learning disabilities

[bushido_man96]

Well, you don't have to take it away from them....but you could tell them that they can't wear it....two different things, but it might get the desired effect.

[sensei8]

Well, you don't have to take it away from them....but you could tell them that they can't wear it....two different things, but it might get the desired effect.

YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Now we're talking!

[joesteph]

Well, you don't have to take it away from them....but you could tell them that they can't wear it....two different things, but it might get the desired effect.

YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Now we're talking!

This is what I was saying in my posts. I specifically stated where the belt would be, in full view of the student, and that it's able to be back in his possession when he does what he's obligated to do.

When I said to take away, there must have been a misunderstanding that it's lost forever. I've gone over my past postings, and it boils down to semantics. To "take the belt away" but give it back when the student performs the apology or front stance is done is not the same as a permanent removal.

The belt not being worn but right there in the training hall, with the parents aware, I still defend as being a valuable discipline tool. The special needs child does not lose rank to start all over, nor is he expelled. He's learning that he must comply.

[sensei8]

Joe,

...She threatened to take his belt away. He continued to refuse. She removed the boy's belt with his father watching in the audience and put it on her desk. When he apologized, he could have it back. The boy who was struck was the victim and it has to be acknowledged; it's not the one who struck, even if special needs. At the end of class, there was still no apology, so the belt remained on the desk, the father then took his son out of the dojang (making it, as I see it, a family matter), and several minutes later the two reappeared. The apology was given and the belt was returned.

This is just me, but, this is wrong, imho! Why? She removed the boy's belt, and that's not her belt! I'm not talking about taking a belt away forever either, I'm talking about taking the belt, directly/indirectly away period!!!

Instructing the boy to not wear the belt to class until he apologies is one thing, but, to physically remove the boy's belt is wrong! Father being in the audience doesn't make it ok or right. Also, that boy's not her son, and she put her hands on him to remove the belt, this is wrong, imho. Another thing is that this wasn't done in the privacy of her office with the father present and the fathers approval, but , it was done in front of everyone, this is wrong, imho. I'm not saying that because any child has a special need, that child has a different set of rules. I'm saying, no matter the infraction, we instructors are to keep our hands off them AND their property and this includes their belts!

Suspend this boy for striking another student and if that doesn't work, expel him!

[tallgeese]

It's a kids class, rules are different for kids classes. I don't see a problem with what was done at all.

Personally, I don't have any experience with special needs kids. In fact, I have minimal time teaching kids, that alone is a special skill. But we hold them to different standards in the area of performance and knowledge, there's no reason that different sets of disciplinary rules shouldn't apply as well.

Just my thoughts.

[joesteph]

It's a kids class, rules are different for kids classes. I don't see a problem with what was done at all.

Tallgeese is right. Children are not treated as adults in the dojang, any more than adults are treated as children there. Let's remember that what was demanded was an apology to a boy who was struck; if the special needs child doesn't learn the right and wrong of it now, he will continue the disruptive behavior. The belt is not sacrosanct; it represents that he's recognized for working hard and complying. If he fails to do so, after due warnings, the belt is removed, the parents are fully aware, and the way to demonstrate compliance is an apology. The belt is returned with praise at "doing the right thing." The boy is not struck, screamed at, or ordered to do innumerable pushups (which he likely can't do anyway). If he does not learn social skills in a setting that gives much more leeway (I know; I participate) than other kids' classes, then he'll gain nothing that will help him in life--or even through grade school.

Suspend this boy for striking another student and if that doesn't work, expel him!

This may be the right way for another, typical child, Bob, but it is overkill for the special needs student. Whatever they do, they must feel they are still liked by their teacher and will be forgiven. They simply have to be directed to do something that they can do, often something social ("Yes Sir/Ma'am," bowing, shaking hands, and never intentionally hurting one another) or simply compliant (like the examples of the front stance and reverse punch).

No one is being cruel. No one is stealing. Special attention and lots of leeway are the rule but they do have their limits, even for the special needs student. There must be limits, or it's permissiveness that will only damage character instead of doing good.

This is why it's called "tough love."

[sensei8]

I don't think that we're going to see eye to eye on this subject.

How about this? Let the boy/girl give the belt to the instructor through reasoning! BUT, no instructor, imho, should ever physically remove the belt from any student ever!

"Tough love" is one thing, but, putting our hands on our students beyond the context of the curriculum is wrong!

[bushido_man96]

I can see what you are getting at, Bob. I can also see it from Joe's perspective, too, and they both make sense to me. In the end, it comes down to what you feel is right and proper, or acceptable, in your own school.

I have heard of instances when an instructor "stripped" a student's belt, but it was in the case of an adult who stepped out of line big time in a tournament setting. Essentially, this guy was not being a very good ambassador of the school he was from, and he got in trouble for it. In this case, I kind of view it as an instance where the instructor saw fit to make him a black belt, and through abuse, had that privilege stripped from him.