The no touching policy is an extreme reaction. Scientists have long since discovered that touching is a part of normal social interaction and babies and children who are deprived of touch exhibit negative reactions. Our entire family is physically demonstrative as well and my 3 1/2 year old is quick to hug unselfconsciously. This story saddened me as well.

Sent by Vicki Pecchioli | 3:10 PM ET | 06-18-2007

This is a very sad comment on the bizarrely paranoid and punitive state of our middle schools. If one never shook the hand of an adult or peer, a critical social skill in America, how would one learn the proper way to do it? In this scenario, my best friend would have been punished for holding me as I sobbed over news of the death of my beloved grandfather. My 6th grade teacher, Miss Edmonds, would have been punished for giving me a big hug as she presented me with the very special gift of a book of poetry, a gift that, along with that hug, still resonates. I fear for your son in such a "step on a crack" environment.

Sent by Victoria Ferreira | 6:49 PM ET | 06-18-2007

"Not too sure"? "Wait and see"?

How anyone could react to such Orwellian madness with anything less than outraged opposition is beyond me. This "no touching" policy is sick, insane, emotionally destructive, twisted beyond belief. I would pull my child out of any school that even hinted it was considering such a revolting, totalitarian policy.

We have apparently lost our capacity for critical thinking... or at least, this writer has. That anyone could approach such draconian stupidity with a "wait and see" attitude makes me positively ill.

America has lost its way.

Sent by Robert A. Cook | 7:18 PM ET | 06-18-2007

As devils advocate, doesn't penalization make the act that much more exciting? Furthermore, won't the gang signs just transfer to a hand signal or a word that is spoken? The point is, isn't it about teaching children to respect the freedoms they are given, not immediately assuming all children are going to disrespect those freedoms.

Sent by Kerrie | 8:19 PM ET | 06-18-2007

I understand that the information we have from this article is very limited. I'm sure there is more nuance and complexity in this situation. However, the rule is wrong in so many ways it is hard to know how to comment cogently on the issue. Most striking to me is the apparent unwillingness to do the job at hand. The principal has decided the staff cannot manage the situation in a healthy and responsible way so she has created a rule to make that unnecessary. I believe this is an abdication of responsibility that is unacceptable in any area of public life. Zero tolerance has often been the tool of those who would teach others what and how to think. It is the opposite of personal responsibility. Life is full of gray areas. Middle school students are just learning how to navigate them. Part of the job of the teachers in their lives is to help them through this exciting time of discovery and experimentation It is precisely these social skills that they need to learn to function in our society. I do not see how this policy helps them learn. It is about making life easier for the staff not about getting the tough job of educating young people done. Of course all of this begs the question. Have we as a society given our schools the resources they need to educate young people, who are the future.

Sent by John Miller | 9:04 PM ET | 06-18-2007

Good heavens, most newborn animals will die without touch but this pendulum-swings-wide solution will create more problems than it solves.

Sent by Dolores Gant | 9:39 PM ET | 06-18-2007

Silly, just silly. So unnatural.

Sent by Wes | 10:45 PM ET | 06-18-2007

I failed to mention that my only child, adopted from Russia at 2 years 3 months, initially suffered greatly because she'd rarely been touched. Human touch is the norm. The lack of it can cause extreme neurological damage. Only with much work did we overcome the early lack of touch. Please have the school administrators read up on sensory integration disorder. Perhaps they'll change their tune?

Sent by Victoria Ferreira | 12:09 AM ET | 06-19-2007

In a time when we all need to become closer and less isolated, this is exactly the knee jerk reaction we don't need. No wonder kids are choosing drugs and alcohol. Now they sure won't be able to get hugs! This is not moving forward. This is a step back into fear!

Sent by Linda Bux | 12:14 AM ET | 06-19-2007

I work in a middle school. Students should not touch each other. A playful jab turns quickly into angry fists. It is inappropriate for "couples" to display affection at school. It is not the place. We have a "No Public Display of Affection" policy at our school and I, as a parent of two middle schoolers, am glad.

Sent by Carola Kovalovsky | 8:52 AM ET | 06-19-2007

I have heard that one of the most effective ways to breed animals is to put them in cages in close proximity to one another but not allow them to touch each other. Apparently, the sight, smell, and interaction from a far makes the animals go crazy. And then when they are finally allowed to touch one another, the attraction is irresistible...conversely this middle school policy is going to have extreme consequences when adolescent boys and girls finally find themselves in positions where they can touch each other!

Sent by Dave Cacciatore | 9:21 AM ET | 06-19-2007

Carola, would you advocate the same policy for elementary schools? I've lost track of the amount of times I've seen teachers instruct their young elementary school kids to hold hands with each other or with educators while walking somewhere across the school. Would this practice stop, or would the policy be, "Don't touch each other unless the teacher instructs it?"

Sent by andy carvin | 10:10 AM ET | 06-19-2007

I am glad that at least two people replied with an open mind about this story. What is really sad here is not the actual story, but the comments that people make when they really don't know what is going on. The majority of you have painted a picture of a school where there is NO contact whatsoever -- just young students training to become heartless people. It seems to me that people who hear about the no touching rule at Kilmer Middle School do not care to listen to both sides. Just because at first glance the rule sounds ridiculous, (and it does sound ridiculous) people are too quick to jump to their opinions. As the principal said in the article, there are a lot of gray areas that require good judgment on behalf of the staff. Having worked at Kilmer Middle School, I can assure you that you will be more than pleased with your child's middle school experience. I have NEVER seen anyone at Kilmer, get "in trouble" for shaking hands or a teacher patting a child on the back (yes, that does happen at Kilmer too) or someone consoling a student who is crying or any of these "normal" touching behaviors. So, why is the rule in place then? It is for the staff and administration to be able to fall back on if a situation gets out of hand -- beyond the appropriate level, which again is why Mrs. Hernandez said it is enforced with the good judgment of the staff. Even if students get carried away and want to see who can squeeze each other's hand harder, it is not like they will be sent to the office as the media has portrayed. The staff member can simply tell them to stop doing that and point to the rule. People need to do some more research about the true atmosphere of this school before making such off-base conclusions.

Sent by KMS Teacher | 5:07 PM ET | 06-19-2007

KMS Teacher, I found your post very well-written and informative. Understand, however, that the majority of the posted responses are not the result of persons exhibiting closed minds but result more from the second point you make -- that of not having more complete information regarding the bigger picture (which is generally not helped by media portrayal) and then responding given that limited amount of information. I am pleased to know that the absolute rule is actually enforced in a manner to effectively make it a "no inappropriate touching" rule which is more commonly implemented at other institutions. But enough of that. I am hoping you can confirm or refute a couple of points. In an actual videotaped news interview I saw involving the father of the boy involved, the father stated two things. First, he said that the rule was not referenced in the regulation handbook to which he and his son had to acknowledge having read and accepted. Second, he indicated that when requesting the written rule from the administration, it was supplied to him but it did not indicate "no touch" but rather "no inappropriate touching". I am just curious as to whether either of these two points is accurate. Again, thanks for your informative post.

Sent by Paul | 8:04 PM ET | 06-19-2007

I'm also pleased to see the post from the Kilmer teacher. It helped clarify a lot of issues. I'm not sure why they feel the need to hide their identity, but that's not important.

I also saw the interview with the father and son, and it leads me to believe that the truth in this situation lies somewhere in between. On the one hand, I believe the KMS teacher when they say use of the "no touching" rule is selective and not as draconian as first reported. That makes sense.

But I've also been around schools and teachers enough as a parent to know that this rule is without a doubt enforced differently by different teachers, and that may cause some of the problem as well.

I'm looking forward to reading the answer of the question asked by the previous poster. If the rule is not as harsh as indicated, why was the penalty applied in the first place for what seems a harmless infraction?

Sent by Tom Regan | 8:57 PM ET | 06-19-2007

"So, why is the rule in place then? It is for the staff and administration to be able to fall back on if a situation gets out of hand...."

-Anonymous KMS Teacher

Now I understand. It's another rule that's not really a rule. It's intended to teach kids about selective enforcement; to keep them afraid, and looking over their shoulders.

Yes, I see there are a few people here who do have open minds: so open, the wind blows right through them.

Sent by Robert A. Cook | 4:45 AM ET | 06-20-2007

It is good to read that my posting helped clear things up a little. As far as answers to your questions: Concerning the point made in the interview about the rule not being stated in the handbook, I don't really know and I don't have a copy of the handbook with me. I'm sure they combed the handbook looking for it, so if he said it's not in there, it probably isn't.

I do know that an administrator gives all of the students a presentation at the beginning of the school year that goes over the no physical contact rule and attendance is taken to be sure every student hears Kilmer's policies. I'm also not really sure on what rule was handed to the dad when he asked for a written version of it, so it could have indicated the rule to be no "inappropriate touching."

All schools have that rule in place, but then you can get into the gray area of what is 'inappropriate' exactly? Everyone knows the obvious definitions, but what about a student slapping another student too hard on the back because the student says they were just playing? Or all the other instances that fall in that category. I guess there is really no easy way around it.

Like Tom Regan posted, part of the problem is that there is some uncertainty as how to enforce the rule. It is really tough to determine where to draw the line - just like if the rule had stated no inappropriate touching. I can tell you that I don't know of any staff member who enforces it as strict as the media is portraying. Hopefully this gave a little help concerning your two questions.

In response to Robert Cook's point about it being "another rule that's not really a rule." It's intended to teach kids about selective enforcement: As most teachers, I have a rule in my classroom to raise your hand before you speak. If I were to send a kid to the office every time they spoke without raising their hand, the office would be filled every day - along with every other middle school office in the country. What about when a police officer radars someone going 5 mph over the speed limit, I suppose they always give them a ticket? Or when a child asks their parent to stay up just a little bit longer before bedtime, no parent ever says, "ok, 5 more minutes." You are right - these examples and the thousands I didn't list must mean that we are as a society teaching selective enforcement.

So, yes, I guess it is another flexible rule. Before going on philosophical rants, be sure not to lose touch with reality either.

Sent by KMS Teacher | 1:02 PM ET | 06-20-2007

...I feel odd telling him he can't pat a friend on the back, or poke a friend teasingly, or even shake hands with a new student or adult he's meeting at Kilmer.....

I hope you don't have to - you won't if I can help it. And FYI, my son has never seen a fight at the school or a gang.

Sent by Henri Beaulieu | 7:52 PM ET | 06-20-2007

Paul,
I am glad I came across your question.

"In an actual videotaped news interview I saw involving the father of the boy involved, the father stated two things. First, he said that the rule was not referenced in the regulation handbook to which he and his son had to acknowledge having read and accepted."

That is correct. The rule is "orally communicated to students." The state of VA requires...

... The code of Virginia specifies in "22.1-279.3 Parental responsibility and involvement requirements"

22.1-279.3 (C). Within one calendar month of the opening of school, each school board shall
send to the parents of each enrolled student "(ii) a copy of the school board's standards of student conduct;" Each parent of a student shall sign and return to the school in which the student is enrolled a statement acknowledging the receipt of the school board's standards of student conduct

Fairfax County School Board has incorporated the Standards of Student Conduct in the "Student Responsibilities and Rights (SR&R), which contains the School Board's Standards of Student Conduct on pages 12 to 29." See, Parent or Guardian and Student Signature Sheet.

Additionally, section (A) of the same code section states;

A. Each parent of a student enrolled in a public school has a duty to assist the school in enforcing the standards of student conduct.

"Second, he indicated that when requesting the written rule from the administration, it was supplied to him but it did not indicate "no touch" but rather 'no inappropriate touching.' I am just curious as to whether either of these two points is accurate. Again, thanks for your informative post."

What I was trying to say, in the three minutes they gave me, was that the only rule in writing that I can find, in the SRR or otherwise, is one that addresses "inappropriate touching." That is what led into my investigation. The rule as conveyed to the students is "no physical contact."

Thank you,
Henri Beaulieu. (The ugly guy you saw in the interview :)

Sent by Henri Beaulieu | 1:38 AM ET | 06-21-2007

Dear Ms. Church Lady:

This is ridiculous. I see the same thing happening to our schools here in Georgia. Administrators are lazy and they do not want to deal with any situations so they make broad rules and make kids like zombies. We are all alike. We are all alike. We are all alike. What are we teaching our kids?

Sent by Mitch | 9:00 PM ET | 06-21-2007

As a Fairfax County middle school teacher and as a citizen of our community, I can see both sides of this issue. I do understand the need to have some sort of rule in place for inappropriate touching. And we do have such a regulation. I can also empathize with a student body population of 1100 trying to fit into a building designed for 850. That's just a mess in terms of space-management...a breeding ground for incidents, IMO.

HOWEVER, I agree with all the other posters who said (wrote) that touching is a natural part of commuication, how/where else do kids learn about that aspect of social interaction, about "rules" with selective enforcement. That last comment is the sticking point with this educator: in middle school, consistency is one of the key elements we have going for us in the area of behavior managment and to be honest, this policy just ain't doin' it for me. Why have the policy at all if "there's shades of gray"?

I don't fault the administrative team at the school for creating such a policy (obviously they felt a need), but to go beyond the "no inappropriate touching" clause and then to further say that there is in fact selective enforcement, just makes the rule ineffective and near-impossible to manage.

I was talking to some of my students yesterday and asked them what they thought of this policy--most of them just looked at me with the "weird eye"--they too didn't get the "no inappropriate touching" vs. "no touching period" distinction coupled with selective enforcement.

Zero tolerance for ANYTHING rarely works. I can see in the case of, perhaps, guns...but human contact is an aspect of social interaction...how do you regulate that?

Sent by FCPS MS teacher | 8:47 AM ET | 06-22-2007

If I was a homeowner or realtor trying to sell a house in that area, I would DEFINITELY NOT want the listing to mention the house was in the Kilmer Middle School district. And as a parent I would not buy a house in an area where schools are run this way.

Sent by John H | 1:42 AM ET | 06-23-2007

A book on how to get a good education out of the public schools had two fundamental rules: Rearrange home life to center around school life and work, and always support the school and its teachers and administrators. If you want your child to be a success at school, you must find a way to support the school authorities. You can question the policy to school authorities and find out the reasons for it, but to the child you should appear to be, and really be, supportive of the school, if you want him to succeed there.

Sent by Charles Elliott | 8:56 AM ET | 06-23-2007

Using this policy as a place to fall back on is only a method of avoiding the real problem. Perhaps to assist the teachers, who we all know have a tough job as it is, training as a group in how to address difficult issues that arise today in teens (that may not have arisen for the teachers themselves) is appropriate. It could be as simple as the guidance counselor calling an all-staff meeting and calming the minds of the teachers by helping them understand what teens experience and discuss best ways to support them emotionally.

This culture, not necessarily of its own fault but certainly to its own detriment, has a habit of avoiding the real issues and acting out on rejection rather than acceptance. Not to sound too terribly Buddhist, but we are healthier and friendlier when we accept and work through a situation rather than putting it under a blanket. There is a chance for more peace and less conflict by facing the conflict - however unpleasant... or expensive. We've learned that with global warming. ... our poor children... rules have never been a truly affective (other than perhaps on the surface) way of managing life and society, they are a lie on how life and society really works, they are only restrictions. And that which is restricted only comes back to bite you in the ass.

Does anyone know of ANY work going on to counter any of this? Or do we have a lists of all the schools who have such implementations? I am working on drawing up a petition (using care2.com, as that's my direct personal resource and know of no others) and would like as much information as possible, or would like to support anything that is already in progress.

Sent by Lynn | 9:42 AM ET | 06-23-2007

It would seem that all schools have these rules in place. From what I can see, Kilmer Middle School's rule is defined poorly which has led to all the hulabaloo.
In the school district my children attend(Tipton County, Tn) the "no inappropriate touching" rule is addressed as offences in the following manner:
5. Improper Student Relationship
14. Gangs, Gestures, Actions, Signals, Literature, Colors, Drawings, Signs, Jewelry, or Manner of Grooming Implying Affiliation with Unauthorized Societies, Clubs or Gangs.

Along with each of these is a "step" as to what kind of action will be taken for infractions.

Inappropriate relationships are a Step 2:
Detention, Saturday School, Corporal Punishment, 1-4 Day(s) In-School Placement, 1-2 Day(s) out-of-school suspension, and Parental Contact

The rest is a "step 3": 3 Days Out of School Suspension, Parental Conference Mandatory

It's spelled out for everyone what is and is not acceptable and what the consequences are for those actions. The rules apply to the 12th grader and the Kindegardener in this school system.

Everyone needs to take a step back and ask themselves when the last time was that they walked down the halls of a high school or a middle school. For me it was only a few weeks ago. I have both a rising 9th grade and a rising 6th grader. I see the need for making these rules. I'm sorry, but there's just nothing quite as icky as seeing a 12 year old kissing another 12 year old in the hall. It just feels wrong. I was glad to see a teacher step out and pull apart the offending parties, give them a warning and reminder about the rule. I've no doubt(given what my son has told me about his teachers) that if they were discovered again they would find themselves in Saturday detention.
I felt more comfortable knowing that my 10 year old daughter would be in this school in another year.
I would feel even less comfortable if, while I was walking down that hallway I had seen 12 and 13 year olds exchanging gang signs and handshakes. I would, no doubt, pull my 13 year old out of the school system and find some way to pay for private schools.
Over protective? Perhaps. But the alternatives are unacceptable.

Sent by Stephanie Gillespie | 10:34 AM ET | 06-23-2007

This is ridiculous. Schools have become paranoid about liability, and many parents are so litigation-happy that one feeds the other. People who work in some schools are increasingly afraid to do what is right for kids, since all it takes is one crazy parent, sometimes, to put a skilled professional's career in danger.

Sent by Frank M | 11:50 AM ET | 06-23-2007

I am writing this in the hopes of contacting Mr. Henri Beaulieu. I am a local documentary filmmaker in Manassas, VA, near Vienna, and am in the process of completing a 4-year documentary film on wrestling. The film significantly talks about how our society has grown more and more touchphobic. I would like to interview Mr. Beaulieu about this if he can receive this. The film's website and my contact information is at wrestlingfilm dot com. Sincerely, Vic

Sent by Victor | 12:46 PM ET | 06-23-2007

You know you don't really need the rule about touching and not touching; it should be just common sense; you don't need a rule book at school to say that the big kids can't beat the little kids up; they just can't do it; if someone is caught squeezing someone else's hand to the point of torture you tell them to stop without having to refer to a rule book; if they don't stop you prize their hand away.
The problem is this litigious society; teachers are frightened of getting sued by parents who think they know more about their precious children than the teachers do; most of the time the teachers know just that little bit more than the parents but the kids themselves know a lot more.
Children learn everything from each other and follow their leaders; it's a shame really but it is a fact; they even learn from the bully.

Sent by Chris Sullivan | 1:02 PM ET | 06-23-2007

I first heard this rule enforced in my old middle school in a quiet suburban town outside of Los Angeles. I am a recent graduate of a teacher credentialing program.

When I read this article and 90% of comments that backlashed at any noble efforts this school was making, I was distraught by people's tendency to jump at an issue with little or no thought, just to 'follow the crowd.' Obviously, this article was written with a strong opinion, and instead of sharing what your own thoughts were on the issue, the majority, except for the workers of this school, supported this writer with a mob effect.

As a becoming teacher, I hope to teach students to stand up for what's right and be firm in their values and enjoy all things pure and noble and good. In today's article in the Los Angeles Times, it showed a clip stating how media encourages the very things that we strive to fight everyday such as violence, promiscuous sex, and obesity.

These are the very things middle school students struggle with everyday - the need to belong, if you remember your own middle school days, it is very prevalent in the schools. There are strong temptations for popularity which result in violence, relationships with the opposite sex which are more physical rather than genuine nor encourage love, and many students are unfocused on nurturing their talents and potential and instead become glued to the TV rather than study.

I support his policy because it takes away the apparent pressures common among middle school students and limits encouraging them in a place where young adolescents spend most of their time in a 'mob' sort of environment. Instead, it helps to focus on their schoolwork and other activities that encourage their natural talents. Of course, if you wanted to argue further, touching and nurturing is no doubt a part of growth and good health. Hugging a teacher would be welcomed by me and the ideals of Martin Luther King Jr. (of non-violent resistance) are ones I would support - hug! Who cares - as long as it's for the right purpose.

Sent by J Kim | 6:39 PM ET | 06-23-2007

The concept of a rule based on "gray areas" is fundamentally screwed up. Rules at any level, school district or federal are supposed to be applied to all situations. A rule that is used in one situation but not another is no rule at all. I am not advocating allowing PDA and fighting in the halls, but physically isolating students is not the way to create a "culturally accepting" society. I'm also unclear what type of culture a no-touch policy is meant to accept. If it is a religious standard, then the student should be able to express their beliefs and standards or go to a teacher and ask them to explain to other students. All that will happen is that students will find other ways to express themselves. Also, they will be sent into high school, college, or the workforce where handshakes are expected on a daily basis and hugging is considered an appropriate sign of affection between friends as well as significant others. As to the statement that handshakes were being used for gang loyalty purposes, I can name three easily viewable music videos where hand SIGNALS are used to signify gang affiliation or other less than legal purposes. If students start using hand signals, what will the school do then, require students to wear socks over their hands?

Sent by Genifer | 3:15 PM ET | 06-24-2007

A decision to ban all touch would seem to stem from the belief that there is no absolute right or wrong. Since there is no longer a reliable standard for a given behavior and at times a given behavior is bad, we simply ban it. This absolves the "responsible" party of two annoying problems: Judging what's right and wrong; and making a decision in a potentially litigious situation. It's a win-win for those without a moral backbone.

Society and the kids lose

Sent by Mark Reynolds | 3:42 PM ET | 06-24-2007

I can understand the need to protect oneself from accusation of inappropriate touching, but this does seem somewhat draconian to me. Perhaps if natural human touch was allowed, there'd be fewer problems with drugs or school shootings.

Sent by Sabrina | 3:44 PM ET | 06-24-2007

As a high school student, the seriousness with which the school administrators conveyed the dangers of touching in schools struck me as hilarious. My God! As if children, unlike every other creature on earth, could survive without those natural shows of affection, support, and happiness! I couldn't picture my life without the hugs that follow each of the school plays in which we take such pride, the pats on the back that see us through AP classes, or the platonic handholding whenever one of our group is experiencing difficulty. Appropriate body language- including touching- is so much a part of conversation and relationships that to entirely remove it from any setting, including schools, would render daily life bizarre, surreal, and paranoid. It is not an individual behavior to be deemed undesirable and removed from daily life. It is an integral part of human interaction and can no more be forbidden that could speech.

PS As a theatre junkie, what is the school's policy on touching during shows? It would be virtually impossible to put on most productions under such restrictions, not to mention completely foreign to any theatre culture I have ever experienced.

Sent by Bethany H | 7:49 PM ET | 06-24-2007

I've created an online petition to get your voices heard by the school board, please visit and spread the word:

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/help-revoke-the-quotno-touchingquot-policy-at-kilmer-middle-school-in-vienna-va

Sent by Lynn | 9:56 AM ET | 07-30-2007