The "Karate Chop" as a School Discipline Method.

[Makalakumu]

I am a teacher and so is my wife. She worked at a level five facility for older children and I've worked in similar settings. My current setting is at a school that teaches primarily adjudicated youth...convicted felons, sex offenders, and violent criminals...all under the age of 18.

Striking a student is not permitted and is not even needed. There has been a lot of good stuff said above about techniques that should be allowed, so I won't add, however, I do have something to say.

Striking a kid destroys any sort of rapport one has with these children. And without that rapport helping them, much less teaching them, is impossible. These kids are survivors and they have dealt with some **** that will make your blood curdle. Striking them would immediately put a target on your chest. "You hurt me - I hurt you."

Restraints are different. When we are done, both parties walk away in good health...although we are a bit tired. When we held a kid, it was to protect them from themselves. Our techniques were designed to immobilize, not cause pain because pain defeated the purpose of protection.

I've had kids who have thanked me after being held down. They realized that they were out of control and they appreciated the way we handled them until they could pull it together. I don't think this would have happened if striking was allowed.

 

[Jonathan Randall]

I am a teacher and so is my wife. She worked at a level five facility for older children and I've worked in similar settings. My current setting is at a school that teaches primarily adjudicated youth...convicted felons, sex offenders, and violent criminals...all under the age of 18.

Striking a student is not permitted and is not even needed. There has been a lot of good stuff said above about techniques that should be allowed, so I won't add, however, I do have something to say.

Striking a kid destroys any sort of rapport one has with these children. And without that rapport helping them, much less teaching them, is impossible. These kids are survivors and they have dealt with some **** that will make your blood curdle. Striking them would immediately put a target on your chest. "You hurt me - I hurt you."

Restraints are different. When we are done, both parties walk away in good health...although we are a bit tired. When we held a kid, it was to protect them from themselves. Our techniques were designed to immobilize, not cause pain because pain defeated the purpose of protection.

I've had kids who have thanked me after being held down. They realized that they were out of control and they appreciated the way we handled them until they could pull it together. I don't think this would have happened if striking was allowed.

You are so correct. I remember being struck with a wooden paddle in school during the 1970's for a trivial offense. After that, I avoided that particular staff member and had I ever been in trouble that needed adult help, whether of my own making or not - that person would have been the absolute last person on the planet I would have come to for advice or help.

Discipline is often necessary, but chopping a kid on the nose is a bad idea. I personally have nothing against applying a sound swat on the behind of a two year old who is pulling plugs out of electrical outlets or running into traffic (psychological well-being means nothing if the child's dead), but popping a fifteen year old in the nose is ill-advised and counterproductive.

Thanks for the input of your experience - I just wish you hadn't disabled Reputation so that I could give you some.

 

[arnisador]

Thanks to those offering real-life experiences and information.

We should remember that those arrested by police have occasionally died from restraints--there was a spate of cases incolving a chokehold not long ago--so restraints of the martial arts sort aren't clearly safer than strikes.

The PRT is basically a double wing lock?

 

[tradrockrat]

Striking a kid destroys any sort of rapport one has with these children. And without that rapport helping them, much less teaching them, is impossible. These kids are survivors and they have dealt with some **** that will make your blood curdle. Striking them would immediately put a target on your chest. "You hurt me - I hurt you."

Restraints are different. When we are done, both parties walk away in good health...although we are a bit tired. When we held a kid, it was to protect them from themselves. Our techniques were designed to immobilize, not cause pain because pain defeated the purpose of protection.

I've had kids who have thanked me after being held down. They realized that they were out of control and they appreciated the way we handled them until they could pull it together. I don't think this would have happened if striking was allowed.

This is, of course, the most important part. You're supposed to be HELPING the child. Thanks for mentioning this and pointing it out. I've had students (I was a teacher at the facility) thank me for helping them as well. That's the whole point of being there.

 

[BrandiJo]

I dont think there should ever be a cause to hurt a child in restraining him/her joint locks can be used i belive that a friend of my who works in a child jail type thing uses them, but it only causes discomfort when the child resists and they have to be very careful around wrists elbows knees and what not and htey are never to do it alone.

 

[TonyM.]

I studied this at the Vermont State Hospital in '82. It's so effective I used it as a Correctional Officer as well.
P.S. I didn't have to.
www.nappi-training.com

 

[arnisador]

I couldn't get much from the site--what is NAPPI's approach to physical control, when needed?

 

[TonyM.]

They have a system of non painfull holds such as the half basket and full basket that protect you as well as the patient. They are generally used with comforting rational talkdown. Avoid the S.O.L.V.E. system. It's too formulatic and I've seen people go balistic when they know their being preached to by a parrot.