|
Post by Kizzume on Nov 10, 2007 15:50:47 GMT -5
Have you ever looked at a bigtoy lately? They look like enlarged toddler toys. Why? Because we need to make it "safe". Yep, let's get rid of wall-ball, tag, and games that have competitive elements. Let's remove kids from schools because they drew a picture of a gun. Let's expel a 9 year old and throw him in juvenile detention because he slapped someone's butt. Let's not allow anything to happen that could possibly make kids feel bad. Let's make sure that they learn how to deal with these things as adults so they're dysfunctional adults, because we have to "protect our children". What a bunch of crap. I liked this article news.yahoo.com/s/uc/20071031/cm_uc_crmmax/op_194241How much further can we mess up kids? When they don't have the opportunities to learn some of these important life lessons, they're going to have to learn those lessons as adults, which is not fun. EDIT: Edited for having leftover words from when making this post that made some sentences have no meaning.
|
|
|
Post by Kizzume on Nov 22, 2007 14:19:08 GMT -5
I was also recently thinking about how badly discipline has been lacking in schools. There's no more in-school discipline. A spanking is considered something to shut the school down over now, and I think all these things combined is what is making kids turn out in a way where they
1. Don't know about being a team player 2. Don't know what being rude is 3. Don't know what being appropriate is 4. Don't know their physical limits 5. Don't know the physics of the things around enough to do important things without stress or being totally oblivious
How can we expect to have a decent future when we're not really giving a shit about our kids? It pisses me off to no end. The kids ARE the future, and if threads containing posts about customer service is any indication of what we are in for in the future, things aren't looking to keen.
|
|
|
Post by redstaterebel on Nov 23, 2007 7:29:23 GMT -5
Schools in this country have officially began to do more harm than good.
What a mess.
|
|
|
Post by Kizzume on Nov 23, 2007 11:19:34 GMT -5
I wouldn't say more harm than good--at least most people know how to add and subtract and can form at least simple sentences, but beyond that........
|
|
|
Post by redstaterebel on Nov 24, 2007 6:55:58 GMT -5
I suppose thats true. Our education system could be so much more though - it's a national embarassment.
As the father of a 1.5 year old though, I'm saving for private school.
That said - I would like my tax money back that pays for the public ones.
|
|
|
Post by Kizzume on Nov 24, 2007 12:57:12 GMT -5
Well, what about the people who don't have kids at all? Should the ONLY ones who pay be the ones who have their kids in public schools? That would shut down the system because there's currently a lot of financial waste in public schools, and the costs for going to a public school that's paid for ONLY by those who take their kids to public school would be higher than private schools--which would probably force most people to switch to private schools, AND the people who couldn't afford it would end up doing FAKE home schooling. I'm serious--that kind of move would completely shut down the public school system. If you're FOR that, that's one thing, but if not--have you thought about the ramifications behind it?
I think we need to improve the public schools. We need to get rid of the financial waste. We need to give them the money when they need something quickly and not give them a lot of red tape, but we also need to make sure that they aren't pretending that they're using the money so they can get the same amount the next year--if we make it so it's easier and more expedient for them to get money for important projects, they will have no need to lie about using a certain amount so they can use it the following year for something different.
We need to allow for things like a ruler on the knuckles, spankings, etc. We need to allow for different periods in elementary school so kids can start specializing at an earlier age so if they excel in some areas, they can actually move up in those areas at the school instead of becoming bored with the learning material.
I know that there are private schools that do all of those things, but again--what of those who can't afford it? What will become of public schools if the only ones paying for it are those who have their kids in it? How do we set up a tax code for that sort of thing--does the amount get omitted from being taken from the pay in the first place by having a new employer tax form, or would it be given back in the form of a tax return?
|
|
|
Post by technocrat on Nov 25, 2007 3:22:21 GMT -5
The educational needs of the entire country could never be adequately provided for by a private system. There are simply too many students, and a lot of the benefits of private schools stem from selectivity and the fact that they needn't provide a "mass education" service.
I don't believe we ought to allow corporal punishment in schools. There is little reason to hit kids. There are plenty of disciplinary measures that work that don't involve that.
|
|
|
Post by Kizzume on Nov 25, 2007 5:47:20 GMT -5
The educational needs of the entire country could never be adequately provided for by a private system. There are simply too many students, and a lot of the benefits of private schools stem from selectivity and the fact that they needn't provide a "mass education" service. I don't believe we ought to allow corporal punishment in schools. There is little reason to hit kids. There are plenty of disciplinary measures that work that don't involve that. There are, but they're not as efficient or as quick. I think there should be able to be something that teachers can do very quickly to keep kids in line. What methods do you suggest, or do they all require several steps?
|
|
|
Post by redstaterebel on Nov 25, 2007 7:06:26 GMT -5
Most states rely on property taxes to pay for schools in their respective counties. Sure, I wish I had that money back, but I have an interest in the education of children other than my own - so I just complain, but not too much.
Kizz is right about the waste - there are plenty of studies that show private schools getting it done better and with less money per child. One studied New Jersey - roughly $15k per child, per year spent on public schools. The local catholic school does it for half that and the test scores are better. Its not just about the money.
Suggestions: End tenure, don't try to teach every kid to college level, don't try to manage local schools from Washinton, instill some discipline and accountability, don't parent my kid - teach her.
|
|
|
Post by technocrat on Nov 26, 2007 0:47:50 GMT -5
True. There are ways to do more with less, but one can even point to public schools for this. A lot of waste could be averted, but people do things that are inherently wasteful because they can always just get more tax money. It's unfortunate. For instance, schools often invest a lot of money into their sports programmes instead of academics. They also invest in a lot of unnecessary technology when simpler mechanisms could serve a similar purpose. Sometimes it is warranted, though, due to the benefits (e.g. smart boards). A lot of the cost comes from a). admins, b). supplies, and c). teacher salaries.
There are also a lot of private schools that do not do terribly better or do do better because they are able to manipulate their populations entrance requirements and what types of populations they deal with.
I think we ought to curb the power of the Unions. They don't need to be that powerful, especially for public sector jobs, because public sector jobs, unlike private sector jobs, can absorb more absurd conditions and demands because there is a lack fo the counter-balancing mechanism of going out of business.
I also don't think seniority ought to be the measure of job security and pay, as it is now. It should be merit and performance. The only problem is that low student performance doesn't necessarily mean a bad instructor, especially depending on where you are teaching, as learning is a lot more than what goes on in the class; you also cannot make students perform.
|
|
|
Post by technocrat on Nov 26, 2007 0:50:06 GMT -5
Sure, they take a bit longer, but they lack the detriments of hitting people, which tends to increase the aggressiveness of people over time as well as make them more prone to use violence themselves. I try to use Behaviourist principles in discipline. Use incentives and punishers, and if they are really bad, eject them from the class. Usually, if you explain things rationally to students and you give them a reason to pay attention, they will. In the rare case they don't care about contigency contracts, then you need to just throw them out. That's still better than hitting them. That or get the parents on them.
|
|
|
Post by Kizzume on Nov 26, 2007 2:20:07 GMT -5
Sure, they take a bit longer, but they lack the detriments of hitting people, which tends to increase the aggressiveness of people over time as well as make them more prone to use violence themselves. That extra time that it takes is not something that any human is able to achieve--unless each classroom had several teachers in them at a time at all times.Too many steps.
|
|
|
Post by technocrat on Nov 26, 2007 2:44:38 GMT -5
It's not really that may steps. They were different solutions, not all part of the same solution. Behaviourism is a valid, working system for behavioural management. You use strong more complex programmes with really bad children, but a motivational incentive system for the class can work. It's not terribly complex. Ejecting bad kids from the class is a one-step process. For instance, for smaller children, Premak's principle and positive reinforcement work. You simply make something they want to do and like contingent on them doing something they need to.
For really bad children, positive behavioural supports (for young children) can be small behavioural contracts. You just find something they like, tie it to the behaviour you want, and then reinforce it when they do it leading up to the final reinforcement. It does work, and it's not too difficult.
For high school students with learning disabilities or cognitive deficits, contracts can also work, and it doesn't involve violence.
The only time this wouldn't work are with really bad kids who are older. But even with them, you can use an incentive system.
Regardless, hitting kids isn't a good idea, even if it's faster and easier. You don't don't need several teachers in the classroom to maintain discipline. I think that's an exaggeration. It's not "impossible amount of time" vs "hitting them" as the only options. Hitting does lead to increased aggressiveness and the mentality that it's ok to hit others to solve problems.
|
|
|
Post by Kizzume on Nov 26, 2007 3:06:02 GMT -5
A thwack on the knuckles still allows the student to continue learning in the classroom. Kicking them out of the classroom does not.
|
|
|
Post by technocrat on Nov 26, 2007 3:15:28 GMT -5
I tried to explain why hitting people is a poor choice, especially given abundant, effective alternative options. If you need to hit someone to discipline them, then you are doing something wrong in the first place. Physical violence can: a) increase violent behaviour b) piss them off more, and you don't want that, and c). be abused in the classroom. Moreover, research on Behavioural modification indicate that d). physical punishments, and punishments in general, have very poor alteration impact, long-term, lasting results.
If you really think people in the modern world are going to let you hit them and then go back to learning, you really don't know how reality works. They will hit you right back. You also only remove people who are very disruptive and when nothing else works or they refuse to listen. If they refuse to learn, there's no real point in keeping them there, and a little thwack isn't going to make them comply at that stage.
Plus, if you hit the knuckles, it will interfere with their ability to pay attention and take notes anyway.
|
|