# Who job is it?



## MisterPerfect (Nov 20, 2015)

It seems society as a whole does not understand whose job it is to take care of the people they are put in charge over. So first I will explain how the arrangement goes. First ill do this with school and then ill do this with work. 

School: 

Parents: Have children for 6 years and have to teach them to behave both at home and in public 

School: Will get your children for lets say for this 8 hours a day and should have a staff of teachers, security, school police, dean and principles which will surpervise, and teach your children 

Afterschool: children will either go to after school clubs, go home, or at a school care center like YMCA and babysitting services 

Work:

School and adults are expected to adequatly prepare civilions to go into the work place 

Work: The workers are expected to follow company rules, as well as play company responsible for keeping workers safe while they work for them. 

After work: Workers go home, and have to pay thier bills, and the police are suppose to make sure they are doing what they are doing as well as various company which make sure they pay thier bills 


Now when a child misbehaves in school a lot of times people say "Well its not my problem, the parents should have raised them better" but honestly if everyone is sending thier kids to this location which is mandated by law they are expecting other parents raised thier kids correctly, and if sy Tommy was raised correctly and sarah wasnt and so Sarah hurts Tommy who are you going to complain to? If the school was responsible for housing the child isnt it now the chool responsibility to take care of anyone on thier faculity?


----------



## angelfish (Feb 17, 2011)

Yeah. This is a huge problem in schools. There's only so much you can do for a kid when they get home and they have no instructional materials, no conversation, no engagement, no emphasis on learning, and so on. If it's abusive then (in the US) you can contact DSS but getting kids into foster care creates a whole additional realm of problems.

I have a whole companies-should-protect-workers soapbox too but that one's long and ranty.


----------



## MisterPerfect (Nov 20, 2015)

angelfish said:


> Yeah. This is a huge problem in schools. There's only so much you can do for a kid when they get home and they have no instructional materials, no conversation, no engagement, no emphasis on learning, and so on. If it's abusive then (in the US) you can contact DSS but getting kids into foster care creates a whole additional realm of problems.
> 
> I have a whole companies-should-protect-workers soapbox too but that one's long and ranty.


Well it doesnt mean the child is being abused so taking them out will not fix the problem of child abusing another child in school ground and if that is the case how do you deal with child A abusing child B on school grounds? Is it not the schools responsibility to take care of kids in thier care?


----------



## Sava Saevus (Feb 14, 2015)

MisterPerfect said:


> Well it doesnt mean the child is being abused so taking them out will not fix the problem of child abusing another child in school ground and if that is the case how do you deal with child A abusing child B on school grounds? Is it not the schools responsibility to take care of kids in thier care?


By 'take care' they'll probably suspend both parties because they are too lazy to do anything. They'll then push the blame on the parent who is at work while the kid is at school and likely even when the kid is released home from school for the day.

The entire work / life balance in the United States is a mess and the only way a person could likely do anything is to be untied without children, let alone spouse until financially stable. Which for most ends up being in their late 20s and maybe even 30s. 

Compound that with the economy naturally and it's no wonder why millennials are getting married later. As if it's a great 'Where's Waldo' mystery as the news media likes to report it.

But yes, the job is essentially being hot potatoed off to the next person or group with the federal government and media lambasting both the school and the parents for actually disciplining their children the old fashioned way through corporal punishment.


----------



## shameless (Apr 21, 2014)

I tend to think it takes a village. (Huge reason while I always made it a point to socialize my children at young ages and teach them that different settings call for different things). 

I do not like to blame either just the school or just the parents. There is soooooooooooo much more that comes into play here. A child who is often very good at home might be a terrible terrible child in an institution I WAS THIS CHILD. Seriously lol, my mom would always get so pissed when she got terrible calls from the school because I was literally acting out like the dudes from jackass in the middle of school always getting suspended. Well yeah I knew when I acted like a dipshit I got to be king shit among peers as well as get a few days off of school. Anyways my mother would get so so pissed about this because she knew I was playing Jekyl and Hyde. Haha even when I got sent to the Dean of students who I totally got along with he was always nice to me despite my being a thorn. Well he knew I was playing Jekyl and Hyde as well. Why because I was perfectly reasonable lol. I would always acknowledge my crimes and just shrug. Lol pretty sure the dean and my mother wanted to just shake me. Blah blah. Anyways I can say literally as a former delinquent who was suspended more times then I could possibly count that I was actually a very well mannered child at home. Lol thats why my mom was so pissed. She even still to this day talks about how my sister was an ill mannered child at home often argumentive and disobedient but in public she was sweet as apple pie. (Seriously still to this day my sister comes off like this in public persona while in home setting in private she is nutcase at times, and me comes off abbrassive still but is actually overall pretty well mannered). Point that is a great example of why it is not as simple as just the school or just the parent are responsible for a child who has free will and their behavior solely. 

Too much at play. I tend to subscribe to the it takes avillage and there are many factors. I like to eco model school of thought which is many layers not just one. I think all of it plays a part and a role. 

I gotta say tho I was well mannered at home and acting out at school. I think many things played into that. I was moved around alot during very critical years, I had alot of contradicting exposure and mixed messages during critical development. I actually seemed to always endear myself to most authority figures despite my knack for defying rules. Why because I was pretty upfront that I was not disrespecting them just their rules. Anyways why was it any school authorities fault I was such a shit. I will say tho, that too many schools let me fall thru the cracks academic wise while I was moving not getting my transcripts on time. You know the last offical grade I completed was the 6th grade. I just kept getting passed and moved up in grades as I moved schools. 

I had far deeper issues tho related to trauma and instability then that which the school should have been held accountable for. And well to be fair to the school they did try and get me evaluated quite a few times. I just always on evaluation days put on my reasonable charming persona.

I think holding school maybe %30 accountable makes some sense. But parents who like to gaslight and project and rush to school to complain often have issues taking accountability for their child. 

As a parent sorry no. See the thing is, parents who have kids often who are succeeding certainly do not credit the school entirely. Just deflect when its a question of failure or obstacle. As a parent who has seen importance in stability and minimal locations for childrens growth and emphasis from a young age on academics, socilaization, and team work, and linguistics, well yeah I pride myself in the work I have put, I also appreciate the village which has helped my kids. Everyone plays a role. But no, I do not get it both ways. I do not get to blame my childrens struggles on the school but then pat myself on the back for their successes. Parents have a very large role. 

Anyways as I said I subscribe to the eco model. Parents are pretty large in that model. School is near and close but not dominant.


----------



## MisterPerfect (Nov 20, 2015)

Sensational said:


> I tend to think it takes a village. (Huge reason while I always made it a point to socialize my children at young ages and teach them that different settings call for different things).
> 
> I do not like to blame either just the school or just the parents. There is soooooooooooo much more that comes into play here. A child who is often very good at home might be a terrible terrible child in an institution I WAS THIS CHILD. Seriously lol, my mom would always get so pissed when she got terrible calls from the school because I was literally acting out like the dudes from jackass in the middle of school always getting suspended. Well yeah I knew when I acted like a dipshit I got to be king shit among peers as well as get a few days off of school. Anyways my mother would get so so pissed about this because she knew I was playing Jekyl and Hyde. Haha even when I got sent to the Dean of students who I totally got along with he was always nice to me despite my being a thorn. Well he knew I was playing Jekyl and Hyde as well. Why because I was perfectly reasonable lol. I would always acknowledge my crimes and just shrug. Lol pretty sure the dean and my mother wanted to just shake me. Blah blah. Anyways I can say literally as a former delinquent who was suspended more times then I could possibly count that I was actually a very well mannered child at home. Lol thats why my mom was so pissed. She even still to this day talks about how my sister was an ill mannered child at home often argumentive and disobedient but in public she was sweet as apple pie. (Seriously still to this day my sister comes off like this in public persona while in home setting in private she is nutcase at times, and me comes off abbrassive still but is actually overall pretty well mannered). Point that is a great example of why it is not as simple as just the school or just the parent are responsible for a child who has free will and their behavior solely.
> 
> ...


Who is to blame is not really reluvant, its who is responsible for the child at what times. If a school is currently holding a bunch of children are they suddenly not responsible for those children since the parents "Should have tuaght them betteR"?


----------



## shameless (Apr 21, 2014)

MisterPerfect said:


> Who is to blame is not really reluvant, its who is responsible for the child at what times. If a school is currently holding a bunch of children are they suddenly not responsible for those children since the parents "Should have tuaght them betteR"?


responsible for what, your being too vague


----------



## MisterPerfect (Nov 20, 2015)

Sensational said:


> responsible for what, your being too vague


Who is responsible for those children. Its very basic. 

When workers are on company premises the company is legally responsible for any injury anyone working there gets while at work.


----------



## shameless (Apr 21, 2014)

MisterPerfect said:


> Who is responsible for those children. Its very basic.
> 
> When workers are on company premises the company is legally responsible for any injury anyone working there gets while at work.


Well obviously any liability lawyer would tend to say that where ever someone is whoever is facilitating is responsible at that point in time. (But you did go off a tangent then which went another direction). I must also simply state that I am not sure how rational I think it is to ask opinion based questions on ethics and morality and often argue that a subjective interpretation is 'right' in itself. Your view is not universal and hardly is the authority on what is the correct answer so when you pose so many questions on human ethics why is it you challenge people if they do not confirm or validate what your own subjective opinion is. I am simply stating this from the perspective of having a logical discussion. It seems lead by emotion then over ration. At least IMO. 

You did go off on a tangent there, but then when I commented on some areas of grey you redirected the point back to something more narrow but originally you had kind of branched off a bit.

Anyways are you looking to confirm and have other validate your values. Or are you looking for open ended discussion where we all comment on our interpretation and world view and are free to state, or was this just where we answer and then are redirected with what is relevant or valid based on how you route the conversation at that point in time. 

I have said many many times I really think that your a kind hearted person and I think you seem to be reflective and really have a heart for the ethics of situations. I just do not understand how you post so many subjective ethics and critical thinking questions which are not universal and pose them and reroute and direct them and challenge users on their general opinion on the subject if it does not align with yours. 

Anyways you always ask about career advice all over this forum and bring up many topics on the subject maybe you should consider a special interest group or human advocacy, or human resources. But maybe instead of getting too argumentive with opposing views maybe consider just letting other people state their views and letting it be. If its a general subjective ethics question I think there really is no right or wrong answer usually. Anyways your entitled to your views. And everyone else is entitled to theirs as well.


----------



## MisterPerfect (Nov 20, 2015)

Sensational said:


> Well obviously any liability lawyer would tend to say that where ever someone is whoever is facilitating is responsible at that point in time. (But you did go off a tangent then which went another direction). I must also simply state that I am not sure how rational I think it is to ask opinion based questions on ethics and morality and often argue that a subjective interpretation is 'right' in itself. Your view is not universal and hardly is the authority on what is the correct answer so when you pose so many questions on human ethics why is it you challenge people if they do not confirm or validate what your own subjective opinion is. I am simply stating this from the perspective of having a logical discussion. It seems lead by emotion then over ration. At least IMO.
> 
> You did go off on a tangent there, but then when I commented on some areas of grey you redirected the point back to something more narrow but originally you had kind of branched off a bit.
> 
> ...


Its not ethics, its who do you think should be legally responsible for the care of the child. Since there is not really laws reguarding this issue its kind of a toss up. I honestly think we should just expand the "Safe work enviorment" to include children AT SCHOOL but apperently no one was ever smart enough to make this into one so people always convinently say "we are not responsible for this" and I find it kind of irritating. Someone should LEGALLY be responsible. So what sort of course of action should be taken in these cases? Who is really responsible for the child? A parent did auctually sue a school for her child being bullied and the school not doing anything and won but legally there are not laws saying you have to keep children safe, just that you by law HAVE TO SEND YOUR KID TO SCHOOL and this made me very happy since it follows my same line of reasoning and the fact we dont have protection for children in school but from abusive parents is assinine. Who is responsible for the kid when and if you say its just the parents, how should we enforce that? if its the school how should we enforce that? So really who should we be holding accountable? Seems no one seems to have any idea what to do with these kids.


----------



## shameless (Apr 21, 2014)

MisterPerfect said:


> Its not ethics, its who do you think should be legally responsible for the care of the child. Since there is not really laws reguarding this issue its kind of a toss up. I honestly think we should just expand the "Safe work enviorment" to include children AT SCHOOL but apperently no one was ever smart enough to make this into one so people always convinently say "we are not responsible for this" and I find it kind of irritating. Someone should LEGALLY be responsible. So what sort of course of action should be taken in these cases? Who is really responsible for the child?


Um yes this is a legal ethics critical thinking question (thats exactly what your asking). 

But I gotta say I think you translate somethings into a separate interpretation. I think most school districts and school boards do have outlines of what they are legally responsible for. Where exactly is your source or information coming from which states there is nothing written any where which defines who is responsible for what. 

My kids have to have things signed up the wazzo to indicate the parent gave permission for such and such when the school states who is liable for what in some cases they hold parents responsible and in other areas they hold the school responsible. A good example would be a field trip release form. A consent to publicize photos. Consent forms in general. I think schools are liable for quite alot tho now a days from my understanding which is why they place so many pc rules is to avoid liability in technicalities. 

You keep saying this is so straight forward but I guess in my view a school for example has many roles so where is it your saying. Example if two kids fight at school you are suggesting the school is responsible. Well I would argue the students are actually responsible which is why schools like to often find ways to find peer solution. This I think is fundamental in teaching kids not to fall back on blaming and copping out for example on either a parent or a teacher. Now if a child falls and injures themselves on school grounds it needs to go thru a court if a parent is for example questioning liability. A judge or jury decides in a legal system based on evidence who was liable. Was the child at fault because they had shoes from home which were unsuited and the accident could have been prevented from external outside measures or was it something within the school which caused an injury like a wet floor without a just mopped sign. So no its not as simple as any one side in any scenario is fully or solely or always to blame that is why we have judges, juries, and review boards to go over evidence in subjective instances to determine based on a case by case basis and individual circumstances. 

And arguing that no one was smart enough to think of something prior to your thought I think might be a case of opening ones mouth too big. Most human thoughts are recycled concepts at this point.


----------



## MisterPerfect (Nov 20, 2015)

Sensational said:


> Um yes this is a legal ethics critical thinking question (thats exactly what your asking).
> 
> But I gotta say I think you translate somethings into a separate interpretation. I think most school districts and school boards do have outlines of what they are legally responsible for. Where exactly is your source or information coming from which states there is nothing written any where which defines who is responsible for what.
> 
> ...


stuff like school field trips is only applied in particular cases not going to school specifically. A child being a victem of physical abuse on campus is often dismissed or the school can get away with doing basically anything they want with the case but dont nesscarly need to protect the child. Also saying the SCHOOL BOARD makes up what they are legally responsible for means the school has complete power and are basically thier own little goverment that does not have to follow any sort of outside rule. Like "Safe work enviorment" which we would apply to workers.


----------



## angelfish (Feb 17, 2011)

MisterPerfect said:


> Is it not the schools responsibility to take care of kids in thier care?


Of course - but they only have kids for 7 or 8 hours a day. A school can teach, encourage, discipline, and reward to a certain extent, but a school cannot reverse parenting. A school cannot change the home a child goes back to when the afternoon bell rings, but that home deeply impacts a child's viewpoint and behavior that they manifest in school every moment of every day.

It is therefore the school's responsibility to _provide_ a safe and healthy environment, but the school itself cannot be responsible for every element of a child's behavior, since it is impacted by so many other factors that are far beyond the school's control. If the school fails to provide a safe or healthy environment, that's when they become legally culpable. 



> Well it doesnt mean the child is being abused so taking them out will not fix the problem of child abusing another child in school ground and if that is the case how do you deal with child A abusing child B on school grounds?


Why would you immediately take them out of school? 

If verbal/emotional abuse, preferably child A is immediately removed from the situation, but not the school, and sits down with administration and counselors to discuss both the abuse and punishment (which should be restorative, not only punitive), and the root issues behind the child's behavior. B is also given a time to speak with counselors regarding A's abuse, and given support as necessary as they heal. 

If physical, that may merit B being removed from school for as short a time as possible while the root issues are addressed. A child cannot be constantly physically violent on school grounds. However, they are still a _child_, and behaviors need to be addressed and corrected. If they are suspended for a long time, the point of school is lost. They may however be expelled from a certain school or just class and required to go elsewhere.



Almighty Tallest Nest said:


> By 'take care' they'll probably suspend both parties because they are too lazy to do anything. They'll then push the blame on the parent who is at work while the kid is at school and likely even when the kid is released home from school for the day.


While I don't disagree that US schools have some systemic problems, I have worked in a public school before, and I can vouch that often it's a problem of essentially being bound in every direction, and not being able to do much. There are some school employees who are lazy, but many who work far harder than their level of pay merits to try to change kids' lives. But between not being able to do anything about a child's home, and many legal restrictions, sometimes a teacher or administrator's hands are very tied. It is a problem that begins at the highest level of government, and one that there are few easy answers to. 



Sensational said:


> A child who is often very good at home might be a terrible terrible child in an institution I WAS THIS CHILD.


Ha! I was the opposite. I was an angel at school and occasionally a little terror at home.


@MisterPerfect,

IMO, ultimately, the parents are legally responsible for the child. The school is responsible for following certain protocols to ensure the safety of the students, and to ensure a positive learning environment, but beyond that, the school cannot be responsible for a child's behavior on its grounds. 

But the point isn't being punitive. Being responsible for a child doesn't mean "IT'S YOUR FAULT". It just means that the parents have legal authority when it comes to the child, much like power of attorney for an adult. 



MisterPerfect said:


> Also saying the SCHOOL BOARD makes up what they are legally responsible for means the school has complete power and are basically thier own little goverment that does not have to follow any sort of outside rule.


Where are you getting this from? In the US, the school boards are required to comply with federal and state law. 



MisterPerfect said:


> I honestly think we should just expand the "Safe work enviorment" to include children AT SCHOOL but apperently no one was ever smart enough to make this into one so people always convinently say "we are not responsible for this" and I find it kind of irritating. Someone should LEGALLY be responsible. So what sort of course of action should be taken in these cases? Who is really responsible for the child? A parent did auctually sue a school for her child being bullied and the school not doing anything and won but legally there are not laws saying you have to keep children safe, just that you by law HAVE TO SEND YOUR KID TO SCHOOL and this made me very happy since it follows my same line of reasoning and the fact we dont have protection for children in school but from abusive parents is assinine. Who is responsible for the kid when and if you say its just the parents, how should we enforce that? if its the school how should we enforce that? So really who should we be holding accountable? Seems no one seems to have any idea what to do with these kids.





> A child being a victem of physical abuse on campus is often dismissed or the school can get away with doing basically anything they want with the case but dont nesscarly need to protect the child.


While I'm sure there are some exceptions, I really don't understand where you are getting this viewpoint from. If you ever work in a school, you will observe the endless measures taken to ensure that incidents between students are handled in a way that is safe and responsible. I wish that I had a recording of all the voicemails I was left from parents blaming me for x, y, and z issues when I worked in a school - and I was little more than specialty assistant. Schools do take on an enormous level of responsibility and it is no secret.

The problem is that incidents _don't_ always play out perfectly because humans are all very different and have different ideas of how to best enact safety and responsibility - but I firmly disagree with what you perceive to be a lack of responsibility on the school system's part, at least from my experience. The issues come from trying to balance legal versus personal responsibility, trying to balance different viewpoints of raising children (i.e., is it ok to let a parent corporally punish a child on school grounds?), whether suspension does more good or harm, when suspension is necessary to ensure safety, whether cultural differences are resulting in behavioral issues and how that can be addressed, and many more sources and questions. 

It is well and good to say "it's the school's fault" on paper, but it's so much more complex, as Sensational has begun to illustrate. A school's control of a child ends the moment that child steps off school grounds - but everything that happens to a child outside the school impacts them when they come in the next morning. My SO is a teacher and he had a student who fell asleep in class every day in part because of prescribed medicine and in part because his parents did not restrict when he had to go to sleep. My SO couldn't (and didn't want to) punish the child for his medicine, but the child wasn't participating in graded classwork because he was sleeping. Should he have failed him? Whose fault would that be? I once had a parent blame me for a child not being able to do their homework as assigned with their school-issued book, because I did not replace it "quickly enough" following it being reported lost. As it turned out, the student accidentally destroyed the book while being careless, and he neglected to tell his parents or teachers for days because he knew he would be in trouble. So when his grade was bad, the parents blamed the school, but the school could not have reasonably controlled the student's choice not to tell anyone that he had destroyed it. But he is also a child - it's not right either to reasonably expect him to behave as a fully-matured adult. 

And that's the problem that lies at the heart of school issues. Children are not adults. The vast majority of schoolchildren are legal minors, and are not able to be held legally responsible. My understanding is that the school is therefore held responsible to provide a safe, healthy environment for children, with the understanding that the school _cannot_ be responsible for each individual child's behavior. And, while parents are "responsible" for their children, including monetary damage and so on, it has to be understood, too, that a child is not their parent, and a parent cannot be entirely responsible for a child's behavior, either. This is particularly true where mental illness and emotional/behavioral disturbances are involved. Many parents are struggling just as much as schools when it comes to those cases. 

As for the exact legal translation of all of that, I am sure it has been encoded, but I know little about the technical aspects, personally. Regardless, I echo Sensational: you're saying it's so straightforward, but to my understanding you don't have kids nor have you ever been employed at a school or by a school system. I would encourage you to go volunteer at a local school if possible if you are really interested in the ins and outs of educational law. I think it will prove to be a bit more complex and difficult than your current perspective seems to suggest. IMO no one has been "smart enough" to enact what you are suggesting because it is nowhere nearly sophisticated enough to sufficiently address the real issues at hand, and would fall apart at a legal level long before it is even implemented.


----------



## MisterPerfect (Nov 20, 2015)

angelfish said:


> Of course - but they only have kids for 7 or 8 hours a day. A school can teach, encourage, discipline, and reward to a certain extent, but a school cannot reverse parenting. A school cannot change the home a child goes back to when the afternoon bell rings, but that home deeply impacts a child's viewpoint and behavior that they manifest in school every moment of every day.
> 
> It is therefore the school's responsibility to _provide_ a safe and healthy environment, but the school itself cannot be responsible for every element of a child's behavior, since it is impacted by so many other factors that are far beyond the school's control. If the school fails to provide a safe or healthy environment, that's when they become legally culpable.
> 
> ...


Its the fact schools feel they are not responsible for taking care of a child and we dont have any specific rules saying they legally have to. Schools are basically tiny goverments and a lot of times do not have to follow law. If they did follow law, any child who punched another child would go to school for assult and the "self deffense" ruling would exsist which in my opinion would be better. There are also people who say "Its not the school fualt a kid got beat up, parents should have raises that kid better" but saying "Parents should have raised the kid better" does not dismiss the fact the school was not supervising the children well enough while in school well enough to prevent fighting. So whats the solution there? Kids are allowed to hit each other since they have to follow "Soft laws" or "School laws" when in fact they should be following "Hard Laws" becuase if you threaten a child with prison, they are going to be more fearful then if you say "You get kicked out of school a few days".


----------



## valentinebruce (Sep 6, 2016)

This is a story about four people named EVERYBODY, SOMEBODY, ANYBODY and NOBODY. There was an important job to be done and EVERYBODY was sure that SOMEBODY would do it. ANYBODY could have done it, but NOBODY did it. SOMEBODY got angry about that because it was EVERYBODY'S job.


----------

