Parents role in Education ?

Message boards : Politics : Parents role in Education ?
Message board moderation

To post messages, you must log in.

Previous · 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 . . . 19 · Next

AuthorMessage
Dena Wiltsie
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 19 Apr 01
Posts: 1628
Credit: 24,230,968
RAC: 26
United States
Message 1188112 - Posted: 24 Jan 2012, 22:53:40 UTC

For those who think teachers would never use our children for political purposes Link
ID: 1188112 · Report as offensive
bobby
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 22 Mar 02
Posts: 2866
Credit: 17,789,109
RAC: 3
United States
Message 1188134 - Posted: 25 Jan 2012, 0:07:01 UTC - in response to Message 1188069.  

How about this for a fine how d'ya do, you couldn't make it up if you tried. You might well notice, as I did, that at no stage were parents being involved. Anyone care to postulate why? Now I know for absolute sure that the UK educational system has totally lost the plot .....

How to teach kids to behave

Parental involvement is not mentioned in the article. Parents are mentioned once (in relation to pupils' attendance) in the Ofsted inspector's letter. I have no idea why the inspector did not make more references to parents, I am not sure whether such references are common in such reports (there are none in the full report from 2010), and see no reason to speculate reasons for the absence of further references.

It seems to me that the inspector is generally positive about the school's attempts at improving the behavior of its pupils, and it seems to be having positive results:

ofsted wrote:
The school’s behaviour management strategy is showing signs of impact. The task remains challenging, which is reflected in over thirty eight exclusions last year but school leaders are making inroads in improving the atmosphere and ethos in and out of the classroom. The volume of incidents and dangerous occurrences has reduced significantly. Pupils endorse this, and say they feel safer.

Perhaps this is a case of the plot being found rather than lost.
I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

ID: 1188134 · Report as offensive
bobby
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 22 Mar 02
Posts: 2866
Credit: 17,789,109
RAC: 3
United States
Message 1188356 - Posted: 25 Jan 2012, 20:48:15 UTC - in response to Message 1188253.  

The Education sector should be pressing that point home, to parents and Government, until then education is reactive not proactive, so in my view they have lost the plot!


What's the evidence that the Eduction sector is not pressing the point home?
I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

ID: 1188356 · Report as offensive
Profile John Clark
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 29 Sep 99
Posts: 16515
Credit: 4,418,829
RAC: 0
United Kingdom
Message 1188383 - Posted: 25 Jan 2012, 22:07:53 UTC

I agree with your view Chris.

Back in the 1950s the solution to unruly behaviour was brief and worked effectively.
It's good to be back amongst friends and colleagues



ID: 1188383 · Report as offensive
bobby
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 22 Mar 02
Posts: 2866
Credit: 17,789,109
RAC: 3
United States
Message 1188391 - Posted: 25 Jan 2012, 23:03:18 UTC - in response to Message 1188383.  

I agree with your view Chris.

Back in the 1950s the solution to unruly behaviour was brief and worked effectively.


"Why should children not be given the same protection from assault that adults expect?"

Further, what is the data (plural of anecdote <> data) that shows the 1950s "solution" as being effective?

Here's a start:

The research to date also indicates that physical punishment does not promote long-term, internalized compliance. Most (85 percent) of the studies included in a meta-analysis found physical punishment to be associated with less moral internalization of norms for appropriate behavior and long-term compliance. Similarly, the more children receive physical punishment, the more defiant they are and the less likely they are to empathize with others.


If inappropriate and defiant behavior are your intended outcomes, then I agree, the 1950s solution was effective. I do not believe these outcomes to be positive.
I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

ID: 1188391 · Report as offensive
Profile John Clark
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 29 Sep 99
Posts: 16515
Credit: 4,418,829
RAC: 0
United Kingdom
Message 1188417 - Posted: 26 Jan 2012, 0:38:29 UTC

The old ways of education and control were shown to be effective in the general pupil population, and the result was higher achievement in examination results which were much more searching than current offerings.
It's good to be back amongst friends and colleagues



ID: 1188417 · Report as offensive
bobby
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 22 Mar 02
Posts: 2866
Credit: 17,789,109
RAC: 3
United States
Message 1188525 - Posted: 26 Jan 2012, 13:20:31 UTC - in response to Message 1188501.  

"Why should children not be given the same protection from assault that adults expect?"


Between the World Wars, punishment in schools, particularly the Public ones like Eton, Harrow, Rugby etc consisted of the cane, which did leave bruises and weals and in my view, was quite unacceptable. The behaviour correction methods that John and I are talking about are the slipper on the backside, or the ruler across the palm.

That might have stung for a few seconds but certainly nothing more. But the whole point of it was the embarrassment of it being done in front of the whole class. That was the real deterrent to behave properly and respect your teachers. These days the kids are cute enough, with money grabbing lawyers, to sue teachers for assault, or complain to the Court of Human Rights.

And yes, I got the slipper once for talking in class, and the ruler for throwing a paper plane. I don't think that those experiences affected my psychological development in any adverse way, nor encouraged any defiance.


It seems the lesson of "the plural of anecdote is not data" refuses to sink in. Your personal experience, and that of mine or John's may not be indicative for the population in general. Cane's, slippers and rules were still in use while I was at school, however my own experiences (whether the same or different) would be further anecdotes, and not a useful basis for discussion given that data on the subject has been systematically collected and reviewed.

Physical punishment (of any type) would be inconceivable as a method of behavior correction in a typical work environment, adults would rightly object and take matters to the police, why should it be different for children? "Because it happened to me and did me no harm" is not the best justification of its continued use, all the more so when the data shows it has adverse effects in general.

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

ID: 1188525 · Report as offensive
Profile John Clark
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 29 Sep 99
Posts: 16515
Credit: 4,418,829
RAC: 0
United Kingdom
Message 1188576 - Posted: 26 Jan 2012, 16:40:52 UTC

One of the old fashioned, and it doesn't hurt, methods I would be content to advocate in an extremely unruly class is -

- choose 1 pupil, preferably a ring leader(backed by class nomination). Carefully draw a kukri, sharpened as the Gurkha do, and bleed the chosen pupil in to a large bowl (like a chicken). Get all the class to drink the contents of the bowl, and dispose of the body in the school furnace. It will help global warming.

I doubt is any of the remaining class members would ever step out of line again.

Problem solved for the rest of the school as well!

Oh, the discipline would have been sanctioned by the local police chief ....
It's good to be back amongst friends and colleagues



ID: 1188576 · Report as offensive
bobby
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 22 Mar 02
Posts: 2866
Credit: 17,789,109
RAC: 3
United States
Message 1188584 - Posted: 26 Jan 2012, 17:06:30 UTC - in response to Message 1188547.  

It seems the lesson of "the plural of anecdote is not data" refuses to sink in.

You are not a teacher and I am not your pupil, so please don't be so patronising, it does not become you.


Your constant use of anecdotes to justify a position is frustrating and irrelevant when adopting the approach commonly referred to as "critical thinking". I have referred to critical thinking in the past, as I believe others here have. You might want to research it and find out how its application may be beneficial to a discussion of this nature. As for patronizing, the repeated references to how things were done in the 50s is not? If not, why not?

not a useful basis for discussion given that data on the subject has been systematically collected and reviewed.

By the Loony Left that has dominated Education for decades.


The data I posted was from US based studies, I would imagine that they have likely escaped the worst excesses of the "Loony Left" (if indeed there are any such excesses pertinent to the topic at hand). However, if systematically collected data is not acceptable, what type of evidence would you suggest be used in defense of a position?

Physical punishment (of any type) would be inconceivable as a method of behavior correction in a typical work environment, adults would rightly object and take matters to the police

Sheesh, talk about stating the obvious. Of course, but what has that off the cuff comment got anything to do with what we are discussing? Up until the school leaving age of 16, young people need and require to be taught appropriate behaviour both at home and in school as part of their general upbringing and education. This can usefully be reinforced by restriction of liberty i.e. being grounded, or by other minor methods of correction.

Unacceptable behaviour in the workplace is usually dealt with by giving someone the sack, or if it is more serious than that, it can go on further to an Employment tribunal. You seem for some reason to have a "bit of a thing" about assaults and punishments. Whether this is due to some experiences in your own past I have no idea.


What part of "further anecdotes [are] not a useful basis for discussion" escaped you? It is my opinion that idle speculation is frequently the product an idle mind.

My question, which also seems to have escaped you, is "Why should children not be given the same protection from assault that adults expect?". I believe that it is currently unanswered by you and John.

Perhaps you might like to comment upon this item which recently was in the news.

Smacking


Using the fact free opinion of a Labour politician to support your case is no better than posting your own opinion. Indeed, it might even be worse, as it likely demonstrates a fallacious appeal to authority.

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

ID: 1188584 · Report as offensive
bobby
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 22 Mar 02
Posts: 2866
Credit: 17,789,109
RAC: 3
United States
Message 1188595 - Posted: 26 Jan 2012, 17:59:26 UTC - in response to Message 1188576.  

One of the old fashioned, and it doesn't hurt, methods I would be content to advocate in an extremely unruly class is -

- choose 1 pupil, preferably a ring leader(backed by class nomination). Carefully draw a kukri, sharpened as the Gurkha do, and bleed the chosen pupil in to a large bowl (like a chicken). Get all the class to drink the contents of the bowl, and dispose of the body in the school furnace. It will help global warming.

I doubt is any of the remaining class members would ever step out of line again.

Problem solved for the rest of the school as well!

Oh, the discipline would have been sanctioned by the local police chief ....


In a thread about parents in the classroom, that's about as close to a Godwin as we need to get, surely?
I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

ID: 1188595 · Report as offensive
Profile John Clark
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 29 Sep 99
Posts: 16515
Credit: 4,418,829
RAC: 0
United Kingdom
Message 1188629 - Posted: 26 Jan 2012, 20:38:32 UTC
Last modified: 26 Jan 2012, 21:10:40 UTC

Absolutely and utterly predictable.
It's good to be back amongst friends and colleagues



ID: 1188629 · Report as offensive
bobby
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 22 Mar 02
Posts: 2866
Credit: 17,789,109
RAC: 3
United States
Message 1188660 - Posted: 26 Jan 2012, 22:46:49 UTC - in response to Message 1188629.  

Absolutely and utterly predictable.


That I find "jokes" about killing children distasteful? Glad I could oblige. Now how about answering the question I posed.
I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

ID: 1188660 · Report as offensive
Profile Sarge
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 25 Aug 99
Posts: 12273
Credit: 8,569,109
RAC: 79
United States
Message 1188927 - Posted: 27 Jan 2012, 19:47:05 UTC - in response to Message 1188843.  

what type of evidence would you suggest be used in defense of a position?

Sigh. I have said before and I'll say it again. This is a discussion forum, it is not a court of law. I'm not the accused in the dock, there is no Judge and Jury, and you are not the barrister for the prosecution. It is absolutely ridiculous that no-one is allowed to have free speech around here, without every sentence having to be justified by scientific analysis and systematically collected data to your personal satisfaction.

Opinions, thoughts, feelings, ideas, are not allowed in the court of Bobby, unless they are prefaced with a description of exactly what they are beforehand. If I held discussions like that in real life, I'd end up with no friends at all, or a punch on the nose, and probably both.

Your constant use of anecdotes to justify a position is frustrating

My occasional use of those is intended to give a wider panorama upon the topic in discussion, and no more frustrating than your constant attempts to undermine anyones contribution.

As for patronizing, the repeated references to how things were done in the 50s is not? If not, why not?

You are clearly of a younger age group than me, and I would have thought you would have been grateful to learn of others experiences in a time when you weren't around, and things did work better. That might give you food for thought on how to change and improve the current situation.

It is my opinion that idle speculation is frequently the product an idle mind.

I expect that was aimed at me, and a poor attempt at a personal insult. I actually wish I had some more free time to be idle, perhaps you could let me know at some point how you manage to do it, I'd be most grateful.

My question, which also seems to have escaped you, is "Why should children not be given the same protection from assault that adults expect?". I believe that it is currently unanswered

Using a slap or the slipper, as a mild admonishment to instil acceptable behaviour in a child is not assault. If you were to hit someone in the street and break their jaw, that would be classed as assault, and quite rightly you would end up in court charged with GBH. This link might be helpful. Childrens law.

as it likely demonstrates a fallacious appeal to authority.

Well I'll let that one ride, I expect most others will be as nonplussed as I am.

I'm most intrigued by your choice of avatar. But then again as Hank Hill regularly observes "That boy ain't right."


As I watch this, Chris and John, what comes to mind is that the two of you and I initially did not get along, either. Yet I consider the two of you good friends here on the S@H forums, and though it's been a while, discussions on Skype calls were great, too.
I also consider bobby a friend.
Currently, if i am not busy, I am often tired and so do not post as much.
But, I feel that, given time to respond, I might be able to bolster at least some of Bobby's points, or at least also help in providing wider perspective. I might also have some bits bolstering your side, as well.
Could you gents call a truce for a bit, maybe give me 1 or 2 days for me to get work done, rest, re-read some posts and then give my anecdotes and knowledge?
ID: 1188927 · Report as offensive
Profile John Clark
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 29 Sep 99
Posts: 16515
Credit: 4,418,829
RAC: 0
United Kingdom
Message 1188957 - Posted: 27 Jan 2012, 21:18:59 UTC

You are very welcome Sarge, and it's nice to see you around.
It's good to be back amongst friends and colleagues



ID: 1188957 · Report as offensive
bobby
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 22 Mar 02
Posts: 2866
Credit: 17,789,109
RAC: 3
United States
Message 1189102 - Posted: 28 Jan 2012, 3:28:40 UTC - in response to Message 1188968.  

Unless the rules are changed, anecdotes are not allowed.

Good grief, if you were to ask me, you could not find a better example of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. "The plural of anecdotes <> data", does not, to my mind, mean that anecdotes are verboten, it means anecdotes are not a substitute for data. When we have data, use it, when we don't we are left with other means to assess the merits of an opinion. To my way of thinking good evidence beats opinion every time. If you have a better way to evaluate opinions, do as I have done and share it so that we might all be the wiser. FWIW, the evidence I posted on the outcomes of assaulting children was based on data from US based studies, I suspect that these are not as open to your dismissal ("product of the Loony Left") as you might like the a casual reader of this thread to believe.

no more frustrating than your constant attempts to undermine anyones contribution.

To challenge is not necessarily undermine. If an opinion can be supported with better evidence than is used in the challenge, the case for the opinion is strengthened. This seems to me to be a statement of the profoundly obvious, yet when I challenge some comments I am greeted with hand waving about judges and courts.

You are clearly of a younger age group than me, and I would have thought you would have been grateful to learn of others experiences in a time when you weren't around, and things did work better. That might give you food for thought on how to change and improve the current situation.

More idle speculation. You have no idea whether I am grateful to learn about the experiences of others, only whether I appear to be grateful to learn about the experiences posted to the threads here. I am sure you are well aware that appearances can be deceiving. Please do not assume I disagree with an opinion when I try to find evidence against it, as Socrates said "the highest form of Human Excellence is to question oneself and others" (an appeal to authority, that, to my mind, is not fallacious). I do not have a wide open mind, I generally try to protect mine from the collection of garbage. I'm confident that many others try to do the same.

I expect that was aimed at me, and a poor attempt at a personal insult.

It's my opinion, challenge it with a better one or, better still, facts, if you want me to modify it. You speculated about my motives for having an issue with assaulting children when I had specifically provided no grounds for doing so. Questioning a person's motives is commonly used as the basis of an ad hominem attack. The riposte was intentionally light, as ad hom. attacks are often intended to inflame. If I were to speculate, I'd suspect it's to this part of the exchange between us, as much as anything else, that lead Sarge to his request for a truce, and given his comments, I'll assume for now that you did not fully appreciate how your comments on motives could be interpreted. If you want to know what my motives are, please ask me, I'll tell you if I choose to, and then you can assess my response to establish whether it is plausible.

Having said that, I will not share my motives for discussing the subject of assaulting children, nor will I request yours. I will ask you to refrain from more speculation on the subject of motives unless and until it becomes pertinent. I believe I have provided motives to challenge opinions at a general level, it is my hope that the generic motive will suffice for this specific.

I actually wish I had some more free time to be idle, perhaps you could let me know at some point how you manage to do it, I'd be most grateful.

Posts by Chris S > 14,000
Posts by Bobby < 1,000

You have been on the SETI fora a little over 11 years, I have been on them a little under 10. Does that help you understand how I manage my time?

I'm most intrigued by your choice of avatar. But then again as Hank Hill regularly observes "That boy ain't right."

The character's name is "Bobby", my name here is the same. Does that help solve the mystery? As for the quote, Hank may well have that as a catchphrase, for me the question is, is he right? After all, wikipedia has this assessment "Although at times Bobby is seen as odd by his parents and peers, he maintains a remarkable talent with people, particularly with girls, who find him cute and entertaining".

The original title of this thread is "Parents in Classes" and as a University lecturer I would really welcome your input on that.

I posted on that fairly early on and Sarge replied with some useful evidence. I referenced it again in a later post, that reference was ignored. Somebody else brought classroom discipline (they can't discipline kids because teachers would get sued for assault) and declining academic standards (Let's get back to the 3 R's) into the discussion. Are you requesting these topics cease to be discussed in this thread?

a difference of opinion as to the way one should conduct themselves during an open discussion

That appears to me to be a fairly accurate summation. You appear to believe it is acceptable conduct to condone the assault of children and have thus far provided 2 justifications ("it happened to me", and "the law permits it"), I have challenged you on this, and provided evidence that shows that the outcome of this supposedly acceptable conduct is not necessarily desirable. I have not restricted your rights to free speech ("no-one is allowed to have free speech" is so palpably false it's staggering you would state such a thing. If I have interfered with your right to free speech on the SETI fora, please document the circumstances. Moderators, if you are watching, please remind me when I have ever, at any time, on the SETI fora, "red-x"ed a post by somebody else, as I cannot recall having done such a thing). I have requested that you support your free speech with evidence, so that others in an open to all discussion can see the merits of your opinion. To date, you have failed to provide any such evidence. You continue to be free to exercise your right to free speech (as limited by the moderators, of which I am not, and have never been affiliated), just as I am free to challenge anything and everything you post until the cows come home, one of us tires of the exercise, or the moderators believe one of use falls foul of the rules.
I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

ID: 1189102 · Report as offensive
Profile KWSN - MajorKong
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 5 Jan 00
Posts: 2892
Credit: 1,499,890
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1189329 - Posted: 28 Jan 2012, 6:59:44 UTC

Bobby,

This is not an ad-hom. attack on you, but I will admit to a moderate level of curiosity as to why you are using the phrase 'the assault of children'. Could you please discuss your reasoning?

The context is the somewhat outdated practice (by school staff) of paddling (or otherwise physically punishing) children that misbehave at school. It is not allowed in most jurisdictions nowadays, though it still is in a very few, with explicit written parental permission.

The term 'assault' has a rather specific legal definition, and in this context, does not really apply. If a teacher takes one of the rather wicked paddles that were used in days gone by, and strikes another teacher across the buttocks with it leaving bruises and welts, yes, THAT would be 'assault, causes bodily injury', which is in most circumstances only a class B misdemeanor in Texas. A few months jail, maximum, and a moderate fine.

If that teacher does the same action, this time to one of the students (under 18, of course), that would be 'injury to a child', which is a felony (class 3, i think, maybe class 2..). Years of prison, and a rather large fine.

Assault really isn't the correct term.

In the context of parents, in almost every, if not every, jurisdiction in at least Texas if not the nation, an open-handed swat to the buttocks of a child is allowed as a form of punishment. But, if you use, for instance, one of those wicked, 'Black-eyed Susan' paddles on your child, leaving bruises and welts on your child's buttocks, guess what? Injury to a child. Felony time.

In the context of punishment, it is not really possible to 'assault' a child. What is called 'assault' on an adult, is called something else on a child, and is a MUCH more serious of a crime (with the sole exception of the open-palmed swat to the buttocks in most jurisdictions).

Would not a better term be 'corporal punishment'? Yes, it is a subject of much debate, and it has both supporters and people against it.

So, would you please discuss why you specifically used the term 'assault'?

And, I see you are still quoting me in your sig... :)
https://youtu.be/iY57ErBkFFE

#Texit

Don't blame me, I voted for Johnson(L) in 2016.

Truth is dangerous... especially when it challenges those in power.
ID: 1189329 · Report as offensive
bobby
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 22 Mar 02
Posts: 2866
Credit: 17,789,109
RAC: 3
United States
Message 1189390 - Posted: 28 Jan 2012, 12:25:01 UTC - in response to Message 1189329.  
Last modified: 28 Jan 2012, 12:34:31 UTC

Bobby,

This is not an ad-hom. attack on you, but I will admit to a moderate level of curiosity as to why you are using the phrase 'the assault of children'. Could you please discuss your reasoning?


Sure thing. In UK common law, assault is simply a crime that causes a victim to fear violence, it does not require a physical attack. Again in the UK, parents are exempted from this under the laws provided by Chris, which is why I initially phrased the question as "Why should children not be given the same protection from assault that adults expect?".

Physical contact that is not consented to is termed battery under UK common law. While assault and battery of children may be permitted under the law, I am interested in Chris's and indeed anyone else's reasons for supporting such laws. It seems to me that we have many laws to protect weaker sections of the population from abuses of stronger sections, yet for some of the weakest, we remove some protections.

Given these definitions under UK common law (which are also used in many jurisdictions in the US), "assult" really is the correct term.

BTW, the quote is taken from Dr Ben Goldacre's Bad Science book and blog on guardian.co.uk.
I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

ID: 1189390 · Report as offensive
Profile KWSN - MajorKong
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 5 Jan 00
Posts: 2892
Credit: 1,499,890
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1189440 - Posted: 28 Jan 2012, 16:10:12 UTC - in response to Message 1189390.  
Last modified: 28 Jan 2012, 16:13:15 UTC

Bobby,

This is not an ad-hom. attack on you, but I will admit to a moderate level of curiosity as to why you are using the phrase 'the assault of children'. Could you please discuss your reasoning?


Sure thing. In UK common law, assault is simply a crime that causes a victim to fear violence, it does not require a physical attack. Again in the UK, parents are exempted from this under the laws provided by Chris, which is why I initially phrased the question as "Why should children not be given the same protection from assault that adults expect?".

Physical contact that is not consented to is termed battery under UK common law. While assault and battery of children may be permitted under the law, I am interested in Chris's and indeed anyone else's reasons for supporting such laws. It seems to me that we have many laws to protect weaker sections of the population from abuses of stronger sections, yet for some of the weakest, we remove some protections.

Given these definitions under UK common law (which are also used in many jurisdictions in the US), "assult" really is the correct term.

BTW, the quote is taken from Dr Ben Goldacre's Bad Science book and blog on guardian.co.uk.


Bobby,

Ahh.. I see where you are coming from now. You are using an older definition that was still in some use when I was a child. While our legal system in almost all states (IIRC, only Louisiana is different, it is based on Roman Law) is *based* on common law, it has been somewhat modified, and frequent modification continues.

You appeal to the phrase 'same protection'. You do realize that this is a 2 edged sword? When it comes to what you term assault, the sole case where children have less protection is in cases of parents giving their children mild punishment for purposes of discipline. In ALL other cases, children have stronger protection than adults.

Referring back to my example. If an adult strikes another adult (deliberately and without consent) on the buttocks with an old-style paddle they used to use in schools, and it causes bruises and welts, that is 'assault, causes bodily injury' which is a Class B misdemeanor (punishment is a maximum of 6 months in jail and a $2000 fine).

The SAME action to a child (14 or under -- I was mistaken about it being under 18) (by a parent or not) is 'injury to a child', a first degree felony with a punishment of 5 to 99 years in prison and a $10000 fine.

So, no. Children do not have the *SAME* protection against what you term assault as adults do. With the only exception being a parent punishing their child in such a way as it does not cause injury (for instance bruising -- pretty much only mild, open palm spanking to the buttocks is allowed), children enjoy GREATER protection.

Why is the mild spanking of a child by its parent still allowed? Well, it is a matter of strong debate. But, society's attitudes are changing and the pendulum is still swinging away from physical punishment. I don't expect (unless there is a massive change in public opinion) the spanking exemption to survive more than another decade or two.

Thank you for answering my question.

Edit: I have used your signature phrase in conversation for over 40 years. I used the phrase in a reply to you a couple years ago or so. Shortly thereafter, you changed your signature to feature it. I had no idea that that person you mentioned was using it. Perhaps he got the phrase from me. :P
ID: 1189440 · Report as offensive
bobby
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 22 Mar 02
Posts: 2866
Credit: 17,789,109
RAC: 3
United States
Message 1189447 - Posted: 28 Jan 2012, 16:46:05 UTC - in response to Message 1189440.  

Bobby,

Ahh.. I see where you are coming from now. You are using an older definition that was still in some use when I was a child. While our legal system in almost all states (IIRC, only Louisiana is different, it is based on Roman Law) is *based* on common law, it has been somewhat modified, and frequent modification continues.

You appeal to the phrase 'same protection'. You do realize that this is a 2 edged sword? When it comes to what you term assault, the sole case where children have less protection is in cases of parents giving their children mild punishment for purposes of discipline. In ALL other cases, children have stronger protection than adults.

Referring back to my example. If an adult strikes another adult (deliberately and without consent) on the buttocks with an old-style paddle they used to use in schools, and it causes bruises and welts, that is 'assault, causes bodily injury' which is a Class B misdemeanor (punishment is a maximum of 6 months in jail and a $2000 fine).

The SAME action to a child (14 or under -- I was mistaken about it being under 18) (by a parent or not) is 'injury to a child', a first degree felony with a punishment of 5 to 99 years in prison and a $10000 fine.

So, no. Children do not have the *SAME* protection against what you term assault as adults do. With the only exception being a parent punishing their child in such a way as it does not cause injury (for instance bruising -- pretty much only mild, open palm spanking to the buttocks is allowed), children enjoy GREATER protection.

Why is the mild spanking of a child by its parent still allowed? Well, it is a matter of strong debate. But, society's attitudes are changing and the pendulum is still swinging away from physical punishment. I don't expect (unless there is a massive change in public opinion) the spanking exemption to survive more than another decade or two.

Thank you for answering my question.


The context in which I posed the question might help:

Chris S wrote:
and they can't discipline kids because teachers would get sued for assault.


Bobby wrote:
Why should children not be given the same protection from assault that adults expect?


From there Chris introduced the question of "Spanking" and various other matters.

You'll note in my reply to your question I observed that "we have many laws to protect weaker sections of the population from abuses of stronger sections", and I suspect it would be fairly trivial to make a good case for providing children with greater protections than adults. The context in which I asked my question was one where somebody appeared to be proposing that children in a particular setting should have fewer protections than adults. Given the context, I thought the protections enjoyed by adults a reasonable base line for the purposes of discussion. Again, given the context, it would be a mistake to interpret my question as supporting the removal of the greater protections that children may have in particular jurisdictions.

I'm sure you are right about the life expectancy of the "parental spanking exemption", it seems clear to me that Chris and John believe this to be a mistake, indeed that it was a mistake to remove teachers from this exemption. I have questioned why they believe this. I'm still waiting for an answer.
I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

ID: 1189447 · Report as offensive
Profile Sarge
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 25 Aug 99
Posts: 12273
Credit: 8,569,109
RAC: 79
United States
Message 1189643 - Posted: 29 Jan 2012, 8:04:13 UTC
Last modified: 29 Jan 2012, 8:34:09 UTC

Apparently my need for rest was far greater than I thought.
As I write this very long post, it occurs to me that most of what I am writing is not direct response to things Bobby has brought up. So, before I forget, I feel I must point out that if the same standard were applied to me, Bobby, I'd be in trouble:

Bobby wrote
Posts by Chris S > 14,000
Posts by Bobby < 1,000

As your sig says, "I think you'll find it is more complicated than that...".
First, a database error a few years back resulted in several posters older posts disappearing. This may include some of your posts. My own post count could be 1000 higher than indicated.
Also, back when I was posting on a daily basis, in the morning being involved in some of the discussions could be like a strong cup of coffee, sharpening my wit and getting ready for the day. Night time posts might have helped me wind down.
So, just with these few points, I think we can see that gauging how anyone might manage their time and it's correlation to post counts is not as clear cut as you might expect.

There are some different points being raised about parenting: their role in discipline and their role in education.
I do not feel myself qualified to talk about the discipline issue much, as I am not a parent.

Chris wrote:
The school stated that no child of the age of 5 was in anger management classes, therefore as a Primary school, we are left to conclude that the age group concerned is from 6-11. Anger management classes are usually given as part of sentences at Youth Courts to unruly teenagers up to the age of 17, it is incredible that this should prove to be necessary with children of that age.

I had a lot of anger in me building from, about, ages 5-8. For good reason. It started to well up again around age 17. Within that year, I made a choice to curb the negativity. All the while, I did well in my schooling, and Chris, you know how much further I took it. I will also point out that my father was the valedictorian of his high school in 1958.

My first teaching position was at a community college, part time, which began as I was working on my Master's degree. Upon finishing, I taught there another 3.5 years. The last 1.5 years of that, I also taught full time at a private school for emotionally disturbed, or those deemed PINS (Person in Need of Supervision) by the court, teens. "Therapeutic restraints" were allowed to be used there (legally) when a student posed a danger to self, others or property.
I met several of the parents, once or twice a year, and while some of them might have justifiably been labeled as not interested in their child's behavior or education, others were but were simply in over their heads. (Consider that some of those emotional disturbances might have been genetic. We know some things skip generations. Also, some of the parents were adoptive parents.)

I think that's all I have to say at the moment about the discipline issue. On to education itself.
One difficulty we will have in this discussion is talking about differing systems. That in the US versus that in the UK, as that is where the thread contributors have been posting from.
The other is, to put a term to it, "belief in a golden age" (primarily espoused by Chris (one link to a comment along those lines) & John (another link to a comment along those lines), and I've seen a bit of it from MajorKong, as well). So, let me state right off that I do not believe there was a golden age, and attempt to defend why I believe that. On the other hand:

Bobby wrote
What to do about it? Well that's the question isn't it?

Presupposes that something needs to be done. If the comments were meant as more than statements of opinion, then they need to be supported and the question of what to be done can be examined. However, if they are opinion, then the question has no place, why should anybody be reasonably expected to act based on the unsubstantiated opinion of another?

Yes, Bobby, I agree with Chris (and John, and MajorKong) that educational systems are in a mess and that something needs to be done about it.

MajorKong wrote
You're correct about the education standards. The slipping started well before the 1970s, but got bad around then. I have seen, for instance, an 8th grade geography exam from about 100 years ago. Dayuuuummm!
When I saw it, I might have been able to pull a C on it. These days, I doubt that even PhD students could pass it, and high school students would likely only be able to stare at it and drool on it. And only about 100 years ago, this was expected to be common knowledge for 8th graders.

If you were speaking of Geology (Earth Science), this might be easier to follow. But Geography?

Pardon a moment of being pedantic. From http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/geography:
1: a science that deals with the description, distribution, and interaction of the diverse physical, biological, and cultural features of the earth's surface
2: the geographic features of an area
3: a treatise on geography
4a : a delineation or systematic arrangement of constituent elements : configuration <the philosophers … have tried to construct geographies of human reason


To me, Geography is about locations. Memorizing shapes of states, or countries. Knowing their capitals. Knowing where these things are in relation to one another. Things that I and my classmates were expected to memorize in 5th grade. (Ages 10-11.) However, Geography tended to go hand-in-hand with History and Current Events. And it has been my long-held belief that the latter things about Geography can be memorized, as I did in 5th grade, and some of which I am still able to recapture.On the other side there are concepts. For someone my age, born in the late 60s, the two come togehter to help understand the problems the US faced in fighting in Vietnam. (Perhaps this is related to John's comment about "searching questions"?-http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/forum_thread.php?id=66639&nowrap=true#1187519.)

BTW, Major, I had access to some of my Dad's textbooks from the 50s, and also picked up some old textbooks or pamphlets ranging from the late 1800s to 1950 or 1960. These, too, were found in used bookstores-one in Ithaca, NY, near Cornell University.

For those not in the US, or not versed in the history of education, particularly "compulsory education" here, this might be worth a read.

I believe education is something everyone should have access to. That does not mean everyone will benefit from it equally. I believe this to be part of democracy: "equality of oppotunity".

Major, how many people had at least an 8th grade education 100 years ago?

My grandmother on my father's side, born in 1920, never had to take Algebra. Neither did some of my peers in the 1980s.

From my grandmother's time, in some ways, more has been expected of students. Or, more students have been expected to go further than they were in earlier decades. Or some combination of the two. The website I linked mentions the 1983 report "A Nation at Risk", attesting to declines in U.S. student achievement. That was determined, in part, by use of international comparison tests. The third such test, TIMSS for short (Third International Mathematics and Science Study, IIRC-some of you may wish to search for information on it), took place in 1996 and further underscored the decline of U.S. students' performance. Often at the top were students from Asian countries.

But it goes back further. Say about 1958? http://www.education.com/reference/article/new-mathematics/
The impetus for the "new math" was the successful launch of Sputnik, the Soviet Earth-orbiting satellite, in 1957. In the United States, there was concern that we were so far behind the Soviet Union, our cold war foe, that our national security was in danger. In response, a spate of federal funds became available to improve the mathematics, science, and foreign language competence of our school children. University mathematicians saw the necessity of having some students understand the structural underpinnings of mathematics as the basis for their future work in mathematics. These mathematicians intended to "jump-start" young people who demonstrated a talent for mathematics and better prepare them for the rigors of university mathematics programs. Their strategy was to introduce topics into the school mathematics curriculum that aided the development of mathematical reasoning and proof.
Two components of the "new math" that appeared in elementary and secondary textbooks at the time were set theory (including set notation) and the structural properties of mathematics (commutative, associative, closure, etc.). Sometimes structural properties were developed through the study of number systems other than our Hindu-Arabic base-lO system. These topics often were presented abstractly in textbooks, not connected to any practical applications.

Society's Concerns with "New Math"

Many elementary teachers, already insecure in their own mathematical knowledge, failed to fully understand or appreciate the mathematical implications of "new math's" structural approach. Indeed, many had difficulty connecting their familiar calculation skills with the abstract underpinnings promoted in materials grounded in the new approach. Exacerbating their lack of content knowledge was the fact that insufficient professional development was provided to support the change.

Likewise, support materials for teachers and students did not account for parents' needs and reactions. Worksheets on abstract reasoning were sent home, instead of worksheets on calculations. The result was considerable parental confusion and consternation. In short, most parents had no understanding of what their children were learning and its relationship to their conception of arithmetic. Parents complained, for example, that students could identify the associative property underlying multiplication and addition but were not able to get correct answers on standard arithmetic exercises. Most elementary programs based on the "new math" were soon discontinued.

The overall response in the mathematics community, however, was not to do away with "new math" altogether. Most current textbooks continue to include lessons emphasizing fundamental concepts important to student understanding and appreciation of mathematics. For example, various sorting activities still appear in elementary textbooks, with or without set notation. Sets are used in algebra (solution sets, for example) and in probability (sample space). Learning multiplication facts is made simpler by knowing that the operation is commutative, whether the term is introduced or not. In fact, students working with matrices, a topic now occurring in some ninth-grade materials, are astonished to realize that some mathematical systems are not commutative under multiplication.

Read more at the site or do your own searches.
The point is, "New Math" was a response to realizing the U.S. was lagging behind in math, science and technology.

Based on this (and it matches what I have learned elsewhere about it), Major, are you sure this is the math you were "exposed to"?

Besides what is mentioned on the site I linked, New Math, where and when it was used, failed because attention was only paid to the structural underpinnings of the knowledge domain, and ignored how children learn mathematics and how teachers can teach it. Chris, who do you suppose leveled such charges? Besides practitioners, cognitive psychologists were also quite likely involved.

Now, to "Educational Psychologists". As I initially prepared, as an undergrad, to teach at the secondary level (and, as mentioned towards the top of this post, I did get some experience doing), I had to take a course in Educational Psychology (after having had Psychology 101 and Child & Adolescent Psychology). I do not recall the ideas being attributed to them being in my textbook (which I believe I still own, but if so, it is unfortunately currently in storage in another state, as it has been for 2.5 years). Even if there was anything along those lines and I do not remember it, I can state with certainty there was a section of the book about "Educating the Gifted Child". I was using the book in 1989-1990.

In my home state, New York, we used to have 4 levels. The highest was not available for all subjects. High Regents, Regents, Local, and Practical Local (or PSEN at other times-I do not recall what this meant). The first two were college track. Not all of them went on to college. I think 25% of my class, including me, immediately went on to college. But within 5 short years, working at the community college, I got to work with student with a variety of backgrounds and from a wide age range. I am sure not all of them had been in the High Regents and Regents classes, meaning that having been on some other track while in secondary precluded them from a college eduction later.

Sometime during the 1990s, in New York State, the tracking began to be removed. I do not know why. As far as I know, this has pretty much happened across most or all of the country. Perhaps it did come from something on the left, but I would be surprised if it came from people with a background in education. Politicians that had no idea? Wouldn't doubt it. Others on the left? Possibly. Why do I say this? If it were "Loony Left Educational Psychologists" (Chris' characterization), why did my textbook have anything about "Educating the Gifted Child" at all in it?

With the "No Child Left Behind Act", I believe our federal government has pandered to those that eliminated tracking, exacerbating the problems of a 'One size fits all' education, as Luigi called it (though he was describing the U.K. situation). The odd thing is, it was championed by George W. and Laura Bush, bringing the federal involvement in education to an even greater level, even though The Constitution leaves education to the State and localities.

MajorKong wrote
And the illiteracy problem... Kids these days are crippled in more than just reading and writing. They can't even make change without the cash register telling them how much it should be. If I owe $3.68, and I pay with a $5... I have to tell them that 'that is $1.32 in change'... Back in the day when I was in school (late 60s and the 70s), we were expected to be able to do such simple arithmetic in our heads, almost instantly.


I think you have it backwards. People are more likely to have difficulty with mathematics than they are with literacy. Look at the history of when language, followed by writing, developed, versus the developlment of anything mathematical beyond counting. The latter is newer, and continues to be developed. Algebra is 400-600 years old! The Ancient Greeks and others only had glimmers of it. Speech and writing is, by any measure, thousands of years older.
While in grad school, I heard (I believe from a Cognitive Psychology professor) that all human cultures have language, even those that in this ever-increasingly connected world that still remain fairly isolated. Such is not the case when it comes to mathematics.

Guy wrote (in response to Luigi's point about "One-size-fits-all" education:
Luigi, that would immediately be called institutionalized racism here in the U.S.

(Guy, please note that I did see your follow up post and completely understand where you're coming from.)
No longer being in secondary education, but of course seeing its effects for the last 21 or so years ... yet also knowing other factors involved (it's a bit more complicated), I have the academic freedom to not follow this "One-size-fits-all" educational approach. As I indicated to MajorKong in another thread recently, I am now in an area of the country where many of my students are Hispanic/Latino. I have also, over the years, had a number of Asians as students, students from Africa (and, for lack of a universally accepted term, African American students), the U,K., former Soviet bloc countries, etc ... . This experience bears out we cannot prejudge based on "race". I have seen all ranges of results from all groups.
As I said above, what I do stand behind is "equality of opportunity".

Bobby wrote:
If you ask me, the divisive nature of this system was pointless, far better to let parents and their children decide at 14 what specialisms they should enter into than have a test at 11.

As I think Bobby has indicated in this thread and others, he is originally from the U.K., but now living/working in the U.S.
Bobby, I wonder if you would consider the tracking that took place in New York State, of which I am a product, was similarly divisive?
If so, please consider the following: 1) all 4 tracks existed within the same school; 2) only those that opted to go in a "vocational" direction went, for part of the day, to another campus, and IIRC, such decisions were not made until 9th or 10th grade.
Frankly, what some of you are saying about how the tracking worked in the U.K. before, with early decisions on life path (perhaps directions students' and their parents were pushed in?) and separate schools ... it sounds like what I believe I heard about Soviet schools! If so, WTH?

Chris wrote
Don't forget of course we also have Citizenship classes, a compulsory part of the national curriculum for 11 to 16 year-olds in England since 2002. Wasn't that something your parents used to teach you at home as a normal part of bringing you up?

What is covered in these Citizenship classes?
If it is anything like what I think it might be, then, no, I do not think parents teach these things at home.
My father took us to places such as Boston, MA, Philadelphia, PA and Gettysburg, PA so we could see places where the Revolutionary and Civil Wars took place. Of course, we learned some things. As we did in Washington, D.C., at The Smithsonian and other sites. But in no way could these experiences or others be construed as equivalent to a "Citizenship" (or "Civics"?) class, and I do not think they be expected to be.

Chris wrote:
How did we get in this sorry mess? Easy. Too many modern day parents don't give a fig about their kids education, they bring them up until the age of 5, then hand them over to the State Education system, and then wash their hands of any further responsibility.
Add into the melting pot successive governments that refuse to champion marriage with the resultant increase in one parent families, without role models, and its not hard to see why we are in this situation. What to do about it? Well that's the question isn't it?

As someone raised by a single parent, as well as some of the points I made about parents of the students I worked with at the private school in the mid-nineties, again, "I think you'll find it is more complicated than that ...".
I will not go into the circumstances of being raised by a single parent in this open/public thread.

Getting back to the very earliest posts ... .

Chris wrote:
‘In the Far East, they regard every classroom as an open place. If a parent wants to come to observe a lesson, they think [that's] fantastic,’ he said.

‘If a parent says, I would like to come along and watch when my children are being taught, then I think teachers should not be afraid and encourage that level of commitment.’

Total poppycock ...

...

The average parent would not be able to assess a lesson in those ways without prior training ...


As indicated in an early response of mine, I agree with Chris that "[t]he average parent would not be able to assess a lesson in those ways without prior training". (And I was not responding to anything Chris brought up about discipline issues.)

Bobby wrote
As Sarge points out, there's often more than one approach to teaching, even in subjects such as mathematics, and a parent who has been taught one way may not be equipped to assist their child if s/he is being taught in a different way. Attending the classroom may help equip parents with useful tools as well as the child ...

I did not initially see part of what Bobby was saying. Yes, "Attending the classroom may help equip parents with useful tools as well as the child". If the parent is willing to go in with an open mind. Again, the comparison to how things work in Asian countries is a difficult comparison to make. From what I have read of international comparison studies, Asian parents are likely already familiar with multiple methods to get something across, for one.

Well, this has been a long response, and with all the different directions the discussion has been going, I didn't see a neat way to organize things in my responses. So, I'll stop for now.
ID: 1189643 · Report as offensive
Previous · 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 . . . 19 · Next

Message boards : Politics : Parents role in Education ?


 
©2024 University of California
 
SETI@home and Astropulse are funded by grants from the National Science Foundation, NASA, and donations from SETI@home volunteers. AstroPulse is funded in part by the NSF through grant AST-0307956.