xkcd

by **Angua** » Mon Apr 16, 2012 7:20 am UTC

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-17664075

I can't believe this article is right - it sounds like something I'd expect out of the onion. Police officers stationed permanently inside schools who have the power to hand out tickets for not having your shirt tucked in? I'll watch the documentary later when I have more time (it's on the world service website, so should be accessible to everyone, unlike panorama!).

by **Chen** » Mon Apr 16, 2012 12:43 pm UTC

Maybe if teachers were given the authority to punish students without the parents flipping their shit and/or threatening to sue them, this wouldn't be necessary.

by **Tiberius** » Mon Apr 16, 2012 1:11 pm UTC

Chen wrote:Maybe if teachers were given the authority to punish students without the parents flipping their shit and/or threatening to sue them, this wouldn't be necessary.

Yes if only we could beat these children for minor dress code violations.

CUUUUURSEEE YOUUUU OBAAAAMMAAAA!!!!!!!

by **Lucrece** » Mon Apr 16, 2012 2:00 pm UTC

They just need to make expelling students easier. Teachers, classmates, and other schools administrators shouldn't have to put up with the sort of bullshit they do in most public schools. Detention only works so much for certain students, and suspensions are actually a reward.

by **addams** » Mon Apr 16, 2012 2:13 pm UTC

Chen wrote:Maybe if teachers were given the authority to punish students without the parents flipping their shit and/or threatening to sue them, this wouldn't be necessary.

How about running that equation the other direction?
What about a place where the individual belongs to a culture that shows positive role models and rewards positive personal behavior?

Too controlling? Yeah. I see that. But; What do we have now?

Spoiler:

The young people of this day are learning how to be people from the TV and the internet.
To be the most shocking and disgusting is the path to reward. Everyone wants to be cool. Young people, with the reproductive hardware running the show, are the most cool conscious.

The Police are, just, people. They are a part of the breakdown.

The Police often behave in terrible ways. I have been in schools. The tension is sometimes so thick that you could cut it with a knife.

What is being learned? Not much, is my guess.

Let us remember: The teachers were socialized in an antisocial environment, also.

The Race to the Bottom? There is no bottom.

Oh. I had to do some reading. There would seem to be a bottom. Each time I read about human behavior that was at its lowest, I would find something lower.

There are times when I am dealing with Politically Active Adults and I want to scream at them. "Stop that shit! You fucking Maggot in a Man's Suit!"

What good would it do? The adults seem to get pleasure from being horrible. The young people are doing what comes natural. It is a Monkey see; Monkey do world.

by **Griffin** » Mon Apr 16, 2012 2:26 pm UTC

They just need to make expelling students easier.

Yep, because nothing says "This is how to fix the problem!" like pushing it off on to someone else.

by **Angua** » Mon Apr 16, 2012 2:32 pm UTC

Do some of you really think sending these kids to court (with some looking at actual jail time) is an actually valid tactic at the moment (ie within the system currently in place)?

by **Drumheller769** » Mon Apr 16, 2012 3:13 pm UTC

Depending on the offense, yes. If a student is being continually disruptive to other students, and will not stop, the teacher nor the school have the authority to make the student stop. If the parents refuse to make it stop, then taking it to the courts is the only way to solve the problem and allow the other students to actually get a teacher who can give them her attention.

And now that I have actually read the article, the things it mentions are not things the police need to be involved in. The schools need to also learn some common sense. Police support should be used for things like a student throwing a fit in the classroom (yelling, throwing things...that kind of behavior), or breaking up fights. Not writing tickets for un-tucked shirts and writing on desks.

by **addams** » Mon Apr 16, 2012 3:24 pm UTC

Angua wrote:Do some of you really think sending these kids to court (with some looking at actual jail time) is an actually valid tactic at the moment (ie within the system currently in place)?

What did the kid do? Some people in High School are big people.

Not tucking in a shirt? Nah.

Untucking the Policeman's shirt? Maybe. But; Damn. I would have gone to jail. Who could resist? Not me. Not my 16 year old self.

It is a damn mess. I don't know what kind of interaction you have had with out of control teens. But; Some want a safe place to study and learn, others are determined to create the most disagreeable environment possible.

Remember Gandhi? When asked what he thought of Western culture he said, "I think it would be a good idea."

Everyone gets a good one out sometimes. It was a funny crack.

These people are not living in Peace. Not punishment. Punishment does not set well with me. The answer may be to take each young person and sit them down in a room with someone like me.
The question is: "What do you want? Within the bounds of reality, what do you want?"

I have asked this question a bunch of times. Some of the answers are....Well....

Too much TV. I think that some of our young people are having a hard time with what is real and meaningful and what is on TV.

Ask the question and then engage the person in the planning and implementation of the task. Fun. Much better than jail and not nearly as expensive.

We then go try all the stuff that the kid can think up. Barring antisocial behavior.
We can afford it and it would make a great job.

Spoiler:

Knowing that Monday morning I am going with some dip shit skydiving would give me incentive to get out of bed. I can go with the dip shit and not jump. I hate jumping.

Hey! There is an idea! Cheaper than jail. Take the trouble makers skydiving. Those guys would learn to have some respect for how their clothes are folded.

It may have an effect on the other students as well. I can see it now. Some kid walks into the office and asks, "What do I have to do to go with the Skydivers?"

My answer would be, "Pants the Cop." Would that do it? He might need a team for the job. Team building skills!

This little jewel could be right out of a right wing think tank. I know it is not a great idea. But! It is an idea! I don't have many of those.

Spoiler:

by **Chen** » Mon Apr 16, 2012 4:52 pm UTC

Angua wrote:Do some of you really think sending these kids to court (with some looking at actual jail time) is an actually valid tactic at the moment (ie within the system currently in place)?

Some of it like the dress code violations and the like are bullshit. But disruptive behaviour and truancy? I could accept those. What I'd really like to see is the police dealing with bullying in the way that type of behaviour would be dealt with in regular adult society. Treat it legally like harassment and/or assault because...well that's pretty much what it is.

by **sourmìlk** » Mon Apr 16, 2012 6:06 pm UTC

I don't quite get how this is legal. These things aren't against the law, right? So how can the students be legally punished for them?

by **buddy431** » Mon Apr 16, 2012 6:14 pm UTC

sourmìlk wrote:I don't quite get how this is legal. These things aren't against the law, right? So how can the students be legally punished for them?

A Class C misdemeanour is the lowest level of all the criminal offences, it would be the equivalent of a traffic ticket or not abiding by a stop sign on the street," says Judge Sholden, who can also hand out sanctions like essays and book reports in his sentence

So yes, evidently skipping school and other minor infractions are crimes, at least in some jurisdictions.

by **Magnanimous** » Mon Apr 16, 2012 6:21 pm UTC

Chen wrote:Some of it like the dress code violations and the like are bullshit. But disruptive behaviour and truancy? I could accept those. What I'd really like to see is the police dealing with bullying in the way that type of behaviour would be dealt with in regular adult society. Treat it legally like harassment and/or assault because...well that's pretty much what it is.

You could arrest them, sure... but that sounds unlikely to actually fix the problem long-term. When they're still teenagers, therapy (more likely group therapy, to cut costs) leads to much lower recidivism rates.

But then again, I won't pretend to know this school's budget... Involving police might be the only option here.

by **ShootTheChicken** » Mon Apr 16, 2012 6:41 pm UTC

In my experience getting police/the law involved with teenagers is generally a pretty bad solution apart from really serious things. It tends to lead to large amounts of distrust/hate/grudges against police.

by **Griffin** » Mon Apr 16, 2012 6:41 pm UTC

buddy, I wouldn't assume that just because they are doing it means it's actually a legal. Those things you listed are actual crimes - it's more likely these guys are doing the same sort of shit my university police officers got busted for - after a whole bunch of students got together and reported their behaviour to not only the school head but the city police force, who didn't like that one bit (I got the feeling they don't see school cops as 'real' cops for some reason). School cop, in my experience, tend to be department rejects who like to play fast and loose with the law as to what they can and can't enforce unless someone reigns them in. In a situation such as this (and at my school), where they actually get reinforcement, well...

It's illegal, but it's a matter of luck if anyone will actually do something for it.

by **sourmìlk** » Mon Apr 16, 2012 6:42 pm UTC

buddy431 wrote:
sourmìlk wrote:I don't quite get how this is legal. These things aren't against the law, right? So how can the students be legally punished for them?

A Class C misdemeanour is the lowest level of all the criminal offences, it would be the equivalent of a traffic ticket or not abiding by a stop sign on the street," says Judge Sholden, who can also hand out sanctions like essays and book reports in his sentence

So yes, evidently skipping school and other minor infractions are crimes, at least in some jurisdictions.

I thought that they were just punishing it as a class c misdemeanor, not that the law defined it as such.

by **jimsfriend** » Mon Apr 16, 2012 9:07 pm UTC

Texas state law makes attendance compulsory. Texas Education Code.

Spoiler:

The following defines missing too many days as a class C misdemeanor (and under the first (3) it defines what is too many days).

Spoiler:

There are exceptions defined in that link for things like doctors note etc. I didn't think to copy them and don't remember where they were defined.

by **Lucrece** » Mon Apr 16, 2012 9:28 pm UTC

Griffin wrote:
They just need to make expelling students easier.

Yep, because nothing says "This is how to fix the problem!" like pushing it off on to someone else.

The school's job isn't to fix your abusive brat of a student. If a student is obstructing teachers from carrying out their lesson and making it more difficult for others to learn, fuck that student.

Your need for education doesn't trump others' needs to have one of their own unmolested by your antisocial behavior.

by **jakovasaur** » Mon Apr 16, 2012 9:42 pm UTC

Lucrece, it sounds like you are projecting a lot of your own issues into this thread, where they don't necessarily belong. The kinds of things you are talking about don't have anything to do with the OP.

by **Lucrece** » Mon Apr 16, 2012 10:09 pm UTC

The article linked by the OP reports that disciplinary measures for classroom disruption and truancy are handed over to the authorities. This wouldn't be necessary if schools could take effective measures to deal classroom disruption and truancy. Forgive me for thinking that allowing schools to remove offending students would save the trouble of having to call police in to patrol school grounds.

by **jakovasaur** » Mon Apr 16, 2012 10:14 pm UTC

It just seems to me like you are getting very upset that certain kids you went to school with weren't expelled, when the article is talking about minor things that don't warrant expulsion. Why should anyone be expelled for truancy, of all things? And I don't think garden-variety class disruption is worthy of expulsion, either.

by **Lucrece** » Mon Apr 16, 2012 11:36 pm UTC

The article also brought up various examples of kids with repeat offenses that kept up showing defiantly at court. I wouldn't consider someone who sasses a court to be the kind of student teachers should be putting up with.

You're focusing on the fringe cases the article brings up, when the article itself says many of those charges are for class disruption and truancy. If a kid is taking up a class slot that he doesn't care to attend, then that slot should be vacated so that kids that DO want to be there, can be there. Same goes for disruptions. If a teacher has to call police on students, I don't consider that to be minor class disruption.

It's just easy to talk about what failure teachers are, or how incompetent they can be when you don't get to be on the receiving end of the impotence teachers are saddled with. I've seen first hand what teachers have to put up with from students in urban centers in Florida, so I can't blame teachers under similar circumstances for taking the few measures they can muster. In this article, students are shown to not even balk at being shown to court and having to deal with police -- why should teachers be forced to play social services without any of the tools or compensation to do said job properly?

Again, the article took some student statements of people being cited for uniform violations. It didn't present them as the bulk of the cases. If the students are issued detention, given a referal to the principal, and despite all escalating measures refuse to follow simple policy such as uniform, what else can the administration do?

by **Zcorp** » Mon Apr 16, 2012 11:50 pm UTC

Lucrece wrote:The article also brought up various examples of kids with repeat offenses that kept up showing defiantly at court. I wouldn't consider someone who sasses a court to be the kind of student teachers should be putting up with.

Why our court system is broken as fuck and many of our judges are idiots. Much of our justice system isn't worth respecting and because someone has not yet learned to fear its brokenness isn't a reason to 'not to put up with them.'

Going to court because you didn't tuck in your shirt is a perfect example of why people should show up with repeat offenses and defy the authority.

You're focusing on the fringe cases the article brings up, when the article itself says many of those charges are for class disruption and truancy. If a kid is taking up a class slot that he doesn't care to attend, then that slot should be vacated so that kids that DO want to be there, can be there. Same goes for disruptions. If a teacher has to call police on students, I don't consider that to be minor class disruption.

Has to? You are removing all context and making assumptions that the teacher is the one being reasonable. The same group of teachers who are sending kids to court for not tucking in their shirts...because a teacher is older does not make them right or a good teacher.

It's just easy to talk about what failure teachers are, or how incompetent they can be when you don't get to be on the receiving end of the impotence teachers are saddled with. I've seen first hand what teachers have to put up with from students in urban centers in Florida, so I can't blame teachers under similar circumstances for taking the few measures they can muster. In this article, students are shown to not even balk at being shown to court and having to deal with police -- why should teachers be forced to play social services without any of the tools or compensation to do said job properly?

So out of this you believe that the problem lies in the students, not in the culture that created people who 'do not even balk at being shown to court?'

Again, the article took some student statements of people being cited for uniform violations. It didn't present them as the bulk of the cases. If the students are issued detention, given a referal to the principal, and despite all escalating measures refuse to follow simple policy such as uniform, what else can the administration do?

Change their policies, how they treat students in general, get to know and understand their students, work with the students to create a school culture that addresses the goals of the educational institution with student interests? Just off the top of my head.

by **Lucrece** » Tue Apr 17, 2012 12:01 am UTC

Zcorp wrote:
So out of this you believe that the problem lies in the students, not in the culture that created people who 'do not even balk at being shown to court?'

It isn't the school's primary burden to shape culture. The parents are responsible for socializing their kids; teachers are responsible for teaching the subject they've trained in. If you want teachers to solve societal issues, you can also compensate them and give them the resources needed to perform the task. They don't currently have it.

Change their policies, how they treat students in general, get to know and understand their students, work with the students to create a school culture that addresses the goals of the educational institution with student interests? Just off the top of my head.

If you don't like the school's uniform policy, you are free to seek another institution or be home schooled instead. I do not like that universities I've attended choose to give the better facilities to the sciences and old, decrepit classrooms to the humanities. I don't get to be indignant if I choose to ignore the assignments and carry out the class in rooms not permitted to me, and be removed by the authorities if I constantly ignore disciplinary measures.

I don't like that in order to enter into some restaurants I have to obey a uniform policy, but those restaurants are not forced to change their policy if I want to show up violating said dress code.

The dress codes in states like Florida for public schools are even reached by vote from the PARENTS prior to implementing the policy, for example. It's not some uppity ivory tower administrators surreptitiously putting in place policy without some form of public input.

by **sourmìlk** » Tue Apr 17, 2012 12:28 am UTC

Wait, uniform violations? All thoughts about whether or not uniforms or their violation is appropriate, how can that possibly be legally enforced? Is it not a horrible violation of the first amendment to enforce dress code beyond what is indecent and therefore obscene?

by **Lucrece** » Tue Apr 17, 2012 1:06 am UTC

sourmìlk wrote:Wait, uniform violations? All thoughts about whether or not uniforms or their violation is appropriate, how can that possibly be legally enforced? Is it not a horrible violation of the first amendment to enforce dress code beyond what is indecent and therefore obscene?

No. You can't sue Walmart for telling you to wear its uniform while you're in their employment. The school assumes the position of the guardian for its students, and the policies imposed are often publicly voted on by the parents, the people who pay for said schools. It is perfectly legal for your guardian to say what you can and cannot wear so long as it's not abusive or exploitative.

The only instances in which students can successfully sue the school is if they target you specifically for one standard that they do not apply to other students. For example, political messaging on shirts on special days, or in the case of shirts promoting causes that are allowed for one set of students only (say, pink shirts for breast cancer awareness, but not allowing similar shirts for AIDS-related causes).

by **sourmìlk** » Tue Apr 17, 2012 1:36 am UTC

Okay, but the employer isn't a government body, it's a private entity that you've explicitly agreed to follow the rules of. It's why free speech exists on college campuses and not necessarily while on a job. The loco parentis argument makes sense though.

by **Lucrece** » Tue Apr 17, 2012 2:11 am UTC

The difference between college and elementary/middle/high school is the degree of agency given to children versus adults, and the fact that policy is set by those who pay for it. I'm sure students would be able to set their preferred policies if it was their money building and maintaining their schools, just like they could set house rules if the house was paid for and maintained by them.

You also don't get the luxury of boundless "free speech" in college. You'll find that they can get quite creative with "what person X said reflects poorly on the college and thus his application for any further terms is denied". They can't kick you off the term you paid for, but they can certainly manage their way to make you seem like a financial liability that justifies them in removing you. Good luck fighting the college's collection of lawyers.

by **Joeldi** » Tue Apr 17, 2012 2:19 am UTC

Lucrece wrote:No. You can't sue Walmart for telling you to wear its uniform while you're in their employment. The school assumes the position of the guardian for its students, and the policies imposed are often publicly voted on by the parents, the people who pay for said schools. It is perfectly legal for your guardian to say what you can and cannot wear so long as it's not abusive or exploitative.

Who said anything about suing the school? Isn't this about them charging you criminally for dress code violation? They might have a right to refuse you service if you agree to follow their rules and don't, but being criminally fined for not following dress code is fucked fucked fucked up.

by **Zcorp** » Tue Apr 17, 2012 2:27 am UTC

Lucrece wrote:
Zcorp wrote:
So out of this you believe that the problem lies in the students, not in the culture that created people who 'do not even balk at being shown to court?'

It isn't the school's primary burden to shape culture.

I disagree, it is certainly one of schools primary burdens to shape culture. That is primarily what education is all about. I'll certainly agree with you that we have lost a focus on civic understanding and responsibility (if it was ever there) for the sake of creating 'efficient work force' but school is certainly there primarily to shape culture.

But as you disagree, how do you perceive school as not massively shaping culture?

The parents are responsible for socializing their kids; teachers are responsible for teaching the subject they've trained in. If you want teachers to solve societal issues, you can also compensate them and give them the resources needed to perform the task. They don't currently have it.

The currently have the time, they just lack the training and often freedom. You will hear no disagreements from me that they should have better compensation, not only financially but also in the area of social standing.

If you don't like the school's uniform policy, you are free to seek another institution or be home schooled instead. I do not like that universities I've attented choose to give the better facilities to the sciences and old, decrepit classrooms to the humanities. I don't get to be indignant if I choose to ignore the assignments and carry out the class in rooms not permitted to me, and be removed by the authorities if I constantly ignore disciplinary measures.

One option is to to allow authority to dictate policy based on their preferences, it just isn't always the best one.

Do you know of the reasons schools generally choose to have uniform policies? Do you know if they have any impact on academic performance? Do you know why? The authority figures in this case seem to only know the answer to the second question. If true the administrators in question are not worthy of our respect.

I don't like that in order to enter into some restaurants I have to obey a uniform policy, but those restaurants are not forced to change their policy if I want to show up violating said dress code.

Are you confused between the difference of a private restaurant and a public school? One where you are actually in further violation by choosing not to attend?

Do you hold the belief that changing schools is as easy, or that you have as many options, as choosing a different place to eat?

The dress codes in states like Florida for public schools are even reached by vote from the PARENTS prior to implementing the policy. It's not some uppity ivory tower administrators surreptitiously putting in place policy without some form of public input.

I'm not familiar with how florida schools implement dress codes. By parents you mean who? My instinct is to imagine PTA moms, is that who you mean? If not tell me more about Florida gets parents to vote before implementing policy. I've worked in charter schools out there and never experienced this.

Also are you arguing that that parents are adept at - and have the time for- teaching, socializing and administering schools? That parents should be doing this and not educators (by which i mean people adept at understanding and applying pedagogy, human development and developing curriculum)?

by **Lucrece** » Tue Apr 17, 2012 3:18 am UTC

Zcorp wrote:
I disagree, it is certainly one of schools primary burdens to shape culture. That is primarily what education is all about. I'll certainly agree with you that we have lost a focus on civic understanding and responsibility (if it was ever there) for the sake of creating 'efficient work force' but school is certainly there primarily to shape culture.

But as you disagree, how do you perceive school as not massively shaping culture?

Because what culture needs to be shaped into is far more subjective and sensitive a topic than the dry cut standards of academic curriculum. You will find less issues with parents and teachers agreeing what levels of mathematical and scientific literacy children need to have to be competitive in today's job market.

Teaching a child values always ends up involving the parent, and precedent has constantly given them the upper hand. Bringing consensus on values is a recipe for disaster, due to political, religious, and philisophical reasons. The teachers and administrators should not be placed in such precarious positions.

The currently have the time, they just lack the training and often freedom. You will hear no disagreements from me that they should have better compensation, not only financially but also in the area of social standing.

I would disagree given that teachers currently are even struggling to get students to meet mere academic standards. The fact is the parents and friends spend more time with the child and tend to have ample opportunity to sabotage the teacher's efforts. The teacher's authority and tools to guarantee that important knowledge is absorbed goes as far as parents will allow in a legal system where parents are allowed to have so much say on the development of their child.

One option is to to allow authority to dictate policy based on their preferences, it just isn't always the best one.

Do you know of the reasons schools generally choose to have uniform policies? Do you know if they have any impact on academic performance? Do you know why? The authority figures in this case seem to only know the answer to the second question. If true the administrators in question are not worthy of our respect.

This is how the system works, and the same can be said for parental choices. Take diet as an example. The child is given a diet according to the guardian's preference, and we already hold that the government has little authority to intervene. The ones who pay for and run the institution set the rules.

Schools choose uniform policies for several reasons. Some claim it's to deter gang activity. Some claim teaching children discipline in dressing for conventions such as formal attire (shirts and tie, clean presentation) is beneficial for their future as employees/employers. Some do it to control the aesthetic of the school, and thus how willing newcoming parents will be in enrolling their children in the school (first impressions; do you enroll your child in the school with the sagging pants and studded leather bands and heavy metal band shirts, or do you enroll your child in the school with the neat-looking children in formal attire?). Some parents request them because supposedly having a uniform saves them money by having an acceptable set of usually cheaper clothes that they only need to worry about washing.

Whether they're legitimate reasons or not is for parents to discuss and discover, proceeding to vote accordingly.

Are you confused between the difference of a private restaurant and a public school? One where you are actually in further violation by choosing not to attend?

Do you hold the belief that changing schools is as easy, or that you have as many options, as choosing a different place to eat?

Difficulty is besides the point. You have viable alternatives; you choose whether getting to wear your shirt untucked is more important to you than the inconveniences of changing to a school that rejects such policy or attend online programs with homeschooling. My point is that you don't get to dictate to your host their policies unless you have voting/financial power tied to said organization. Schools are providing services that your parents are paying for -- they're the only ones with the power to threaten the schoolboard on election should they feel they are not being properly represented.

I'm not familiar with how florida schools implement dress codes. By parents you mean who? My instinct is to imagine PTA moms, is that who you mean? If not tell me more about Florida gets parents to vote before implementing policy. I've worked in charter schools out there and never experienced this.

Also are you arguing that that parents are adept at - and have the time for- teaching, socializing and administering schools? That parents should be doing this and not educators (by which i mean people adept at understanding and applying pedagogy, human development and developing curriculum)?

By parents I mean anyone who registered their child in the school. The parents even hold the power to petition a vote on repealing the dress code if they want. This happens frequently while new public schools are being built or within the first two years of construction.

Parents have always had the power to shape how their local schools run. Whether you think they are qualified to make these decisions is another conversation, because as the system works parents shape school policy via their school board and social interaction with administrators. There's a reason why you need permission slips for school trips, for showing types of movies, for reading types of books. Teachers and administrators are often wary of pissing parents off -- Biology teachers have to be very tactful when teaching evolution, for example. History classes might only discuss movements that are popularly accepted, and presidents are discussed based on the elected officials. That is the current privilege parents have legislatively and legally, with some limitations of course (that they're still able to remove should they agree to mobilize for it legislatively). Which textbooks get ordered is strictly up to parent scrutiny and input -- if the schoolboard makes the mistake of having a controversial textbook taught in class, parents will have the schoolboard promptly reconfigured to their approval.

Hell, look at even the university level. While parents cannot dictate what colleges can teach their child, they can vote with their wallet and press their child to attend certain types of universities, say a Catholic university that will stay mostly mum on the issue of abortion. Until children and teenagers can achieve monetary power to assert their interests, parents will have heavy steering power on their development.

by **addams** » Tue Apr 17, 2012 11:13 am UTC

"The school's job isn't to fix your abusive brat of a student. If a student is obstructing teachers from carrying out their lesson and making it more difficult for others to learn, fuck that student.

Your need for education doesn't trump others' needs to have one of their own unmolested by your antisocial behavior."

jakovasaur wrote: Lucrece, it sounds like you are projecting a lot of your own issues into this thread, where they don't necessarily belong. The kinds of things you are talking about don't have anything to do with the OP.

I think you are wrong. And; That was not nice.

Lucrece has every right to express a big 'Fuck You' to disruptive and antisocial people. Some of those people are High School students. Some of those people are US congress persons.

The culture puts up with and encourages antisocial behavior.

Issues? Maybe we need to have a conversation about issues.
This is the perfect place to for Lucrece's comment.

If, you want Lucrece to be chastised then go to the mods. What do you think this is? High School? Or, Did you learn that in College?

If, it was in college, then, I would like you to type some kind of support for what way the post was Off Topic.

Hey! You want to go skydiving?

by **Zcorp** » Tue Apr 17, 2012 4:35 pm UTC

Lucrece wrote:
Zcorp wrote:
I disagree, it is certainly one of schools primary burdens to shape culture. That is primarily what education is all about. I'll certainly agree with you that we have lost a focus on civic understanding and responsibility (if it was ever there) for the sake of creating 'efficient work force' but school is certainly there primarily to shape culture.

But as you disagree, how do you perceive school as not massively shaping culture?

Because what culture needs to be shaped into is far more subjective and sensitive a topic than the dry cut standards of academic curriculum. You will find less issues with parents and teachers agreeing what levels of mathematical and scientific literacy children need to have to be competitive in today's job market.

Teaching a child values always ends up involving the parent, and precedent has constantly given them the upper hand. Bringing consensus on values is a recipe for disaster, due to political, religious, and philisophical reasons. The teachers and administrators should not be placed in such precarious positions.

Do you really believe that we don't teach values in schools? I never stated that parents aren't involved. I did however state that schools shape culture and that they should.

I'll ask again, "How do you perceive school as not massively shaping culture?"

The currently have the time, they just lack the training and often freedom. You will hear no disagreements from me that they should have better compensation, not only financially but also in the area of social standing.

I would disagree given that teachers currently are even struggling to get students to meet mere academic standards. The fact is the parents and friends spend more time with the child and tend to have ample opportunity to sabotage the teacher's efforts. The teacher's authority and tools to guarantee that important knowledge is absorbed goes as far as parents will allow in a legal system where parents are allowed to have so much say on the development of their child.

Are you a parent or a teacher? I ask as I'm confused how you hold this perception. How much time do you think parents spend interacting with their child per day? How much time do you think teachers spend interacting with their students per day?

You've never met or had a teacher that has had an impact on a child without the parents oking it first through legal channels? It would greatly surprise me if you actually believe any of what you just said.

As for teachers struggling to meet academic standards now, I'll say again that we should give teachers better training, more freedom and pay them more. Much of the teaching problem poorly trained, non-tech savvy teachers restricted by inefficient systems and weighed down by bureaucracy.

This is how the system works, and the same can be said for parental choices. Take diet as an example. The child is given a diet according to the guardian's preference, and we already hold that the government has little authority to intervene. The ones who pay for and run the institution set the rules.

Schools choose uniform policies for several reasons...Whether they're legitimate reasons or not is for parents to discuss and discover, proceeding to vote accordingly.

So you believe people should always follow the establishment, even when it is failing at its goals and harming the well-being of those it is imposing its authority upon?

You are under the impression that the average parent has the time and ability to become an expert on all things school related and dictate how schools should behave? What is it that you do? Do you think anyone could become an expert on it while they have a full time job, a relationship and a child? If so, how long do you suppose that will take someone?

Are you confused between the difference of a private restaurant and a public school? One where you are actually in further violation by choosing not to attend?

Do you hold the belief that changing schools is as easy, or that you have as many options, as choosing a different place to eat?

Difficulty is besides the point. You have viable alternatives; you choose whether getting to wear your shirt untucked is more important to you than the inconveniences of changing to a school that rejects such policy or attend online programs with homeschooling. My point is that you don't get to dictate to your host their policies unless you have voting/financial power tied to said organization. Schools are providing services that your parents are paying for -- they're the only ones with the power to threaten the schoolboard on election should they feel they are not being properly represented.

Difficulty is besides the point? No actually that was one of my points and it is directly related to your position. Ignoring the logistics of something is idiotic. You really think we should ignore how practical something is when making arguments? Not to mention the reality of these students or their parents to have the awareness to do such a thing.

Parents have always had the power to shape how their local schools run. Whether you think they are qualified to make these decisions is another conversation, because as the system works parents shape school policy via their school board and social interaction with administrators. There's a reason why you need permission slips for school trips, for showing types of movies, for reading types of books. Teachers and administrators are often wary of pissing parents off -- Biology teachers have to be very tactful when teaching evolution, for example. History classes might only discuss movements that are popularly accepted, and presidents are discussed based on the elected officials. That is the current privilege parents have legislatively and legally, with some limitations of course (that they're still able to remove should they agree to mobilize for it legislatively). Which textbooks get ordered is strictly up to parent scrutiny and input -- if the schoolboard makes the mistake of having a controversial textbook taught in class, parents will have the schoolboard promptly reconfigured to their approval.

I'm interested as to how all parents think the same way and how any of the above is a good thing? These are perfect examples of when and why to defy authority. We shouldn't be following Tennessee's example and if our states do so hopefully we aren't to meek to accept it because the 'authority' told us to.

by **Griffin** » Tue Apr 17, 2012 5:19 pm UTC

So, to summarize, Lucrece -

You believe teachers have little power over whether or not their students learn, and that school is not, in fact, a major shaper of culture.

You believe that following the rules of an employer is the same as following the rules of an organization you are legally obliged to attend - in essence, that following the rules for a chosen job is the same as being required to follow rules simply for existing and being a certain age. (Because lets be honest here - a kid has no control over which school they attent).

You believe that the proper solution to disruptive behaviour is to make it someone elses problem - to, as you said, send them to another school. Despite the fact this may be physically and financially near impossible for students, especially those likely to be problem students, you think "making it someone elses problem" does, in fact, somehow "fix" things.

You think that being defiant in court is somehow a sign of an innately bad person, instead of the normal sign of a person who doesn't feel they belong there and probably feels they are being treated unfairly.

It's just... wow. Just everything about what you've said. Please, tell me you don't work in or anywhere near education. Because if you do, and still hold all those opinions, my mind will proceed to be blown.

by **sourmìlk** » Tue Apr 17, 2012 6:04 pm UTC

This may not help Lucrece's case, but I actually agree with him / her on at least a few of those things. It's not the school's responsibility to take their time to correct a child's disruptive behaviour: if they can't deal with it, they are perfectly justified in sending that child to a place that can. And acting defiant in court is unacceptable behaviour regardless of whether or not the person should be in that court.

Also, I don't think Lucrece is saying that school don't shape culture, but that it isn't their role to shape culture.

by **Magnanimous** » Tue Apr 17, 2012 7:17 pm UTC

sourmìlk wrote:This may not help Lucrece's case, but I actually agree with him / her on at least a few of those things. It's not the school's responsibility to take their time to correct a child's disruptive behaviour: if they can't deal with it, they are perfectly justified in sending that child to a place that can. And acting defiant in court is unacceptable behaviour regardless of whether or not the person should be in that court.

Not right now... but should it be? If children are going to be there for forty hours a week anyway and school brings natural stress, it seems like an obvious solution. Adding more behavior management and therapy would (in most cases) allow them to cut out the middleman of using the courts as behavior modifiers.

But then again, costs. Which would be high.

by **sourmìlk** » Tue Apr 17, 2012 7:34 pm UTC

I didn't say that court was the place to which misbehaving students should be sent. That demonstrably doesn't work.

by **Griffin** » Tue Apr 17, 2012 9:26 pm UTC

Yes, but unacceptable behaviour does not a bad person make, especially when the situation that produces it is also unacceptable.

These are, often enough, teenagers - defying what can be seen is misapplications of authority is a necessary part of moving through that stage in life. If they weren't disrespectful in court, then I'd be worried - it means they have been conditioned not to push boundaries, and failing to push boundaries is basically a recipe for people aren't worth a damn.

Mind you, that's not to say /pushing boundaries in this particular case/ is acceptable, only that it is understandable, and the proper response is to realign their incentives to extinguish the behaviour once it's revealed themselves. And any school worth a damn should have someone who can manage that for the vast majority of people who exhibit this trait.

Yes, if the school obviously can't handle them, they should be sent somewhere that can help them. A place that can help. Though I see this as a blackmark on the original school, not every school is great and for a lot of different reasons. This isn't what Lucrece is advocating, which is more "I don't care if they get helped at all, just don't let the riffraff in here".

Expulsion is a last resort, a "We simply have nothing else to offer and no other methods to try. We give up." Giving up should not be the default response to behavioural issues.

Lucrece also believes that behaviour at home somehow "overwrites" behaviour learned at school, though, so I'm pretty sure their opinion has no basis in actual psychology of educational science, since compartmentalization happens early and kids are perfectly capable of acting completely differently in different situations.

by **sourmìlk** » Tue Apr 17, 2012 10:30 pm UTC

Griffin wrote:Yes, but unacceptable behaviour does not a bad person make, especially when the situation that produces it is also unacceptable.

If bad people aren't defined by their behaviour, what are they defined by? Their intentions? Well that would be nice, but seeing as we have no way of actually determining that, we're going to have to judge people by their actions.

This isn't what Lucrece is advocating, which is more "I don't care if they get helped at all, just don't let the riffraff in here".

I don't know, I think you're reading implications into his statements that aren't necessarily there. I see why you're inferring this tone, but I don't know that's what he meant.

by **Tiberius** » Tue Apr 17, 2012 11:24 pm UTC

Oh my gosh! A thread about Lucrece projecting his own personal issues onto something else!

You seem really preoccupied with the rights of people you identify with and no one else's. Elections are not the only things that check back rights abuses. That's why we have the supreme court. If the president just started arbitrarily executing people on TV you wouldn't say "Well I guess I won't be voting for him next time." Your "me and mine by any means necessary" is extremist and insensitive.

Who is online