• Welcome to Autism Forums, a friendly forum to discuss Aspergers Syndrome, Autism, High Functioning Autism and related conditions.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Private Member only forums for more serious discussions that you may wish to not have guests or search engines access to.
    • Your very own blog. Write about anything you like on your own individual blog.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon! Please also check us out @ https://www.twitter.com/aspiescentral

If NTs are so good at noticing and reacting to social cues...

If they prefer to not have their classes disrupted, they should put some effort into understanding why the disruption occurs. If they don't care about the "why", they don't really care about the disruption either. All part and parcel of being a teacher in my opinion.
And I totally agree with you. And some teachers do. Those are also the teachers that stay for late late hours. Give up their lunch break. And eventually overwork themselves.
A lot of school also don`t give enough room and time for teachers to put effort in anything else but their lessons.

This is a big part of my job. To get to understand the way. And go back with the child to the teacher to explain the why and how they can move forward together.

@TBRS1 also made a very good point regarding this. I might have sound mean before reading back how I said certain things. But a lot of the time it comes down to simply not having the time. Because of lot of teachers are overworked.
 
If they prefer to not have their classes disrupted, they should put some effort into understanding why the disruption occurs. If they don't care about the "why", they don't really care about the disruption either. All part and parcel of being a teacher in my opinion.

In my country, discipline concerns for teachers has gone from unruly kids to mass-murderers.

Making a complete mess of what is or isn't expected in terms of liability by taxpayers and politicians on the part of underpaid educators in public schools.

Not to mention a related backlash of law enforcers expected to function as social workers. Though in their case at least they are compensated considerably better in comparison.

All very ugly, hotly contested issues here.
 
OP doesn't mention ASD. Just ADHD, anxiety, and "shy".
As I understood OP, the original version of the story came from an NT colleague of the poster.

The data came via an 11-year-old child. But it's clearly been reworked by an adult. Similarly, it's clearly not based on the schools version (if there is one, as you'd expect from a child actually running away).

If it was OP's child, I'd have assumed the story is true.
But it's not OP's story, it's a story from an NT adult, and it's not internally consistent.

Actual panic attacks are indeed hard to miss. And not consistent with a child being described as "obnoxious".
A panic attack isn't something a teacher would lie about, and nobody who's seen a real one would call the behavior "obnoxious."

"Hyper" ADHD on the other hand ...

If this was an NT forum, and we had 100% guaranteed access to the facts and background, I'd place my UKP 100 bet on the mother having "taught" the kid to lie about panic attacks as their "get out of jail free" card for annoying ADHD behavior.
 
If this was an NT forum, and we had 100% guaranteed access to the facts and background, I'd place my UKP 100 bet on the mother having "taught" the kid to lie about panic attacks as their "get out of jail free" card for annoying ADHD behavior.
I'm not sure I understand what you are trying to get across here? Could you explain?

I'm not sure if you are saying an NT forum would have assumed the kid was making excuses for his behaviour and blaming it on ADHD? Or if you are saying you feel confident that the child is making excuses?
 
Perspective and context: I am watching this conversation sort of "go off the rails" here. People behind computer screens talking about how to recognize and know what to do with children who express "distress". We are talking about children here, right? Children get distressed about a lot of things, bursting out in tears for all sorts of reasons. This is normal behavior. This is what they do because they are too inexperienced and intellectually underdeveloped to process whatever happened to them. As a parent or as a trained professional, it can be difficult to quickly sort some of this behavior out. As a teacher in a classroom, you're overseeing a group of children, you're trying to maintain some semblance of control and their attention, whilst trying to give them an education. That's a big juggling act. It's stressful, even if you're instructing adults, let alone young children. Then, you introduce a child with a potential learning or behavioral condition into the mix. Seriously, you can't expect teacher to individualize their attention to one or two kids within a group of 15, 20, 30. They've got a curriculum to push, a curriculum not of their design, as these kids are subjected to standardized testing regimens.

We are not talking about "excuses", we are talking about the realities within the typical classroom. Certainly, growing up, every classroom had kids that would act up in class for one reason or another. Kids were in distress frequently. Sure, the teachers would have to talk to the parents and make notes on report cards, but I guarantee you, myself and bunch of other people here skated on right through our educations without anyone taking pause to question if any of us had some sort of mental or behavioral condition. It is true that teachers go through some additional training in how to recognize some of the more common conditions, but once they are in the field, actually interacting with kids, it's not an easy thing.
 
Perspective and context: I am watching this conversation sort of "go off the rails" here. People behind computer screens talking about how to recognize and know what to do with children who express "distress". We are talking about children here, right? Children get distressed about a lot of things, bursting out in tears for all sorts of reasons. This is normal behavior. This is what they do because they are too inexperienced and intellectually underdeveloped to process whatever happened to them. As a parent or as a trained professional, it can be difficult to quickly sort some of this behavior out. As a teacher in a classroom, you're overseeing a group of children, you're trying to maintain some semblance of control and their attention, whilst trying to give them an education. That's a big juggling act. It's stressful, even if you're instructing adults, let alone young children. Then, you introduce a child with a potential learning or behavioral condition into the mix. Seriously, you can't expect teacher to individualize their attention to one or two kids within a group of 15, 20, 30. They've got a curriculum to push, a curriculum not of their design, as these kids are subjected to standardized testing regimens.

We are not talking about "excuses", we are talking about the realities within the typical classroom. Certainly, growing up, every classroom had kids that would act up in class for one reason or another. Kids were in distress frequently. Sure, the teachers would have to talk to the parents and make notes on report cards, but I guarantee you, myself and bunch of other people here skated on right through our educations without anyone taking pause to question if any of us had some sort of mental or behavioral condition. It is true that teachers go through some additional training in how to recognize some of the more common conditions, but once they are in the field, actually interacting with kids, it's not an easy thing.
Sorry, I don't agree, potentially traumatising kids because "your job is tough" just doesn't wash with me.

If you can't do it, admit it, rather than scapegoating kids and pretending it's all ok.

Seeing a kid in tears is pretty universally known to be a sign something is wrong. If you are deemed competent enough to be in charge of a room full of potentially vulnerable people, you are at the very least, competent enough to know that.
 
A lot of teachers do not put in the time to asses WHY a child is acting. They simply care if THEIR class/lesson is being disturbed.
I know it is a bad way to go about it. But sadly. Atleast at the school I work at it is the truth.

It's not the teacher's job to assess why a child is acting in a negative way. It is the PARENTS' job to get their children assessed and then to seek appropriate education for their child. Once a teacher knows what's wrong with the child, the teacher may have some skills and leeway to handle that particular child. But NOT to the detriment of the other students in the classroom.

Teachers may have 30 or more children in their classroom. It is unrealistic to expect the teacher to ignore her/his other 29 students while dealing with a special needs child. Parents of NT children would resent it if their children's teacher devoted a disproportionate amount of time to the special needs child when the teacher's job is to teach the entire class. Every one of those 29 other children need and deserve adequate classroom time, too.

There is an ongoing debate in education about the value and success of mainstreaming profoundly disabled and special needs children in regular classrooms. This thread touches on some of the pro and con arguments about mainstreaming those children.
 
I'm not sure I understand what you are trying to get across here? Could you explain?
Clearly my responses haven't exactly matched the "raw data" in the OP. I didn't justify why that is in my first response, which was a mistake.
Objectively, it's a side effect of the people (NT IT guys) I've been working with the last few days, but it was still wrong to leave it out.

Anyway, my judgement was that the original story was "spun" to suit a specific narrative (which I still believe OFC), and that everyone else here would make the same assumption (which was stupid - it's an NT style interpretation).

The other piece of text you quoted is an indirect packaging of the scenario I assumed when I first read the OP.
Reminder: this is based on my believing that the OP's version is a true and accurate version of something that originates from an NT adult.

So ... I'll leave out the details, but my guess is that it's a "Karen / Karen's golden child" interaction.
If you know the pattern, you'll see what I saw (though you may not agree).
 
Clearly my responses haven't exactly matched the "raw data" in the OP. I didn't justify why that is in my first response, which was a mistake.
Objectively, it's a side effect of the people (NT IT guys) I've been working with the last few days, but it was still wrong to leave it out.

Anyway, my judgement was that the original story was "spun" to suit a specific narrative (which I still believe OFC), and that everyone else here would make the same assumption (which was stupid - it's an NT style interpretation).

The other piece of text you quoted is an indirect packaging of the scenario I assumed when I first read the OP.
Reminder: this is based on my believing that the OP's version is a true and accurate version of something that originates from an NT adult.

So ... I'll leave out the details, but my guess is that it's a "Karen / Karen's golden child" interaction.
If you know the pattern, you'll see what I saw (though you may not agree).
Do you have any evidence for this? There seems to be a lot of assumptions there.

We've been presented with an account of an event. The event may have played out differently and we only have a third party source.

But, we are being asked to give our thoughts on the scenario presented, not make any assumptions about it's accuracy.

There's literally zero evidence about "Karen's" and "Golden Children". That is pure conjecture.

If we are presented with evidence that the event took place in a way that differs from the account given here, then that is when we can take the new evidence on board and re-evaluate our thoughts. Until then, we have an account, and our thoughts or conclusions can only really honestly be based on that. Not the infinite alternatives that haven't been presented in the post.
 
My colleague is also my friend and she told me about this, while clearly worrying about her child, who has just started at secondary school (high school). In secondary school you have several teachers and usually a diagnosis a child may have doesn't get revealed to all the teachers by the admin or whoever, so it wasn't the fault on the parents.
The boy is prone to panic attacks but is otherwise not a disruptive child at all in class. This is why they abolished the cane from UK schools - because too many innocent children were getting unfairly punished with pain, simply because the teachers missed the differences between naughty kids and kids with struggles who were otherwise well-behaved.

Something similar happened to me when I first started secondary school. I found the science classes difficult, and doing science experiments was all new to me, being so we didn't do things like that in primary (elementary) school. I was quiet and nervous, and was trying my best to keep up during a science experiment, but the teacher kept shouting at me the same way she would shout at obnoxious kids screwing around. Surely she could see, by my worried facial expressions and my intent to get the experiment done, that I wasn't doing anything to deserve being yelled at? I was even shaking with nerves. But the teacher seemed oblivious to all the obvious signs and just treated me like I was a naughty kid by showing me up. Then she sent a report to my form tutor (home room teacher?) saying I "failed to co-operate in class" and that I "deserved a detention". I was like "what??" Was she blind? I was trying my best and was not fooling around like a group of kids were doing (who also got the same report I did).
 
@MildredHubble

I could explain, but it's off topic, and only a small part of it is "ND-friendly", so it would require a lot of text.

FWIW the strongest indicator is that the original story assumes that the teacher is incompetent and malicious.
I never believe that a person in a serious profession is both of those based on hearsay.

(edit: This was written concurrently with the post above, but posted (unchanged except for this) afterwards)
 
@MildredHubble

I could explain, but it's off topic, and only a small part of it is "ND-friendly", so it would require a lot of text.

FWIW the strongest indicator is that the original story assumes that the teacher is incompetent and malicious.
I never believe that a person in a serious profession is both of those based on hearsay.

(edit: This was written concurrently with the post above, but posted (unchanged except for this) afterwards)
No one has named and shamed this teacher. They are anonymous, we are simply giving our opinions on the behaviour described.

OP is expressing an opinion based on the account they received and is giving their understanding of the situation. It's clear it's opinion.

However, what is not opinion is making statements about the legitimacy of the account, based on your intuition. You can state it's an intuition and describe your reasons for that belief. But you have no evidence that something other than what was described occurred. It could be the most accurate and impartial account of objective reality the human race has ever witnessed.

It's like saying that if someone posts saying "A" then it's more likely that "B" is true, when there is no objective evidence or reason to make that claim.
 
Sorry, I don't agree, potentially traumatising kids because "your job is tough" just doesn't wash with me.

If you can't do it, admit it, rather than scapegoating kids and pretending it's all ok.

Seeing a kid in tears is pretty universally known to be a sign something is wrong. If you are deemed competent enough to be in charge of a room full of potentially vulnerable people, you are at the very least, competent enough to know that.
With respect:

"Traumatizing"? I think we're pushing this a bit far.

I also think people are expecting teachers to be significantly more than just teachers.

I am all for making sure kids have a safe space to learn, but for Pete's sake, there's no way to create this magical place where there are no hardships and hurt feelings. In fact, I would advise against this. Parents spend way too much attention to protecting their children, to the point of it seriously harming them. It doesn't prepare them for the real world. They need to deal with all the crap life is going to hand them, most especially when they are children, when they have a support system around them to help them through it. Young adults first going out on their own need the mental tools to deal with the hardships they will face.
 
Traumatizing"? I think we're pushing this a bit far.
Indeed, having experienced being labelled and punished as a bad kid for doing literally nothing wrong, it can be extremely traumatic. I quite admire the kid in @Misty Avich post for having the nerve to get out of there.

Teachers have a role to fill. Part of that is safeguarding kids. Just like when I worked in a car factory I had to safeguard people's lives by doing my job properly and spot tiny defects in parts that could lead to loss of life. That's no exaggeration.

Now if I can do that for 12 hours, in a noisy, freezing cold or boiling hot, dangerous environment, dodging fork lifts, and other hazards at fast pace; A teacher can keep an eye out for distressed kids and respond appropriately during their 6 hour work day.
 
Sorry, I don't agree, potentially traumatising kids because "your job is tough" just doesn't wash with me.

If you can't do it, admit it, rather than scapegoating kids and pretending it's all ok.

Seeing a kid in tears is pretty universally known to be a sign something is wrong. If you are deemed competent enough to be in charge of a room full of potentially vulnerable people, you are at the very least, competent enough to know that.
Agreed. It is not normal for an 11 year old child to cry in a typical classroom and to bolt out a door. Even if the teacher missed the child crying first, they must have known a bit about the child's temperament and personality prior as based on the stated other usual child's withdrawn and anxious demeanor information and then at least tried to get to the bottom for the incident, prior to the discipline.. If not, why not? What are they afraid of finding out?

If teachers cannot handle stress and think they should just treat all the students as numbers instead of people, or think they should just lecture and act like all students are robots, or if the teachers do not care or know how their younger students are behaving or feeling in class, with regards to behaviors becoming more noticeable and intense because of some factor present or because of the instruction, they seem to be in the wrong line of work. Teachers should be smart enough to understand that they need to look out for very atypical gestures, postures and expressions, in these days where suicides, bullying, and violence occurs in schools and at home. They are mandated reporters in the US, too, which implies they are expected to be caring, vigilant and observant, looking for cases where the student could need to be assisted in some way.

My wife was one of those ADHD and very panicky and anxious children who had severe problems learning in a traditional environments. She was not diagnosed with ADHD then, but had many inattentive, fidgety and anxiety signs and symptoms on school psychological reports. Of course she was not expecting a teacher necessarily to diagnose ADHD such, but to be aware of the obvious outward signs, shown in class, and to not assume she was some kid who wanted to create disruptions but could not tolerate the manner of instruction and needs to sit still in that environment with other triggers.

She was in detention a lot likely because of wrong assumptions about her and because it was more important for the teachers to not do any more work than they had to, and to assume the child was just wrong and assume the parents would be doing the right things. Her teachers likely feared more the disruptions to their obedient class and to their professional image as a teacher than the health and safety or protection of her. Teachers' likely biggest fears are classes going out of control by one or more students, or with them being yelled at or sued by the child's parents or others. Had her teachers or school system showed more care they could have made inquiries, referrals or got others outside the school system involved, not resorted to detention for such cases. Yes, that is trauma, on top of home trauma. The school is supposed to be protectors in this case, not an abuser.

What the school missed out on too was a very cold, abusive mother that was in denial of severe conditions her daughter had, other conditions the mother did not report to the school, so these parents refused to do the right thing, too, wanting her to just get over what she had and straighten up. They thought the school would straighten her up. That is not the school's job. It was the school's job though to not assume the mother.s daughter should be mainstreamed or did not have conditions that made learning currently possible at that environment without accommodation or medical help, when the signs and symptoms were showing there., and when detentions kept making matters worse for my now wife.

What is ironic is that these same professionals are sometimes being neglectful and/or abusive in the classroom and hiding behind their professional status and standard principles, policies, procedures and protocols,, thinking they are protected or have all the right answers. Those in powerful and important positions also need to not keep comparing themselves to average lay persons, as no, doctors, educators, police officers, lawyers, etc must be held to a higher standards because much harm can occur if they abuse their power, are negligent, abusive, and/or not considerate or fair, if they do some big wrong., look the other way, do not dig deeper, are afraid to do the caring and right thing, for whatever reason, or if they fear against the grain sometimes when a unique situation occurs, or instead just keep blaming others,, this can mean the difference between more suffering,, life or even death.

I feel there are far more good teachers than bad, but I would argue there are not many great teachers. All throughout my public schooling too not one teacher took me to the side and asked me if they could help me in any way. It was obvious I was abnormally shy, fearful, and avoidant. My face was red, head and eyes always down or away, and when forced to speak I said at most a yes, no or don't know in trembling voice. My parents were abusing us daily, yet the school system and teachers looked away. They wanted to just keep pushing me through to the next grades. My life could have been better helped if someone would have shown more care for the suffering that was obvious than for my stupid grades that meant less to me then and even now, and if I got the right assistance then. Not all young persons get over traumas easily, quickly or ever, especially when they were the victims, not those others.

Great teachers I feel often will every now and then eventually at least once either positively interact with each student, before, during or after class, try to get to know them on some caring level, be vigilant for signs of danger, act on such appropriately, and treat each student as important, instead of having their heads in the sand and thinking everything is going to be fine and dandy each school day and trying to make things easier for them. By being vigilant and addressing potential problems before they start or get worse, this is best usually for all. The school system must look out for the best for each student, regardless of condition or not, as it is they who are supposed to be watching and monitoring them in the classrooms while teaching.. It is unrealistic to think all young students can be totally compliant when often conditions are undiagnosed or under diagnosed, and when abuses at home can be present. The school should have a safety plan in place for such situations, and an objective person looking at things deeper, before throwing these kids in detention that backfires on certain cases.
 
Last edited:
Agreed. It is not normal for an 11 year old child to cry in a typical classroom and to bolt out a door. Even if the teacher missed the child crying first, they must have known a bit about the child's temperament and personality prior as based on the stated other usual child's withdrawn and anxious demeanor information and then at least tried to get to the bottom for the incident, prior to the discipline.. If not, why not? What are they afraid of finding out?
Absolutely! I agree with everything you've written! I totally accept that teaching is a difficult job. You have a lot to do that most people can't really appreciate or even really, be aware of. So I'm not lacking in sympathy.

However, teachers need to be able to meet the required standard for all of their responsibilities. If you can't do that, it's a shame, but the responsibility of the role of "teacher" is not for you. I can't think of any job I've had where saying "it's tough and so difficult to do everything, so I shouldn't be expected to..." would have been acceptable. If I couldn't meet expectations, I would have been shown the door.

In the UK education is drastically underfunded, and there's been a shortage of teachers, which leads me to believe that perhaps the standards have dropped.

Also, the knowledge of ASD/ND traits has increased massively since I was at school, yet, it seems, there are still pockets of "bad apples" in the system who are letting kids down.

11 is still very young. Going to "the big school" is a daunting prospect. It can be traumatic in and of itself. When you mix in the possibility of bad teachers looking for an excuse to bully kids, the opportunity for traumatizing experiences increases.

I think we really need to invest a lot more and make sure we employ more capable teachers than we currently do. It's the most important stage of a child's life and we have the obligation to darned well get it right.
 
Sorry, I don't agree, potentially traumatising kids because "your job is tough" just doesn't wash with me.

If you can't do it, admit it, rather than scapegoating kids and pretending it's all ok.

Seeing a kid in tears is pretty universally known to be a sign something is wrong. If you are deemed competent enough to be in charge of a room full of potentially vulnerable people, you are at the very least, competent enough to know that.
You would be surprised how many 11 year old can cry without there being anything wrong with them. Kids CAN manipulate very well. Especially kids who do it at home all the time. Which is becoming an increasing problem.
 
You would be surprised how many 11 year old can cry without there being anything wrong with them. Kids CAN manipulate very well. Especially kids who do it at home all the time. Which is becoming an increasing problem.
Indeed.

Children are not innately honest. But nor are they naturally deceitful.
They have to be taught that honesty is expected, and they have to be helped to understand the "grey areas", because absolute honesty all the time isn't the best policy.
It's not hard to teach this - but you have to "practice what you preach", because they copy more than they listen lol.

Parents who don't do this are part of the process that teaches narcissistic behaviors to so many children.
Bad parenting creates selfish, entitled, delusional children, who cause considerable harm to people around them.

The only upside is that this is by far the most interesting period of societal change I've ever experienced :)

Back on topic: "big Karen / little Karen/Ken" is the best fit by far., but it's not certain. I'd put it at 75%.
 
Indeed.

Children are not innately honest. But nor are they naturally deceitful.
They have to be taught that honesty is expected, and they have to be helped to understand the "grey areas", because absolute honesty all the time isn't the best policy.
It's not hard to teach this - but you have to "practice what you preach", because they copy more than they listen lol.

Parents who don't do this are part of the process that teaches narcissistic behaviors to so many children.
Bad parenting creates selfish, entitled, delusional children, who cause considerable harm to people around them.

The only upside is that this is by far the most interesting period of societal change I've ever experienced :)

Back on topic: "big Karen / little Karen/Ken" is the best fit by far., but it's not certain. I'd put it at 75%.

The "Karen" analogy is well described as helicopter or bulldozer parenting. Many children would be a lot better off if their overly involved parents took a more hands off approach to parenting and allow children to learn how to coexist and thrive in the real world.

There is no indication whatsoever in the original post that the 11-year-old is autistic.
I'd like to know what the mother/coworker did after her son's interaction with the teacher. Is she just complaining to the OP and condemning the teacher or did she trot herself down to the school to speak directly to the principal or the teacher about her little boy's aberrant classroom behavior and the child's alleged diagnosis. Is the child diagnosed by the mother or by a professional? There is a paucity of information in the original post to do much more than merely theorize about the appropriateness of the teacher's response to the child's behavior.
 
Last edited:

New Threads

Top Bottom