Looking at this again:
You and others have describes kids shutting down as a result of the environment. If my kid shut down, then I would also take action and do it quickly. I thought I had said that pretty clearly in all my posts, but I guess I didn't say it clearly enough, so I am saying it again. If your child is being harmed, you are a doing a good thing by drastically changing that situation which includes pulling them out.
I think maybe it all comes down to the definition of harm. I guess that's where the parental insecurity comes in. You didn't define what you saw happening to your child as harm, acs, so you felt good about using it as a teachable moment. I support that. I did define what I saw as harm to my child, and I think you support my choice. For both of us, I think the distinction between harm/not harm was pretty clear.
But not all cases are so clear-cut. Those are the ones that worry me, and those are the people I'm addressing my posts to here. I want it to be okay for people to see that "nice teachers" can still do harm. And harm can be defined more broadly than it often is defined.
Our teacher was a nice person, I think. I don't think she was a monster or evil. But her approach to DS was punitive and would have been socially and pyschologically crippling to him had it gone on. "Nice people" with bad ideas and effectively unfettered power over a child can have that sort of devistating effect on young kids. I just want it to be okay for parents to feel like they can say "no!" Even to a "nice person."
