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 · 6 . . . 19 · Next

AuthorMessage
Profile KWSN - MajorKong
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 5 Jan 00
Posts: 2892
Credit: 1,499,890
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1189676 - Posted: 29 Jan 2012, 11:06:08 UTC - in response to Message 1189643.  


...

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


Yep. Geography. Pretty much meaning one and meaning two from that definition.

The exam had a list of several nations, and for each one the student had to discuss the physical features (mountain ranges, rivers, approximate area, etc.), the biological features (the types of climatic zones found in that nation, etc.), the cultural features (approximate population, language(s) spoken, prominent religion(s), the government of that nation, major cities, etc.). Additionally, they had to discuss things like major crops, resources, industries, imports, exports, trading partners, friendly nations, and unfriendly nations.

And it was an essay exam. No short answer. No fill in the blank, no true/false, and especially no multiple choice.

Like I said... Daaayyyuuummm!



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"?


Yes. An emphasis on theory and a lack of emphasis on the practical. But the *point* of elementary school (grades 1 to 4) "math" was to teach the students the practical arithmetic skills they would need to function in society. 1st & 2nd grades: addition & subtraction. 3rd & 4th grades: multiplication, division, and some work with fractions (both rational and decimal)... The theory would come later on in Jr. High (5th through 8th grade), so that the student would be ready for Algebra I in either 8th or 9th grade.

The practical arithmetic skills are primarily taught by drill & practice. Lots of it. My school district's dubious flirtation with new math ended around the time I was in 4th grade, and they reverted to the older scheme. So, the kids in my rough age group got double dosed on the theory, and received a woefully inadequate exposure to the drill & practice teaching of the practical skills.

Me, I lucked out. I was not one of the students screwed up by this. My dad had math as one of his majors on his undergraduate degree, and had taken the required classes to receive a teaching certificate. He worked for a few years as a high school math and science teacher (Algebra and Chemistry, mostly) as he saved up the money to continue his education. When I was at an early age (around 2 or 3) he noticed that I had an interest in numbers (I could already read), so he started working with me almost every day, beginning with simple arithmetic. His 'fun with numbers' games helped to instill a love of mathematics (and several other subjects) that persists to the present day. After a year or two of that, I proceeded with more independent study, but he still somewhat supervised it and of course answered questions I had.

My Dad was *involved* with my education, and I am trying my best to follow his example with my own kids. I am working simple arithmetic into the counting games my 3 (almost 4) year old and I play, and he is steadily improving his reading. The 2 year old is progressing as well. Parental involvement in their children's education is KEY.




...

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.

...



Note: I didn't say mathematics, I said arithmetic. And it wasn't the school that expected it, it was the community. Back then it was because of the new math. These days, it is the fault of the electronic calculator. These days, students (and adults) see no reason to need to know simple arithmetic skills because calculators are everywhere. What they lose sight of is what happens when the techno-toys aren't available.
ID: 1189676 · Report as offensive
Profile Sarge
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 25 Aug 99
Posts: 12273
Credit: 8,569,109
RAC: 79
United States
Message 1189843 - Posted: 29 Jan 2012, 20:35:57 UTC - in response to Message 1189676.  

Yep. Geography. Pretty much meaning one and meaning two from that definition.

The exam had a list of several nations, and for each one the student had to discuss the physical features (mountain ranges, rivers, approximate area, etc.), the biological features (the types of climatic zones found in that nation, etc.), the cultural features (approximate population, language(s) spoken, prominent religion(s), the government of that nation, major cities, etc.). Additionally, they had to discuss things like major crops, resources, industries, imports, exports, trading partners, friendly nations, and unfriendly nations.

And it was an essay exam. No short answer. No fill in the blank, no true/false, and especially no multiple choice.


Well, then this does sound like quite a bit. Then again, I know I got at least some portion of that in my education in the 70s.
And I still ask the question, how many (better, what percentage) of children were getting at least an 8th grade education? Further, of them, what percentage were learning that much about Geography?
We may both be rounding when we think of "100 years ago". So, what would the answers be for both before and after compulsory education in the U.S.?

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"?


Yes. An emphasis on theory and a lack of emphasis on the practical. But the *point* of elementary school (grades 1 to 4) "math" was to teach the students the practical arithmetic skills they would need to function in society. 1st & 2nd grades: addition & subtraction. 3rd & 4th grades: multiplication, division, and some work with fractions (both rational and decimal)... The theory would come later on in Jr. High (5th through 8th grade), so that the student would be ready for Algebra I in either 8th or 9th grade.


Fair enough. Some people do not remember much about their early education. And, as I said, it is my understanding that the New Math that followed Sputnik did not get applied nationwide.

Note: I didn't say mathematics, I said arithmetic. And it wasn't the school that expected it, it was the community. Back then it was because of the new math.


Arithmetic: among other things, adding, subtracting, multiplying, dividing, factoring numbers. 9IN the last case, factoring of natural numbers.) Working with inverse operations and numbers that are inverses under a particular operation.
Algebra: among other things, adding, subtracting, multiplying, dividing and factoring polynomials; applying the first four to rational expressions (aka, algebraic fractions, with polynomials as numerators and denominators); applying the first four to radical expressions (radical, or root); solving equations, using what I said about inverses.
Linear algebra: doing much of this for matrices.
Abstract (or Modern Algebra): etc. ... .
Given this repetition , you can see why spoke of mathematics in general, not restricting myself to arithmetic. One can also understand why New Math was attempted, even though they got it wrong.
ID: 1189843 · Report as offensive
bobby
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 22 Mar 02
Posts: 2866
Credit: 17,789,109
RAC: 3
United States
Message 1190548 - Posted: 1 Feb 2012, 2:11:29 UTC - in response to Message 1189643.  

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?


Short answer: I do not believe "tracks" are necessarily as divisive as the tripartite system, though I do believe they may be used as a tool to similar ends.

Long answer: indeed, I was born a UK subject (as classified by my first passport), had a UK based education, and am now a dual national, having migrated to the US in 1999. The tripartite system I and others have mentioned was a thing of the past when I attended school. At a gross (and no doubt overly simplistic) level, this streamed "state school" entrants at 11 years old into grammar (academically gifted, for those that scored in top 25% of 11+ plus exam results), secondary modern (less academically gifted, some vocational schooling) where the majority of children were taught, and secondary technical, predominantly vocational and rare (owing to a number of reasons, not least of which was opposition from trade unions that believed apprenticeships were their domain). Fee paying schools ("public schools" in UK parlance) were, and continue to be, an alternative option, for which a limited number of scholarships are available to families without sufficient means to pay tuition fees. I'm not sure that the system was a grotesque as the Soviet system you allude to, though it was effective as a means of limiting later opportunities (University admissions, for example, were predominantly from grammar and public schools).

The Comprehensive School system, introduced in 1965, replaced the tripartite structure with one under which all children within a school were taught from a common curriculum until age 14, at which point they (with their parents) would chose a set of subjects to study to GCE '0' level, or CSE exams (typically at age 16). Between 1965 and 1988 there was some scope for different schools within the same district to have slight variations in the common curriculum, so an all boys school might have metal work classes, while an all girls school might have cookery (later, the, to my mind, unnecessarily tautological, "home economics"). The 'O' level and the CSE were both replaced with the GCSE in 1988, this coincided with the introduction of a national curriculum; I understand the majority of school to school variations in subjects taught were eliminated at the same time.

I believe what you are terming "tracks" was referred to as "streams" in a UK setting, whereby the "brightest" in math, for instance, might be taught in a separate classroom from those that were considered less able. The number of such streams might be a function of the number of children, teachers, classrooms, etc. I am not certain that "tracks" are necessarily as divisive as the tripartite system, though the scope, without adequate safeguards, for prejudicial treatment of particular groups by teachers may be a cause for concern, an example of which might be, an English teacher that systematically gives low grades to children with a particular accent, and thereby disqualifies such pupils from the "top" stream in that subject. As only exit exams (the aforementioned 'O' levels, etc) were subject to independent verification in pre-1988 Comprehensive schools, it seems to me obvious that such treatment could occur, though it would be foolish to speculate about the degree. I believe the lack of independent verification was a factor in removing "streams" from Comprehensive schooling, the cost of implementing it being deemed too great.
I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

ID: 1190548 · Report as offensive
bobby
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 22 Mar 02
Posts: 2866
Credit: 17,789,109
RAC: 3
United States
Message 1190709 - Posted: 1 Feb 2012, 16:25:54 UTC - in response to Message 1190671.  
Last modified: 1 Feb 2012, 16:26:53 UTC

On a couple of points though, my own recollections are a little different. You didn't get to a Secondary Technical School from the 11+ exam, although that is what was originally intended. You had to pass the 13+ to go there, at least in the LEA where I was. Sec Tech School

They were used in many cases for borderline pass/fail results in the 11+. In any case, some people believe that the failure to create the technical schools represents a lost opportunity in the history of British education.

Yep, they messed up there! I went to one in South London from 13 to 16, it was very good, and it suited me. But I would say that wouldn't I?

I don't recall the top 25% of 11+ passes going onto Grammar School. It was a simple pass or fail exam, the pass mark being about 60%, with a system of 2nd chance exam and interview for border line fails. If you passed you went to Grammar school if you didn't you went to Secondary school.


Thanks for the clarifications and corrections.
I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

ID: 1190709 · Report as offensive
Sirius B Project Donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 26 Dec 00
Posts: 24870
Credit: 3,081,182
RAC: 7
Ireland
Message 1190714 - Posted: 1 Feb 2012, 16:48:13 UTC

Wow, what an interesting thread.

Thought I'd put my oars in rather than 2 cents...........

From the age of 5 until 11, I attended primary/junior school (was combined in the same building). From there, went to secondary school until the age of 16.

By the age of seven, I could read & write quite successfully with a basic understanding of arithmetic. From the age of nine onwards, arithmetic became easier to follow.

However, from the age of ten onwards, I began to rebel, not against being taught, but against my parents(valid reasons for doing so but I will not comment on that as I will not belittle the dead).

Whether or not it was the policy of the school I do not know, but from the age of ten, my school used corporal punishment.

I do not recall having taken an 11+ plus exam but my mother got the school she requested for me.

In the first three years of secondary school (I was a glutton for punishment), the teachers dreaded hearing my name & canings galore came my way.....

...that is until they realised that it had no effect whatsoever & I had received many temporary explusions by then so got send to the second building where there was a particular teacher who used the cane....

..that man only ever caned me once..I made sure never to have cause to visit him again...EVER!

Up until that point, one was always caned on the palms, but Mr P caned the backside....
ID: 1190714 · Report as offensive
Sirius B Project Donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 26 Dec 00
Posts: 24870
Credit: 3,081,182
RAC: 7
Ireland
Message 1190716 - Posted: 1 Feb 2012, 16:57:33 UTC
Last modified: 1 Feb 2012, 17:00:59 UTC

....I was finally expelled for the final time & my parents got me into a comprehensive. The cane as a form of punishment was still in force then & the school used it.

Fortunately for me & many others, the school rarely saw fit to use it. Instead they sat down with the troublemakers & demanded of us as to what we wanted.

At the time, many of us stated that we were not being taught what we wanted...i.e., we had some academic & domestic studies thrown in, even though we had selected technical studies. They resolved the issues, no more trouble - in fact we enjoyed our studies more.

In fact, being labelled an absolute horror, I ended up with 7 CSE's & 7 GCE "O" levels. So today's GCSe's are nothing but a cockaymied amalgamation of CSE's & GCSE's & do not hold the same value.

It has been stated that in general the "data" shows that corporal punishment had an adverse effect....what a load of rubbish! Many of the so called hooligans are now public servants(probably retired by now), forces personnel, emergency services personnel & even teachers.

I found the corporal punishment I received knocked the unruliness out of me & benefitted me later when I entered the Armed Forces - made the rigid dicipline much easier to bear & accept!
ID: 1190716 · Report as offensive
bobby
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 22 Mar 02
Posts: 2866
Credit: 17,789,109
RAC: 3
United States
Message 1190818 - Posted: 2 Feb 2012, 0:37:06 UTC - in response to Message 1190716.  

It has been stated that in general the "data" shows that corporal punishment had an adverse effect....what a load of rubbish!


If you believe the data provided to be rubbish, please explain why they is so, better yet, provide alternative interpretations that give grounds to doubt the conclusions reached. Even better, provide data in support of your statements that are not subject to the criticisms you have of the data previously posted.

Many of the so called hooligans are now public servants(probably retired by now), forces personnel, emergency services personnel & even teachers.


Is this data or anecdotal? If the former, where are the longitudinal studies measuring the outcomes of those once labelled hooligans?

Your own experiences (and if I've mis-characterized them in any way, please accept my apologies) suggest it may be possible to reach a different conclusion with regards to the utility of assaulting children:

the teachers dreaded hearing my name & canings galore came my way.....

...that is until they realised that it had no effect whatsoever[...]
Up until that point, one was always caned on the palms, but Mr P caned the backside


Seems to me that it is plausible to believe your behavior was not modified until sufficient force was applied to change your will, and even then:

Instead they sat down with the troublemakers & demanded of us as to what we wanted.

At the time, many of us stated that we were not being taught what we wanted...i.e., we had some academic & domestic studies thrown in, even though we had selected technical studies. They resolved the issues, no more trouble - in fact we enjoyed our studies more.


it appears ultimate resolution was not reached until you and your teachers talked to each other and came to a mutually agreed path. A conclusion that it seems is supported by something posted in an earlier thread on the subject:

Alternatively, "While punishment may be of limited value in consistently influencing rule-related behavior, non-punitive techniques have been found to have greater impact on children".

In that same thread I (re)posed a comment I made in yet an earlier thread:

"Teaching children that violent acts are the way to enforce leadership is not a valuable lesson."

It seems plausible that children may take this lesson to mean, if it is acceptable for a teacher to use violent acts to ensure my compliance in the classroom, then it is likely acceptable for me to use violent acts elsewhere to ensure the compliance of others.
I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

ID: 1190818 · Report as offensive
Sirius B Project Donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 26 Dec 00
Posts: 24870
Credit: 3,081,182
RAC: 7
Ireland
Message 1190918 - Posted: 2 Feb 2012, 11:27:49 UTC - in response to Message 1190818.  

Nice turnaround Bobby. You're the one that brought "Data" into the thread yet did not provide any links or proof. Show me the data & I'll research data for my post.

ID: 1190918 · Report as offensive
bobby
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 22 Mar 02
Posts: 2866
Credit: 17,789,109
RAC: 3
United States
Message 1190940 - Posted: 2 Feb 2012, 13:35:37 UTC - in response to Message 1190918.  
Last modified: 2 Feb 2012, 13:58:03 UTC

Nice turnaround Bobby. You're the one that brought "Data" into the thread yet did not provide any links or proof. Show me the data & I'll research data for my post.

Links to research on discipline in this thread.

From my previous post:
Bobby wrote:
Alternatively ... (which is a link to http://www.springerlink.com/content/r00u746076w16067/)

Containing the comment:
While punishment may be of limited value in consistently influencing rule-related behavior, non-punitive techniques have been found to have greater impact on children.


From a week ago:
Bobby wrote:
Here's ... (which is a link to http://www.phoenixchildrens.com/PDFs/principles_and_practices-of_effective_discipline.pdf)

Containing the comment:
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.


Sirius B wrote:
It has been stated that in general the "data" shows that corporal punishment had an adverse effect

Apologies for initially misreading this. I do not know the general state of data and research in this field. Any data related assertions I've made in this thread have been in regards to the papers that have posted here.
I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

ID: 1190940 · Report as offensive
Sirius B Project Donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 26 Dec 00
Posts: 24870
Credit: 3,081,182
RAC: 7
Ireland
Message 1190949 - Posted: 2 Feb 2012, 14:08:08 UTC - in response to Message 1190940.  

Apologies for initially misreading this. I do not know the general state of data and research in this field. Any data related assertions I've made in this thread have been in regards to the papers that have posted here.


Jeebers...That's a 1st!

You mean to tell me that you have commented in this thread without 1st having ensured that it is a nationwide established fact (backed up with conclusive evidence of course) that corporal punishment was known to cause adverse effects?

You're slipping Bobby, I would never have expected this of you!
ID: 1190949 · Report as offensive
bobby
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 22 Mar 02
Posts: 2866
Credit: 17,789,109
RAC: 3
United States
Message 1191088 - Posted: 2 Feb 2012, 23:55:57 UTC - in response to Message 1190949.  

Jeebers...That's a 1st!

You mean to tell me that you have commented in this thread without 1st having ensured that it is a nationwide established fact (backed up with conclusive evidence of course) that corporal punishment was known to cause adverse effects?

You're slipping Bobby, I would never have expected this of you!


I believe that honesty with regards to limits of one's own knowledge is rarely a slip. Having said that, I do not believe it is incumbent upon me to defend the position of "corporal punishment has known adverse affects", primarily because it's not a position I've taken, though I have referenced a study providing some support to such a claim, "inappropriate and defiant behavior". It seems to me it is incumbent upon those that have suggested the utility (if there is any) of corporal punishment outweighs any harmful effects the punishments may may have.
I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

ID: 1191088 · Report as offensive
Sirius B Project Donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 26 Dec 00
Posts: 24870
Credit: 3,081,182
RAC: 7
Ireland
Message 1191172 - Posted: 3 Feb 2012, 9:40:54 UTC - in response to Message 1191088.  


I believe that honesty with regards to limits of one's own knowledge is rarely a slip. Having said that, I do not believe it is incumbent upon me to defend the position of "corporal punishment has known adverse affects", primarily because it's not a position I've taken, though I have referenced a study providing some support to such a claim, "inappropriate and defiant behavior". It seems to me it is incumbent upon those that have suggested the utility (if there is any) of corporal punishment outweighs any harmful effects the punishments may may have.


Fair point, so let's look at the other side of the coin....

Since corporal punishment ended in schools, unchecked liberalism has run rampant to a disastrious extent...

...teachers to afraid to administer discipline due to possible claims of assault, children bringing weapons onto school grounds, curriculums constantly changing, qualifications dumbed down.

Too much debating the subject in schools, governor meetings, government with none producing a viable solution, so what next?
ID: 1191172 · 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 1191238 - Posted: 3 Feb 2012, 17:13:17 UTC - in response to Message 1191191.  

Since corporal punishment ended in schools, unchecked liberalism has run rampant to a disastrious extent...

...teachers to afraid to administer discipline due to possible claims of assault, children bringing weapons onto school grounds, curriculums constantly changing, qualifications dumbed down.

I think there are three separate issues here which are all inter-mingled to produce the current situation.
    1. I would agree that teachers are afraid to administer discipline in schools, for mainly the reason that you state, and this in turn has led to a significant falling in behavioural standards.

    2. I think that children carrying weapons is the result of lack of parental control in part, and also the level of lifestyle rampant in sink estates, where youngsters feel the need to carry weapons to protect themselves.

    3. Changes in curriculum and dumbing down of qualifications, due to Schools trying to maintain their position in the pass rate tables to secure future funding. i.e. putting on softer courses.

Add to all that a general change in societies attitude away from discipline, led by child psychologists who advocate letting kids be free to "express themselves", plus a merging of the gender roles. and you've got a recipe for disaster. Oh, and as a final ingredient, where a kids "street cred" is the most important thing in their lives above anything else. If they haven't got the latest trainers costing £100 and don't wear their jeans at half mast they are a non person.



Chris & Sirus,

You both mention 'children carrying weapons'... I see this as primarily a failure of the parents to teach their children right from wrong.

When I was a child, going to school in a somewhat rural school district, almost all of the boys (myself included) carried knives to school. They were useful tools, especially considering the 'shop' classes and 'agriculture' classes.

Yes, we got in fights, sometimes epic ones. But NONE of us EVER pulled our knives on our opponents, not even the worst of the bullies. You didn't do that. Without exception, our parents had taught us that pulling a weapon out during a schoolyard fight was wrong.

These days, it just isn't so. My wife recently quit teaching for this reason. She had more than one student attack her in the classroom, and she feared for her life.

This issue is 100% the fault of the parents for not teaching their children right from wrong, and the inner city school districts are more dangerous than war zones because of it.
ID: 1191238 · Report as offensive
bobby
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 22 Mar 02
Posts: 2866
Credit: 17,789,109
RAC: 3
United States
Message 1191245 - Posted: 3 Feb 2012, 17:48:29 UTC - in response to Message 1191191.  

...discipline...parental control...dumbing down...


Repeating the same unsubstantiated comments does not make them any more true. Likewise agreement from a self selecting sample.

plus a merging of the gender roles


Something new, care to elaborate?

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

ID: 1191245 · Report as offensive
bobby
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 22 Mar 02
Posts: 2866
Credit: 17,789,109
RAC: 3
United States
Message 1191354 - Posted: 4 Feb 2012, 2:20:15 UTC - in response to Message 1191264.  

@MajorKong - I fundamentally agree in principle with what you say about weapons, but it is not all the fault of parents. Poverty and lack of opportunity, amongst other things, are some of the causes for sink estates and the environment that they have. And that is as much the fault of government as anything else.

A couple of years ago our College, without warning, installed a walkthrough airport style metal detector one Monday morning as it was believed that a number of students were "carrying". What happened? Those in at 8.00am promptly texted all their friends who ditched their knives in local garbage bins on the way in. Dozens were foiund discarded for days afterwards.

Kids chose to carry knives for their own protection and because it is perceived to be "cool" and it enhances their "street cred". If we can tackle that mindset in addition to encouraging strong parenting, and deal with these feral environments, we might begin to turn around the problem.


Sigh. More unsubstantiated comments and a new anecdote. Evidence from the Home Office here (http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs10/hosb1210chap3.pdf) suggests a different pattern of violent crime. I might be mistaken though it looks to me that the trend over the past 15 years has been generally in a good direction.

@ Bobby - No. Make of it what you will or ignore it.


I'll leave speculation for others.
I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

ID: 1191354 · Report as offensive
Profile Gary Charpentier Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 30591
Credit: 53,134,872
RAC: 32
United States
Message 1191359 - Posted: 4 Feb 2012, 3:00:36 UTC

Children and knives:

When I was in middle school, early 70's, I had one pulled on me. The other kid wasn't interested in hurting me, just getting me to shut up and get out of his way. I think I had one on me at the time, but I wasn't interested in a fight.

IIRC then you if you just had one, your parents would have gotten a call, if you used one a week vacation. Today just having one will get you expelled. Of course they give one to every kid in the cafeteria ...

What has really changed? Hype by the press.

ID: 1191359 · Report as offensive
bobby
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 22 Mar 02
Posts: 2866
Credit: 17,789,109
RAC: 3
United States
Message 1191366 - Posted: 4 Feb 2012, 3:43:22 UTC - in response to Message 1191359.  

What has really changed? Hype by the press.


The British press sensationalist? Surely not ;-)
I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

ID: 1191366 · Report as offensive
bobby
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 22 Mar 02
Posts: 2866
Credit: 17,789,109
RAC: 3
United States
Message 1191456 - Posted: 4 Feb 2012, 15:04:25 UTC - in response to Message 1191417.  

We have been specifically discussing knives and children.

UK knife crime


That's more like it. Unfortunately the lack of data older than 3 years old from the report means we can only discern a very recent upward trend (did the trend start earlier? was it a reversal of a previous downward trend from a higher level?). Following a link in the article I found a summary of more recent crimes, which does not show much of a change in the upward trend in knife crime, though not an analysis by age group, so it may be masking a drop for a specific group.

There is a further issue with analysis of crimes reported to the police that the article notes "Something else to bear in mind is that any rise in crime levels recorded by the police can to some degree reflect a greater willingness on the part of victims to report offences". While the BCS statistics are not immune from the same criticism, it attempts to be somewhat less influenced by changes in willingness to report offences.
I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

ID: 1191456 · Report as offensive
Profile Gary Charpentier Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 30591
Credit: 53,134,872
RAC: 32
United States
Message 1191767 - Posted: 5 Feb 2012, 17:01:18 UTC

Shouldn't there be a class for parents:

How to deal with the fact your DNA makes morons?

ID: 1191767 · Report as offensive
Previous · 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 · 6 . . . 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.