midnightinchicago
Oftentimes we believe that if we go to a book or a parenting magazine or the Internet, that we can find simple solutions to difficult problems. We like to believe that life’s difficulties can be summarized and resolved within the context of a few published words.
But there are some problems that are less easily solved, and I am about to discuss one of them here.
The problem?
Hypothetically speaking, what if you have a special needs kid in a class who is being picked on by another special needs kid? What would you do to resolve the situation?
Wait!
Before you answer… What would your solution be if you found out that the “bully” had the exact same diagnosis, but was lower functioning than the person he was picking on?
Wait!
Before you answer… Add this to the mix: What would you do if the classroom instructor believed that the problem could be resolved by having the two parties – that is to say, the antagonizer and the antagonized – become best of friends?
Wait!
Before you answer…. What would you do if the antagonized person didn’t want to become friends, ever mind best of friends, with his antagonizer?
Wait!
To me, the solution is simple: Simply insist that the classroom instructor keep the two children away from one another and make sure that there are no adversarial interactions between the two.
But if the instructor is not open to this idea, as a parent, what would you do?
I look forward to your answers. Please respond to this blog entry.
In the meantime, I’d just like to ask a secondary question: Why is it necessary that everyone be friends in a class? Isn’t part of learning how to be social learning to reject unacceptable peers as potential friends from time to time?
I don’t mean reject in the mean sense but rather the use one’s own judgment as to whether a peer is a good fit as a friend or merely someone who is an acquaintance with whom you interact respectfully?
After all, when we become adults, not only do we chose our friends, our partners, our jobs (and, by proxy, our coworkers), our churches (and, by proxy, everyone in the church’s congregation) with deliberate care, but we also reject people for any number of reasons.
We may block any of the aforementioned people from becoming a part of our lives because they are not of our social class, do not have our morals, do not hold our political views, have not achieved our level of education, do not believe in the same God as we do, are too tall, too short, too fat, too thin, too pretty, too ugly, don’t dress as we do, don’t like the same foods as we do, don’t like the same TV shows, don’t like the same sports teams.
Practically our entire adolescence is spent forming, disbursing, and re-forming cliques in which the most tenuous common traits are cause enough both for social bonding and social dissolution, and though this process becomes less extreme as we age, it persists throughout our lifetimes.
If society deems this social and anti-social behavior acceptable, then why can’t a classroom instructor accept it when it’s suggested that two kids — who have already demonstrated that they cannot get along with each other – be kept apart from one another before the situation explodes into a confrontation?
Thomas D. Taylor
Co-Creator
MIDNIGHT IN CHICAGO
October 29, 2009 at 6:08 pm
This is an old problem and one that I never understood. I was in Kindergarten in the early 1970’s and there was one kid I could not stand in that class. It was never anything violent, just that I didn’t want to have anything to do with him and I tried to keep my distance. However, the teacher regularly paired us together because “everyone should be friends.”
It didn’t help. Instead it only made me like him less since to me it seemed the teacher always took his side and forced me to associate with him instead of the kids I did like.
Later in high school, a teacher had some very true words of wisdom. He said: “In life, 10% of the people you will meet will like you, 10% will hate you, and the rest won’t much care one way or the other.” This made a lot of sense to me since a few people I got along with, a few others I didn’t, and most of the rest were in between.
Why the policy of everyone being friends is pushed is mystery, though in part I think it is because if everyone were friends, then the class would be less work for the teacher to control. The same holds for “fighting is never good.”
October 29, 2009 at 6:21 pm
Bullying is not ok Regardless of DX. The school knows this. If these were two children without a DX, they would stay away from each other and teachers and staff would support this. So for the sake of the questions. My son is lower functioning and has in the past made agressive moves (not constant picking mind you) However agression is the problem. As a parent the school calls me, tells me the issue, and I support at home that agression is not ok and the school gives that message there. NOT once did the school inform me that in the case we would “make” the two parties friends. My son doesn’t even have that concept, and often he doesn’t know his classmates names.
As the parent with the child that has been agressive I expect the staff to support my son to make non-agressive decisions (and forced friendship is a farce (why would I want to program my son to befriend everyone) That is a disservice to both children. The lower functioning child is set up as a future target and the higher functioning child is made to keep taking abusive behavior. I would be outraged as either parent. mimi
October 29, 2009 at 7:40 pm
Seems like a classic case of “Kiss and make up” which is all it really is: a false premise that everyone can be friends, it only requires a bit of apology, and often assigns blame to the victim as much as anything.
Now, this would be a novel idea, but, sadly, one that would never be allowed: if someone is being a bully to someone else, for whatever reason, assign a bully to the bully, or at least an enforcer, whose duties are to protect the one being bullied, physically. Yes, it *IS* primitive, but to some degree, it *CAN* and *DOES* work, though the time it works best (if at all) is when the bully’s bully is self-appointed protector of the bullied party. In fact, I had at least a short time in my school K-12 history where this occurred for me, and I just happened to be friends with someone far tougher from church who moved into the school district, who rather enjoyed meting out justice. Of course, the school district would never get away with this sort of thing, would they?
October 30, 2009 at 3:20 am
The scenario described by Thomas hits ‘close to home’ for me for several reasons, one of which is my ‘relationship’ with a colleague. So my reply may be more emotional than rational.
My colleague and I have very different approaches to work and life, but each brings certain skills to our job, and in a way we ‘complement’ each other. During a time of staffing shortage, we were all under more pressure, and I found her vebosity too stressful, when a softer approach, asking her to speak to the point, was not working, I took a more dynamic style.
As she rambled on verbally, I would hold up my hand, say ’stop’ clearly but not loud, then say ‘please just tell me what I need to know, not the background.’ Apparently this did not agree with her, somehow our boss got involved, and told us that we had to get along.
Various things happpened culminating with our acting manager (when our manager was on l.o.a.) brokering a truce, My colleague and I would communicate in writing only, and the acting manager would be mediator if something necessitated verbal contact.
To me this was an incredible lessening of stress, my colleague and I made fewer mistakes, as communication was clearer etc. However my colleague did start to ’share’ her verbosity with others (as I could no longer be a target)which (according to off th record talk) annoyed them but not to the extent that they said anything to her. All seemed to be well, and our manager has returned part time.
Where the similarity to Thomas’ scenario of the 2 classmates comes in, is that my colleague made our boss aware of our non-verbal communication, He was horrified, spoke to th acting manager, (his 2nd in command) and then called us in, And after listening to hear my comments about how much better things are working, told us that we must talk, that some times a person will write something, then think of something to add verbally etc etc. he told me that I must NOT hold my hand up to my colleague etc, and that HE would tell her she must be concise when speaking to me, as he does not want me to become ill from stress nor does he want either of us to quit. There is more to it than this, of course.
This does all sound like children at school, being forced to interact, at least my boss did not tell us we have to pretend to be friends.
Cynically I would say the mistreatment (my term) of forcing these children to interact is preparing them for adult life.
Of course there are differences between my situation and that of the children; my boss did say if my colleague starts to ramble I could ask if she needs to know anything else & or say I’ll get to it later and walk calmly away. Children at school don’t have the option of escaping from one another.
Also my colleague/partner is not a bully, just a cling-on.
By writing of this situation, I may leave myself vulnerable, but I suspect that the others involved would not want to be identified as having a role in this bizare setting. Enough of my drama for now
rl
October 30, 2009 at 1:03 pm
In this situation, I believe the child being bullied has every right to want to distance himself from the other child. The teacher is wrong to try to force a friendship between the two. Children as well as adults find that throughout life, there will be persons to whom they develop a dislike for whatever reason. We can be repectful of one another without liking that other person one bit.
Most adults find that they have to work with others whether or not they enjoy another person’s personality. My own personal experience has taught me that some people put on false pretext of being friendly and their actions, be it lying, spreading rumors, etc., prove that they are not what they pretend to be at all. In these instances, when forced to work with that kind of person, I would maintain a respectful stance but under no circumstance would I say we were friends.
If this is what adults must do, then why would or should it be any different for children in the classroom?
October 30, 2009 at 2:43 pm
Thanks for replying everyone!
November 4, 2009 at 5:18 pm
Kim’a comments are very realistic and helpful, ‘imho.’
‘We can be repectful of one another without liking that other person one bit. ‘….’Most adults find that they have to work with others whether or not they enjoy another person’s personality.’……………….
Since school is (supposedly) to provide training for adult life, teaching children to be respectful; without the hypocrisy of pretending to be friends, would seem to be more realistic and fair.
From my perspective, a friend is a personal relationship, a classmate or colleague is someone whom we must associate with for specific situations (school or work).
The facile ‘lets all be friends’ seems like a shallow hypocritical, mask promoting, ’solution.’ Not indicating respect for either of the students as individuals, maybe harming their own sense of self.
I was ‘accused of’ being an impersonal communicator. (by an extrovert who claimed she had never met someone like me) Fortunately I was an adult, so was able to stand my ground. A child might be ‘crushed’ by being told to be friends with someone who they did not chose.
rl