[[

Got a source? It's not that I don't believe you, I'd just like to know where the information came from.

emanresu wrote:

Rule no.4 states "If he engages in major disruption/property destruction, walk away and do not pay attention to his behavior."

I'd like to know why on earth they thought that would be a good idea???? I think, word-for-word, this rule alone quite literally proved how the system failed him and caused him to slip through the cracks.

I think the intent was to reduce attention seeking behavior.

I agree with QuestionMark that the teachers thought if they ignored his behavior it would reduce any attention seeking he might be doing. Definitely not the best idea.

N/A

emanresu wrote:

Duluth wrote:

I really think that this was a rather short-sighted idea.

I'm no education or behavioural expert, but I'm not of the opinion that "walk away and do not pay attention" is good advice for a situation where a student is causing a severe disruption in class or destroying property.

It's just ridiculous

Oh yeah, it's a fucking horrible idea. I can't believe it was approved by anyone.

Administration might have thought these “disruptions” that were caused by Nikolas were only for attention. I’ve seen middle school aged students cause conflict in the classroom just for the sake of a quick chuckle. Do I believe this is a good method for short problems like these? Yes, but I do think that if the problem was as vital as the problem Nikolas represented, it should be studied in depth and this shall result in something more serious such as an IEP.