither a discussion nor an argument, you fucking dildo.

The only relevant question is whether or not the teacher had any right to engage in psychologically abusive behaviour toward an essentially defenceless kid. Whether or not that kid has behaviour problems is irrelevant to that question. It is presumed that a teacher or anybody acting in loco parentis is supposed to have the capacity to handle such a situation intelligently and if not, that person has no business in that job. It is certainly the case that a grown up adult should not be taking out his or her frustrations on a five year old.

How the fuck is that question even up for discussion, and who's attempting to discuss it? Are you a fucking moron, are you unable to read? I didn't argue the teacher had the right to abuse the kid, so who the fuck are you arguing with?

Is it really going to be necessary to quote you in detail to demonstrate how YOU brought up the red herring of the kid's behaviour in the first fucking place?!

And from what exactly am I attempting to divert attention, dildo? We're all in agreement that the teacher's behavior was out of line; what's wrong with asking the deeper question of how this situation got to the point it did, and wondering whether anyone other than the teacher bears any responsibility for this situation?

Furthermore, at one point in this thread, you attempted to argue that nobody was following up on outlining a behavioural plan after the teacher blew off the stepfather. But it does seem that there was weekly monitoring on his reports from school, and the stepfather had not been led to believe there was a particular problem going on given the kid's home behaviour was not disruptive or unruly to any extreme degree, until the last two weeks before the incident, when the parents decided to get a tape of what was going on —as per the original article.

Let me quote the relevant text for you:

"He said Gabriel's reports had both "smiley faces" for good behavior and "frown faces," which indicates the student needs help in a certain area.

Gabriel's reports said he was sometimes "disruptive" and didn't keep his hands to himself.

Two weeks into the school year, Edwards said Woodward talked about setting up a "behavioral plan" for Gabriel, but when he approached Woodward to discuss the plan, she allegedly said, "I don't have time for this."

Two weeks into the year the teacher talks about setting up a behavioral plan, and then does nothing about it. For nearly the entire school year (apparently) there are reports indicating this kid is disruptive and has behavioral issues, and the parents didn't think to address it? The teacher didn't think to create a behavioral plan? The school administration saw no problem having a disruptive student in the classroom? Are you fucking kidding me?

Maybe the parents getting shot down early on in the process by the kid's own teacher discouraged them from taking a more proactive course until he started showing that something really wrong was going on, because apparently his behaviour didn't start to radically deterioriate until something changed —that something being his teachers turning on him.

And you think that's acceptable, dildo? To ignore a year's worth of reports saying the child has behavioral issues because the teacher says she doesn't have the time to talk to the father? How about: "Hey, principal, I keep getting these reports from my kid's teacher that he's misbehaving in her classroom, and she keeps brushing me off. What are we going to do about this?" OR "Hey, teacher, this is the principal, your boss. When the hell are you going to develop a behavioral plan for this student? Get on it or else."

No, let's not ask any difficult questions; let's just say the teacher's a bitch and not wonder if the issue might be any more complicated.

I've been saying nearly from the beginning that nobody addressed the kid's behavioral issues. The parents, the teacher, and the school all failed the kid; you can keep on claiming that I'm justifying the teacher's conduct, or you can discuss the actions (or lack thereof) to address this child's behavioral problems, or you can shut the hell up.

Liar. I didn't bring up that accusation. Mike already did and you're still try to backpedal from it, Mr. "I hate to argue Golden Mean here".

You jump into this thread looking to score cheap points after I'd already clarified that I wasn't blaming the student, keep insisting that I'm justifying the teacher's behavior, and then act like a pussy and claim you didn't bring up the accusation. Either man up and show how I'm justifying the behavior or drop it, dildo.

[Patrick Degan]

There is no argument whether the teacher's conduct was justifiable, and you're getting pissy because that's all you want to argue about.

Wrong —that's all anybody else except you wants to argue about because it's the only fucking issue that's relevant.

15 people all saying the same thing is neither a discussion nor an argument, you fucking dildo.

Because you say it isn't, therefore it isn't, asswipe?

And from what exactly am I attempting to divert attention, dildo? We're all in agreement that the teacher's behavior was out of line; what's wrong with asking the deeper question of how this situation got to the point it did, and wondering whether anyone other than the teacher bears any responsibility for this situation?

Wrong, asswipe. Dead. Fucking. Wrong.

NO MATTER WHAT THE INITIAL CONDITIONS OF THE SITUATION MIGHT HAVE BEEN, THEY ARE UTTERLY FUCKING IRRELEVANT TO A GROWN UP TAKING OUT HER FRUSTRATIONS ON A FIVE YEAR OLD KID. And if you weren't as brain dead as you very evidently are, you'd have seen that from the jump.

Maybe the parents getting shot down early on in the process by the kid's own teacher discouraged them from taking a more proactive course until he started showing that something really wrong was going on, because apparently his behaviour didn't start to radically deterioriate until something changed —that something being his teachers turning on him.

And you think that's acceptable, dildo? To ignore a year's worth of reports saying the child has behavioral issues because the teacher says she doesn't have the time blah blah blah blah blah blahblahblahblahblahblahblahblah..."

In the real world, which you very obviously have no familiarity with, there actually are people who do get scared off by authority figures. Something you'd have a clue about if you didn't have that head of your so far up your ass.

No, let's not ask any difficult questions; let's just say the teacher's a bitch and not wonder if the issue might be any more complicated.

Some news for you, asswipe —a grown up adult person who singles out a five year old kid for humiliation and bile IS A BITCH, whatever the other issues may or may not have been. I'd explain why, but you've shown yourself to be too stupid to comprehend it even if somebody used simple words for your benefit.

You jump into this thread looking to score cheap points after I'd already clarified that I wasn't blaming the student, keep insisting that I'm justifying the teacher's behavior, and then act like a pussy and claim you didn't bring up the accusation.

Which I didn't, liar. That accusation was already floating out in this thread.

Either man up and show how I'm justifying the behavior or drop it, dildo.

You're already doing a fine job of that yourself, asswipe. But then, you're far too stupid to see it, of course.

[Superman]

snip

Dirty Sanchez here knows exactly what you're alluding to, Degan. As usual, he's just too passive aggressive to admit to it.

[Darth Wong]

Sanchez, I know this is really difficult for you, but please try to stop being such a fucking douchebag. The fact is that you said the original article was "completely one-sided" and then declared that there were some grounds to make a middle-ground argument, going on to cite your suspicion that the kid was misbehaving. It is impossible to read that post without concluding that you think the kid's misbehaviour is somehow a mitigating factor in the teacher's conduct.

You can spin-doctor so fast that you drill yourself into the fucking ground, but that won't change the fact that you made a horribly wrong argument and then you pulled out every trick in the book to retroactively fix it, rather than simply trying to "man up" (to use your ironic choice of phrase) and admit you were wrong.

[Big Phil]

I reacted so strongly (and emotionally) here because, as a father, I cannot imagine any situation where my son's teacher would tell me he's not doing well in school or misbehaving, and I wouldn't do SOMETHING. Whether it's monthly parent-teacher meetings, or getting the administration involved if the teacher won't do the behavioral plan, or something else, I would do something. These parents apparently did nothing, resulting in their son being abused by his teacher, and that really pisses me off.

In a nutshell:

1. My original post is wrong, and the argument derived from it (that the student bears some responsibility) is wrong. It was a badly written post.

2. My position (worded more coherently):
A) The student bears no responsibility for the teacher's conduct. It was wrong and unacceptable.
B) Either the parents or the school should have insisted on a behavioral plan from the teacher. What they do after that depends on how the behavioral plan works.

[Sporkzen]

I know my wife would have beat the shit out of that teacher.

This is a child. I dont give a shit how jaded a teacher has gotten with dealing with children. Or if shes pissed off at how he acts. There is a proper way of dealing with things and she just jumped into the wrong ocean of thought on how to deal with this and i hope she fucking drowns.

Speaking of autism, my son is high functioning autistic. So its not very severe at all. But yes he does have some behavior issues. But he will go into normal school at 6 *b-day in december*, But in alabama. *sucks to live here*, they take children with autism like mine into special preschool at the age of 3 until school age to help prepare them for normal school. And thank rock that he has high functioning autism so he will live a completely normal life because he was diagnosed early in life and we have been doing therapy and such since 2.5 years old.

[Zixinus]

Isn't that sort of normal at this stage of development? Let me help out here... the answer is "yes."

She said that the kid had no sense of personal space ("can't keep hands to himself") and violent outbursts. I have never met an autistic child, but I have heard that when they are confronted with a alien situation and may panic violently, plus an autistic may not have a proper sense of personal space. I concluded from that comment that the child may be autistic.

This of course does not change the judgement of the teacher's behaviour in any way. She has used her authority to abuse a child under her care and there is simply no excuse for it.

[Sporkzen]

Isn't that sort of normal at this stage of development? Let me help out here... the answer is "yes."

She said that the kid had no sense of personal space ("can't keep hands to himself") and violent outbursts. I have never met an autistic child, but I have heard that when they are confronted with a alien situation and may panic violently, plus an autistic may not have a proper sense of personal space. I concluded from that comment that the child may be autistic.

This of course does not change the judgement of the teacher's behaviour in any way. She has used her authority to abuse a child under her care and there is simply no excuse for it.

As a parent of an autistic child, i can tell you that they do have very traumatic episodes when confronted with alien situations and they also tend to deal with any sort of change with violent outbursts and they personal space thing isnt so bad with my son but he does like to stick his finger up other folks noses sometimes. But we remind him we dont do that and he wont do it again for a day or so.