Functional people don’t punch their teacher in the face because they don’t have enough to eat. He may have had low blood sugar AND a behavioral or mental issue that needs to be addressed.
At minimum I would expect a letter from the kid as to what they did was wrong and an apology from both parents and kid. I would expect an offer to pay for the glasses. I would expect the kid to be punished severely. A good example would be selling the kids ps5 to pay for the glasses and not getting him another console this year and making him spend his free time doing unpleasant chores for a month with no outings or rewards of any kind.
This is both non-violent, moral, memorable, directly exemplifies the direct connection between wrongdoing and restitution. It doesn’t assign blame to a condition as if being hungry forced him to punch his teacher in the face.
I don’t really see the issue here. Kid could be acting out due to low blood sugar. It’s certainly a reasonable place to start.
Did the teacher expect the parents to say, “Sorry about that, we just bought new jumper cables to beat him with so it won’t be a problem anymore.”
Functional people don’t punch their teacher in the face because they don’t have enough to eat. He may have had low blood sugar AND a behavioral or mental issue that needs to be addressed.
At minimum I would expect a letter from the kid as to what they did was wrong and an apology from both parents and kid. I would expect an offer to pay for the glasses. I would expect the kid to be punished severely. A good example would be selling the kids ps5 to pay for the glasses and not getting him another console this year and making him spend his free time doing unpleasant chores for a month with no outings or rewards of any kind.
This is both non-violent, moral, memorable, directly exemplifies the direct connection between wrongdoing and restitution. It doesn’t assign blame to a condition as if being hungry forced him to punch his teacher in the face.
We have no idea how old the kid is.