Two adults should be present when teaching children OR YOUTH

[cinepro]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

The big question we have is seminary. Do we need a second teacher for early morning classes in every room.

 

I think the answer is no, because the kids aren't paying enough attention to be "groomed."

(But the more interesting question is whether or not this would apply to time-release seminary in Utah, which would double the number of paid teachers!)

Edited May 24, 2018 by cinepro

[provoman]

3 minutes ago, cinepro said:

My ward has implemented this.  I did notice a class from another ward on Sunday had the door propped open with a garbage can and just one teacher, so that might be the emergency fix if one of the teachers doesn't show up. 

When my son was a deacon, we had the opposite problem.  For some reason, we had an instructor, counselor from the Presidency, counselor from the Bishopric, Scoutmaster and asst. Scoutmaster (or two) there each week.  We usually didn't have even five deacons, and it was a small room, so the boys were outnumbered by adults.  It was my impression that most of the "input" for the lessons was coming from the adults and the boys just sat there quietly (and bored out of their minds).  We've since had a change in Bishops and YM Presidencies (and my son is no longer a deacon), so I don't know if this has continued.

Door open was the published work around to the previous requirement that a male cannot teach without another adult in the room. 

[ksfisher]

6 minutes ago, cinepro said:

When my son was a deacon, we had the opposite problem.  For some reason, we had an instructor, counselor from the Presidency, counselor from the Bishopric, Scoutmaster and asst. Scoutmaster (or two) there each week.  We usually didn't have even five deacons, and it was a small room, so the boys were outnumbered by adults

I used to hate this when I was a youth, feeling outnumbered by the adults.  More adults in a room seems to equal less participation by youth. 

[Amulek]

5 hours ago, amo said:

Has this new policy been implemented and followed in your wards/branches…?

This has been implemented in our ward beginning the first week after it was announced. 

If your co-teacher isn't present, you just prop the door open and the appropriate auxiliary president will send someone (usually, fairly quickly) to be your '2-deep leadership' partner for the day. 

Works pretty well so far. 

[Calm]

5 hours ago, rongo said:

 

I have to wonder if the instructions are simply supposed to exist, so that people can be thrown under the bus if anything happens. Bottom line is: follow the instructions, so that you're covered if anything were to happen. 

I suspect it is more once exceptions start being made, they tend to spread.  It is easier to understand and therefore ultimately implement imo very clear instructions rather than spending time and effort debating where the line can be crossed.

And as opposed to intent to throw people under the bus, why not look at it as trying to protect/cover them to the best of their ability so people don't stumble under the bus on their own?

Edited May 24, 2018 by Calm

[Calm]

4 hours ago, cinepro said:

I think the answer is no, because the kids aren't paying enough attention to be "groomed."

(But the more interesting question is whether or not this would apply to time-release seminary in Utah, which would double the number of paid teachers!)

Public school teachers are allowed to be the only adult in the room, it would be interesting if this isn't allowed elsewhere for safety reasons given school is probably the activity kids spend the most time with adults outside of family.  If a practice is seen as essential for kids' safety, it should definitely be implemented where it will have the most impact and the activity they spend the most time at would be the most efficient implementation it seems to me.

Primary classes can vary in size a lot, perhaps the fact that often they may be only a few kids makes a difference.  Seminary classes tend to be larger.  Kids will likely do independent study if so few, I am guessing.

Edited May 24, 2018 by Calm

[Guest]

7 hours ago, amo said:

On March 26, the First Presidency sent a "resource document" to Church leaders in the United States and Canada “in a continuing effort to counsel leaders on how to prevent, identify, and respond to abuse”.

 

One of the new policies states :

“When adults are teaching children or youth in Church settings, at least two responsible adults should be present. The two adults could be two men, two women, or a married couple (see Handbook 2: Administering the Church [2010], 11.8.1). Where it may not be practical to have at least two adults in a classroom, leaders should consider combining classes.” ("resource document" )

 

My question is :

Has this new policy been implemented and followed in your wards/branches…?

 

Yes it has, and a good idea. It protects children and adults. 

[Hamba Tuhan]

I don't live in North America. On a recent conference call with one of our Area Seventies, a stake president who had heard of this asked if we would be getting the same policy letter. The response: not as far as he knew. We simply couldn't do it in our ward. We do have large windows in every single one of our classrooms, added a few years ago. And in our jurisdiction, all those who work with youth or the elderly are required to undergo a government review and carry a card.

[bluebell]

6 hours ago, ksfisher said:

We have a goal of following the policy 100% of the time.  But, with teachers not letting anyone know they're not going to be in church this just isn't always possible.  We don't have the resources to cover everything, always.

 

When that happens in our ward they just ask adults that are attending Sunday school or RS/Elder's quorum.  Not a perfect solution but it works in a pinch.

[changed]

6 hours ago, ksfisher said:

We have a goal of following the policy 100% of the time.  But, with teachers not letting anyone know they're not going to be in church this just isn't always possible.  We don't have the resources to cover everything, always.

 

 

If boy scouts can folllow two-deep policies, the church can too. 

The solution is in the instructions - if you do not have enough adult leaders, combine classes.  simple.  

[changed]

19 minutes ago, bluebell said:

When that happens in our ward they just ask adults that are attending Sunday school or RS/Elder's quorum.  Not a perfect solution but it works in a pinch.

Yes, that is another simple solution.  This is not rocket science - there are plenty of adults.  

There are no excuses for not having two-deep leadership.  

[changed]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

Public school teachers are allowed to be the only adult in the room, it would be interesting if this isn't allowed elsewhere for safety reasons given school is probably the activity kids spend the most time with adults outside of family.  If a practice is seen as essential for kids' safety, it should definitely be implemented where it will have the most impact and the activity they spend the most time at would be the most efficient implementation it seems to me.

Primary classes can vary in size a lot, perhaps the fact that often they may be only a few kids makes a difference.  Seminary classes tend to be larger.  Kids will likely do independent study if so few, I am guessing.

Public school teachers have undergone background checks, and training on how to work with large groups of kids.  

Adults that have not had background checks, and are not certified teachers - this is an entirely different crowd of people.

[Robert F. Smith]

8 hours ago, rongo said:

It does raise questions that have never been thought about before. What about break-out sessions for a stake youth conference? I had like 30 youth per rotation when I taught the one on dealing with concerns and difficult questions. No opportunity for anything to happen, and it's even less of a "grooming" environment than what the most fanatical of critics claim ("even if everything is above board in the interview, the very fact that it is one-on-one and worthiness is asked about constitutes grooming"). But, strictly interpreted, with no exceptions, yes, it should always be two adults. According to the instructions. 

I have to wonder if the instructions are simply supposed to exist, so that people can be thrown under the bus if anything happens. Bottom line is: follow the instructions, so that you're covered if anything were to happen. 

Put more positively, it means that legally the Brethren can claim to have done "due diligence."  The same applies to the Scouting program which already implemented those rules over a year ago, in addition to the practice of Scouting executives of running background checks on potential Scout leaders.  Youth programs seem to attract child molesters for the simple reason that that is where the children are.  Perhaps all these measures will discourage future efforts by such ignoble people to wend their way into youth programs.

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

Public school teachers are allowed to be the only adult in the room, it would be interesting if this isn't allowed elsewhere for safety reasons given school is probably the activity kids spend the most time with adults outside of family.  If a practice is seen as essential for kids' safety, it should definitely be implemented where it will have the most impact and the activity they spend the most time at would be the most efficient implementation it seems to me...........................

I don't see a need for two teachers in a classroom.  That is going too far, and we cannot afford education expenses as is now.  Volunteer teacher's aides could fulfill that function.  We could vastly improve teaching in America, if we were willing to pay them a decent wage.

[changed]

7 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

...Youth programs seem to attract child molesters for the simple reason that that is where the children are.  ...

You can say that again.

[Storm Rider]

9 hours ago, amo said:

On March 26, the First Presidency sent a "resource document" to Church leaders in the United States and Canada “in a continuing effort to counsel leaders on how to prevent, identify, and respond to abuse”.

 

One of the new policies states :

“When adults are teaching children or youth in Church settings, at least two responsible adults should be present. The two adults could be two men, two women, or a married couple (see Handbook 2: Administering the Church [2010], 11.8.1). Where it may not be practical to have at least two adults in a classroom, leaders should consider combining classes.” ("resource document" )

 

My question is :

Has this new policy been implemented and followed in your wards/branches…?

 

Yes

[changed]

1 minute ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I don't see a need for two teachers in a classroom.  That is going too far, and we cannot afford education expenses as is now.  Volunteer teacher's aides could fulfill that function.  We could vastly improve teaching in America, if we were willing to pay them a decent wage.

We have a very strong PTA in our school, the best people to have helping out in all classrooms - both church and school -  are parents.  

[Prof]

36 minutes ago, bluebell said:

When that happens in our ward they just ask adults that are attending Sunday school or RS/Elder's quorum.  Not a perfect solution but it works in a pinch.

In my ward, there are often a lot of people (Adults) who congregate in the lobby rather than go to classes. My hope is that these people become the pool of subs. If a 2nd adult is needed, just walk down to the lobby. You will find someone there.

[provoman]

29 minutes ago, changed said:

 

If boy scouts can folllow two-deep policies, the church can too. 

The solution is in the instructions - if you do not have enough adult leaders, combine classes.  simple.  

WHAT WHAT WHAT, combine classes.....what.

[bluebell]

14 minutes ago, Prof said:

In my ward, there are often a lot of people (Adults) who congregate in the lobby rather than go to classes. My hope is that these people become the pool of subs. If a 2nd adult is needed, just walk down to the lobby. You will find someone there.

So true!

[Calm]

46 minutes ago, changed said:

Public school teachers have undergone background checks, and training on how to work with large groups of kids.  

Adults that have not had background checks, and are not certified teachers - this is an entirely different crowd of people.

True (been awhile since I volunteered and they weren't doing background checks at the time so I forget that those are required at times) and while I am not sure training does anything to prevent predators seeking out victims (though it may alter the way they do it to avoid getting caught), it can help with other forms of nonintentional abuse such as corporal punishment  (why is it corporal punishment and not corporeal?), bullying, etc. be avoided.

I wonder what the percentage of abusers are in school teacher population vs. Church class teachers given that the First are those who choose to work with children while the latter are 'volunteered' by others.

Edited May 25, 2018 by Calm

[Rivers]

9 hours ago, amo said:

On March 26, the First Presidency sent a "resource document" to Church leaders in the United States and Canada “in a continuing effort to counsel leaders on how to prevent, identify, and respond to abuse”.

 

One of the new policies states :

“When adults are teaching children or youth in Church settings, at least two responsible adults should be present. The two adults could be two men, two women, or a married couple (see Handbook 2: Administering the Church [2010], 11.8.1). Where it may not be practical to have at least two adults in a classroom, leaders should consider combining classes.” ("resource document" )

 

My question is :

Has this new policy been implemented and followed in your wards/branches…?

 

This has been implemented in our ward.  It makes it so the primary has to scrounge for substitutes a lot.

[Hamba Tuhan]

51 minutes ago, changed said:

Adults that have not had background checks ...

As noted above, where I live, we all have to have background checks and renew them every three years (though the government is changing it to five since they can’t keep up). This means that we basically ask all adult Church members to carry certification at all times just so they can help. We can’t tap people on the shoulder to join a class last-minute if they don’t have their cards on them. 

[USU78]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I don't see a need for two teachers in a classroom.  That is going too far, and we cannot afford education expenses as is now.  Volunteer teacher's aides could fulfill that function.  We could vastly improve teaching in America, if we were willing to pay them a decent wage.

A kid is more likely to be abused by a school teacher than any other class of unrelated persons.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I don't see a need for two teachers in a classroom.  That is going too far, and we cannot afford education expenses as is now.  Volunteer teacher's aides could fulfill that function.  We could vastly improve teaching in America, if we were willing to pay them a decent wage.

I am not suggesting it, it just seems like it would be a natural progression for those concerned.

Otoh, my son's first grade teacher was known for screaming at the kids.  There were thirty plus kids in the other class and 15 in hers.  I went in almost daily to volunteer because I figured she wouldn't scream if another adult was in the class.  She couldn't exactly turn down the help without looking odd.  The principal encouraged my efforts.  The teacher refused to let me help with the kids though and just gave me stuff to xerox...the shelf that ran the length of the room was filled with about 2 feet deep of worksheets that were never used that year.  I tended to wander down to the library or volunteered for tutoring for other classes, but she never knew when I might pop in, so it worked as well as being there I am guessing.  My son also reported there was no yelling that year.

That was almost thirty years ago, so maybe it would be easier to insist she be retired these days.  She was in her sixties, maybe even late sixties, but was just shy of mandatory retirement and supposedly insurance wasn't as good after retirement.  Her husband was diabetic and had major health problems, which is the reason why the principal said she wouldn't fire her.

Edited May 25, 2018 by Calm