Teachers suspended

[Merry]

The part of your post above that I bolded is absolutely incorrect. I have posted the law so you can read that it does not allow for that.

As you can see from my post immediately before this one, the law does allow the use of physical force by both teachers and parents in certain situations, provided the force used is "reasonable" given the circumstances. When such force is used, and its use questioned, only the courts can determine what is reasonable and what is not.

The information you posted earlier was from the Ontario Guide to School District Policies, which school boards, as the employer, can certainly require their employees to follow and then apply discipline to any who fail to comply. But that doesn't make it the Law.

[keith1612]

please show me any single law that says teachers can use force to correct bad behavior.
parents are not allowed that so i hardly believe teachers have it.
it may be a union rule it sure as hell isnt a law.
last i heard in Canada putting your hands on ANYONE for reasons of other than self protection or protection of others was against the law.
you can not beat a child because its not conducive to a good learning environment.
thats assault.

Section 43 of the Criminal Code says:
Every schoolteacher, parent or person standing in the place of a parent is justified in using force by way of correction toward a pupil or child, as the case may be, who is under his care, if the force does not exceed what is reasonable under the circumstances.
This means that, under some circumstances, when parents, caregivers, or teachers use reasonable force to control a child or keep the child or other children, safe, they may not be found guilty of a criminal offence.
However, section 43 is not a defence for every action a parent, teacher, or caregiver may take. A parent, teacher or caregiver may only use reasonable force. And they may only use that reasonable force when it is connected to their duties to the child. Section 43 cannot be used as a defence, for example, when a child has been harmed or abused.
http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/pi/fv-vf/f ... b-cce.html

ok and please tell me what part of this law allows a teacher to drag a choking child 5 ft by their throat for talking when the teacher didnt want?
i dont think anyone would argue or say a teacher was wrong for physically breaking up two students assualting each other etc.

[Fancy]

Merry's post does contain this part:

However, section 43 is not a defence for every action a parent, teacher, or caregiver may take

[OnTheRoadAgain]

The part of your post above that I bolded is absolutely incorrect. I have posted the law so you can read that it does not allow for that.

As you can see from my post immediately before this one, the law does allow the use of physical force by both teachers and parents in certain situations, provided the force used is "reasonable" given the circumstances. When such force is used, and its use questioned, only the courts can determine what is reasonable and what is not.

The information you posted earlier was from the Ontario Guide to School District Policies, which school boards, as the employer, can certainly require their employees to follow and then apply discipline to any who fail to comply. But that doesn't make it the Law.

I think common sense is very helpful in discerning reasonable circumstances with regard to the use of excessive force by a teacher, especially in a case like this one.
As you can see from my previous posts, SEAs who work with special needs kids are specifically taught the hands off approach. They are not allowed to touch students. If two students are fighting physically, they can tell them to stop, or stand in between them, but they may not push them apart to stand in between them. They are also not allowed to put their arm around a student, or give them a hug. (it isn't unusual for teachers to break these rules on physical contact with students with the kids permission, and most students are not aware of their rights)
These issues are complaint driven, much like bylaws, and not all cases are heard in a court of law. Usually the school administration does all things possible to ensure they dont'.

You are correct that criminal law is separate from school board policies. School boards make policies (not just ontario, but nation wide) to draw clear lines so there will be less need for outside sources to determine whether the teacher's reactions were 'reasonable' or not.

[OnTheRoadAgain]

Merry's post does contain this part:

However, section 43 is not a defence for every action a parent, teacher, or caregiver may take

Indeed I believe you will be hard pressed to find a case where a teacher was excused for using excessive force on a student.
Parents, perhaps, not likely for teachers in the past two decades.

[Merry]

I never suggested that the wording of the criminal code could be used to defend the teacher's actions in this particular case (the hoodie incident). Because without knowing exactly what happened and why, it's hard to say whether or not the teacher's action was legally defensible. The only reason I mentioned the section in the criminal code was because you kept saying the law prevented the use of physical force on a child by both teachers and parents, and that simply isn't true. The law allows the use of "reasonable force" in certain circumtances.

That said, the law only applies to teachers, parents and anyone standing in for a parent (caregivers). A lawyer once told me that it does NOT apply to teacher's aides, and other employees within the school system (such as custodians and secretaries). So you are quite right when you say that the law does not allow SEA's to use such force.

[OnTheRoadAgain]

I never suggested that the wording of the criminal code could be used to defend the teacher's actions in this particular case (the hoodie incident). Because without knowing exactly what happened and why, it's hard to say whether or not the teacher's action was legally defensible. The only reason I mentioned the section in the criminal code was because you kept saying the law prevented the use of physical force on a child by both teachers and parents, and that simply isn't true. The law allows the use of "reasonable force" in certain circumtances.

That said, the law only applies to teachers, parents and anyone standing in for a parent (caregivers). A lawyer once told me that it does NOT apply to teacher's aides, and other employees within the school system (such as custodians and secretaries). So you are quite right when you say that the law does not allow SEA's to use such force.

We now know from court records exactly what happened. (See over in SS under the Parent Poll thread)
Obviously, the teachers actions were not legally defensible.
The law does prevent the use of physical force by parents and teachers, and that is why the school boards make such stringent policies as no touching, hands off, no separating fights, no hugging...
leaves less room for error of judgements

I know several SEAs and teaches aids and they are most definitely under the same rules and regulations, policies and law as the teachers and administrators.

[Merry]

I know several SEAs and teaches aids and they are most definitely under the same rules and regulations, policies and law as the teachers and administrators.

Non-teaching school employees are, for the most part, governed by the same or similar rules, regulations and policies as teachers. But the section of the Criminal Code which refers to the use of "reasonable" force in certain, limited situations, ONLY applies to parents, teachers and people standing in for parents (such as caregivers). No-one else.
This leaves teacher aides and the like in a VERY grey area when it comes to legal protection from prosecution in the event someone, such as a parent, lays a complaint.

For the record, I do not condone the use of corporal punishment in our schools. Not by the teacher, or anyone else. However, to say it is unreasonable for a teacher to use limited force to remove a student from a situation in which he may cause harm to himself or others is taking it too far . And it is this particular section of the Criminal Code which is designed to protect teachers from being unfairly prosecuted in such situations.

I went and read the information you referred to in the other thread, and it certainly does appear that the teacher's actions were inappropriate in this particular circumstance. But the authorities dealt with it, so I'm not sure why you're still baying for that teachers blood. The infraction, while inappropriate, did not IMO cause any lasting physical or emotional harm to the child. A bit of a shock and a small red mark on the neck are neither life threatening nor traumatic. Kids, for the most part, are a heck of a lot tougher than you give them credit for. And if this teacher is an otherwise excellent teacher, with a good track record, why would you want to remove her from teaching permanently? The situation was dealt with, and the teacher presumably has learned her lesson and will not do anything like that again. We should at least give her the benefit of the doubt on that one.

But that case aside, when looking at the bigger picture, I still say there are times when it is perfectly appropriate for a teacher to get involved in a physical way in order to avoid something really bad happening. And Section 43 of the Criminal Code obviously agrees with me.

[OnTheRoadAgain]

..... the authorities dealt with it, so I'm not sure why you're still baying for that teachers blood.

I'm not. And I'm not sure where you get this idea.

[Fancy]

We now know from court records exactly what happened.

This was known prior to these threads being started. It just happened that the newspaper item was jumped all over without doing the research.

[keith1612]

We now know from court records exactly what happened.

This was known prior to these threads being started. It just happened that the newspaper item was jumped all over without doing the research.

actually if you read my first post when i started it i was just amazed assaulting a child rated a lesser discipline by the school authorities than stealing from each other.
and by court records the teacher dragging the student got off with pretty much nothing nothing.
if i did the same to my wife i would be locked up.
strange isnt it.
what if she was talking out of place would i still get that same slap?

[Fancy]

actually if you read my first post when i started it i was just amazed assaulting a child rated a lesser discipline by the school authorities than stealing from each other.
and by court records the teacher dragging the student got off with pretty much nothing nothing.
if i did the same to my wife i would be locked up.
strange isnt it.
what if she was talking out of place would i still get that same slap?

You didn't understand my post. I did read the first post. My comment still stands regardless of yours. The teacher didn't get off with pretty much nothing and if you grabbed your wife's hoodie in a public place having no prior issues and your wife not screaming for your blood then it's more than possible you wouldn't be locked up either.

[keith1612]

actually if you read my first post when i started it i was just amazed assaulting a child rated a lesser discipline by the school authorities than stealing from each other.
and by court records the teacher dragging the student got off with pretty much nothing nothing.
if i did the same to my wife i would be locked up.
strange isnt it.
what if she was talking out of place would i still get that same slap?

You didn't understand my post. I did read the first post. My comment still stands regardless of yours. The teacher didn't get off with pretty much nothing and if you grabbed your wife's hoodie in a public place having no prior issues and your wife not screaming for your blood then it's more than possible you wouldn't be locked up either.

fair enough, i believe the teacher got off too easy but thats just my opinion,

[Fancy]

The incident was reported to police and was then referred by Crown Counsel to the Alternative Measures program of the Criminal Code. As part of the program, Ms. Schaldemose completed required community service, underwent counselling and wrote a letter of apology to the student. On June 27, 2012, the Commissioner executed the Consent Resolution Agreement in which Ms. Schaldemose agreed to receive a 14-day suspension of her certificate of qualification.

1) police involvement
2) community service (not sure how many hours)
3) counselling
4) wrote a letter of apology
5) 14 day suspension of her certificate of qualification
6) public exposure
7) 4 months later (and that's just from being disciplined) still being crucified

[keith1612]

The incident was reported to police and was then referred by Crown Counsel to the Alternative Measures program of the Criminal Code. As part of the program, Ms. Schaldemose completed required community service, underwent counselling and wrote a letter of apology to the student. On June 27, 2012, the Commissioner executed the Consent Resolution Agreement in which Ms. Schaldemose agreed to receive a 14-day suspension of her certificate of qualification.

1) police involvement
2) community service (not sure how many hours)
3) counselling
4) wrote a letter of apology
5) 14 day suspension of her certificate of qualification
6) public exposure
7) 4 months later (and that's just from being disciplined) still being crucified

ahhh yes , thats a deserving punishment for choking and dragging a student 5 ft across a floor.
she should get the BC teacher of the year award.
i feel so sorry for her,
bet she did not lose 1 single days pay.