Child’s Protection Policy vs Teachers Policy
The Department of Education (DepEd) has adopted a policy to provide special protection to children who are gravely threatened or endangered by circumstances that affect their normal development and over which they have no control, as well as to assist the concerned agencies in their rehabilitation. According to my perspective on this child protection policy issue, it is critical to enact this policy because children lack the ability to defend themselves. They are vulnerable to all sorts of physical and emotional aggression, as well as neglect and negligent treatment, as well as mistreatment, including sexual abuse. How was this child going to defend herself? Who do you believe is responsible for the child’s safety?
The child protection policy is required in order to prevent any type of abuse that could endanger students. This is not just a policy that you must follow for the rest of your life. This type of policy, on the other hand, necessitates a careful, calculated judgment in order to arrive at the best outcome for students’ well-being. To prevent standing out for anyone’s right, it must conduct thorough research. Despite the fact that the child’s policy has been implemented, there is still a process to follow, as in the case of a child and a teacher in Raffy Tulfo’s program. Because we cannot establish that the sentence was truly imposed by the teacher, I believe the judgment was biased and appealable. The teacher has also given her points for something she didn’t understand. Because a teacher serves as a surrogate parent in the classroom, she has the authority to discipline students, but not through corporal punishment. I believe that discipline is simply a reminder to students to be responsible, and that it is part of the teacher’s job to ensure that students behave in class. But I couldn’t find any evidence of the teacher’s wrongdoing. Raffy Tulfo made a mistake in cooperating the parents’ decision. Although there is a policy, the teacher’s discipline is not covered by it. Let us consider the Department’s policy reiterates a zero-tolerance policy for any act of child abuse, exploitation, aggression, discrimination, bullying, or other types of abuse, and that is officially promulgated.
As a result, we were able to demonstrate that there was nothing wrong with the teacher’s discipline. It was not protected by the child policy. Both the child protection policy and the teacher’s policy are critical, since if teachers are not protected, many teachers will perish as a result of arbitrary decisions. The policy of the teachers should also be followed. Teachers should be held accountable. It depends on whether they did it in accordance with the child’s policy statement. Not only do we hear the voices of the children, but we also hear the voices of the teachers. We should not immediately accuse a judge of making a monopolized decision. The final conclusion, however, should be balanced. There is a need to look at this more. – Doki | Helpline PH
