If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
On Thu, 17 Jun 2004 15:36:58 -0500, "Donna Metler"
wrote: Detention isn't allowed in my school-too many parents don't want it. IN general, just about everything which could be deemed "punitive" has been disallowed. A teacher in my school was given a formal reprimand just for requiring that students clean up a mess that they had made-because it was "humiliating" for the students. And teachers are told not to use rewards because it "ruins intrinsic motivation". That's quite unusual. Is there a plan in place to encourage self-discipline in the students? You have to have a school wide plan that encourages kids if you want to eliminate behaviorist techniques. -- Dorothy There is no sound, no cry in all the world that can be heard unless someone listens .. The Outer Limits |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
On Thu, 17 Jun 2004 15:36:58 -0500, "Donna Metler"
wrote: And teachers are told not to use rewards because it "ruins intrinsic motivation". So there are no grades then? No report cards? -- Dorothy There is no sound, no cry in all the world that can be heard unless someone listens .. The Outer Limits |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
This whole thing is unrealistic and will set a child to fail later in life.
If you do something bad 90% of the time there will be consequences. You dont show up to work and you get fired, you slack off at your work you get fired. You make a mess in your home eventualy you or your spouse will have to clean it up. You cheat on your spouse they will most likely leave you. While it would be wonderful to live in a world without punishment in general it is just not the case. To raise a child to not have cause and effect other then the "natural consequenses" (IE sticking a fork in the outlet will get the child shocked) is just as bad IMO then to over punish a child. Tori -- Bonnie 3/20/02 Anna or Xavier due 10/17/04 "toto" wrote in message ... On Thu, 17 Jun 2004 15:36:58 -0500, "Donna Metler" wrote: And teachers are told not to use rewards because it "ruins intrinsic motivation". So there are no grades then? No report cards? -- Dorothy There is no sound, no cry in all the world that can be heard unless someone listens .. The Outer Limits |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
"Chris" wrote in message ... Three years later, I ask you again: where is your scientific evidence of measurable long term benefit to children from spanking? If you have none, please signify by ignoring this question, or perhaps by vanishing again. In a free society, it is not up to a person who wants to do something to prove that what he wants to do will be beneficial. Rather, it is up to a person who wants to regulate another's actions to prove that the action will be harmful. It can be argued that the fact that punishment is unpleasant to the person who is being punished is, in and of itself, sufficient reason to view punishment as harmful. However, if we adopted that view as a matter of blind principle, we could not punish robbers, rapists, and murderers. Our laws recognize that when one person's actions harm another, whether physically or in some other way, punishment can be used to try to stop (or at least slow down) the actions. So while at least from a theoretical perspective, an excellent case could be made for requiring parents to make an effort at using positive methods to guide their children's behavior before they are allowed to resort to threats and punishment, it is not possible to use our society's normal operating principles as a basis for arguing that parents should never be allowed to punish no matter how much trouble their children's behavior is causing them. If positive methods are not working, or are requiring an unreasonable amount of time and effort from the parents before the child finally decides to cooperate, punishment is not clearly unreasonable. (And whatever one wants to argue about long-term effects, there are very clearly situations where spanking can produce useful results in regard to children's short-term behavior - especially in situations where there is no possibility that the children won't get caught.) Further, the idea that spanking is somehow inherently more cruel than other forms of punishment is easily refuted by the existence of situations where children PREFER a spanking over an alternative form of punishment that would not be considered excessively cruel. I've seen few things more irrational than the idea that it is abusive to paddle a child at school instead of suspending the child even if the child would rather be paddled than suspended. I imagine there are children who have what might be called an "allergic" reaction to spanking, that is, a reaction that is much more strongly negative than is normal. But in general, there is no logically sound moral reason why spanking should be rejected in favor of other forms of punishment in situations where punishment can be defended as legitimate. I've said all this to lay the following foundation: (1) Under the views of the majority of society, there is no logically sound reason for viewing it as automatically immoral for parents to punish, and (2) there is no logically sound reason for rejecting spanking as inherently more cruel than other forms of punishment. Therefore, if one wants to build a case that parents must not spank using a philosophical basis acceptable to most Americans, that case has to be built on scientific evidence showing that spanking causes sufficient long-term harm to outweigh its short-term benefits. Otherwise, if parents cannot obtain acceptable behavior within a reasonable amount of time using positive methods, they are justified in using the threat of spanking (and, if necessary, actual spanking) for the short-term benefits it produces WHETHER OR NOT spanking produces long-term benefits compared with if they spent a lot more time and effort trying to resolve the issue using purely non-punitive techniques. (Obviously, this argument does not work if one accepts Steve's view that parents owe it to their children to do whatever it takes to solve problems through purely non-punitive techniques. But the majority does not believe that children's interests should outweigh those of parents to that degree.) So what does the evidence say? Straus and Mouradian's 1998 study shows a truly enormous distinction between the effects parents can expect if they spank only when they have themselves firmly under control and those they can expect if they spank as a result of losing their tempers. In the process, it pretty much blows all of the other studies out of the water insofar as parents who always do a self-diagnostic to make absolutely sure they have themselves under control before they spank are concerned. (And if parents have the self-control to avoid spanking at all, they also presumably have the self-control to avoid spanking without thinking carefully first.) In essence, as best I can tell, that one study puts the anti-spanking side pretty much back to square one in regard to the question of whether parents should never spank or whether they can expect equally good results if they merely are very careful that they spank only for the right reasons. Therefore, I view a parenting style that focuses on using positive techniques most of the time but in which parents are willing to spank or otherwise punish in situations where positive techniques are not working well as a reasonable choice. It produces the short-term benefit of resolving certain types of situations in which parents feel like a child is being unreasonable more quickly and, in the process, teaches the child that there are limits to how much his preferences will be allowed to interfere with the lives of others. And to the best of my knowledge (and please correct me if I'm wrong), there is no evidence demonstrating long-term harm of "never lost it" spanking sufficient to outweigh the short-term benefits. If you want to change my mind, you need to provide evidence that demonstrates such harm, and the evidence needs to be specific to "never lost it" spanking in the context of an overall parenting style that is primarily positive. Nathan |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
"toto" wrote in message ... On Thu, 17 Jun 2004 15:36:58 -0500, "Donna Metler" wrote: And teachers are told not to use rewards because it "ruins intrinsic motivation". So there are no grades then? No report cards? Grades are merely a measurement device. Thus, the reward of a good grade is the reward of doing something successfully, much as winning a game because one played it well is a reward or playing a song on the piano well is a reward. Conversely, bad grades "punish" in the same sense that losing a game as a result of making mistakes is a "punishment" or making mistakes while playing the piano is a "punishment." The "reward" or "punishment" inherent in grades is intrinsic to the child's knowing that he is doing something well or poorly. It is not something extrinsic intended solely for the purpose of manipulation. Indeed, the only way children WON'T feel the reward of being highly successful in their studies or the "punishment" of being less successful is if adults refuse to provide the children with accurate information about how well they are doing. Personally, I view hiding information from children out of fear that knowing the truth might hurt their "self-esteem" as reprehensible. True self-esteem comes from recognizing one's abilities and limitations and regarding it as success to do one's best even if other people's best is better, not from ignorance. And false self-esteem founded on ignorance is doomed to failure in the long term because once children see the truth, their old sense of self-esteem collapses and they have no foundation on which to build a new sense of self-esteem to replace it. Nathan |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
"Doan" wrote in message ... "Chris is now admitting that there are evidence of beneficial effects of low-level spanking. Good, but he went on to misrepresent the Straus & Mouradin (1998) study. As I have pointed out early, and Chris cannot dispute this, the study only asked the mothers thus there is no true "never-spanked" group to speak of. Furthermore, this study included children as old as 14 years and by asking only about spankings in the last 6-months, there is a period of up to 13.5 years where spankings were not even accounted for. In short, the study just don't support what Chris claimed above." Unless my memory is failing me miserably, Straus and Mouradian's 1998 study did include a category of mothers who spanked but had not spanked in the last six months. So it did draw a distinction between those who never spanked and those who did not spank recently. Of course that still leaves the issue of how many mothers might have started off never intending to spank, didn't like their results, and ended up changing their minds and spanking at least once. When a group is allowed to eject at least some of its less successful results into another group, that can easily make the group look more effective than it really is. |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
Doan wrote:
On 16 Jun 2004, Kane wrote: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Doan" Newsgroups: alt.parenting.spanking,alt.parenting.solutions,mis c.kids,alt.activism.children Sent: Wednesday, June 16, 2004 3:18 PM Subject: "Parenting Without Punishing" I wouldn't this far. Parent without using punishment? We know. You don't have the capacity. Many have it and use it. Some got it the hard way, but thinking and learning. So where are they? How have their children faired? Did they grow up to be a Mother Theresa? A Ted Turner? Or do they grow up to be like you and Steve ? ;-) Doan ------------------ You'd be glad to have a kid like me! And you never would. Steve |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
Donna Metler wrote:
"Lesa" wrote in message ... "jitney" wrote in message om... The very title of this thread indicates a the kind of egghead academianistic theorizing that is so full of **** that such people need colostomy bags hooked up to their ears. If you raise a child without punishing bad behavior, you are inflicting a criminal on society and should yourself be held accountable. People that advocate mindless theories like this would be far more useful to society if they removed the grafitti that their hellion brats put up on the walls in the first place.-Jitney If one praises "good" behavior and treats a chid with repsect, talking to said child when "bad" things occur, there is no need for punishment. With all children? ------------------ If you do it 1) from the start, or 2) long enough to deprogram them, yes indeed. With non-neurotypical children? ------------------ Wire them up, we'll still do better than you do! With children adopted at the age of 3 from foreign countries? With children in foster care? ----------------------------- It does work, takes a while, but the results are worth it. Your results will always be worse over time. You see, "teaching without punishing" has been pushed down the throats of the educational system for more than a decade (I've been teaching that long). ANd while it works with some children-the naturally compliant kids who will burst into tears at the thought that they've failed an adult, there are others who definitely take advantage of the situation. ----------------------------- Then you're doing it wrong. The result is what you see in many public schools today (probably private ones, too)-a bunch of kids who are very sure that nothing you can do will affect them. They don't care about the relationship, or about pleasing the teacher. They don't care about pleasing their parents. They don't care about long-term results. ---------------------- Then they have no friends. BE THEIR FRIEND! If you have no time for that, if all you do is neglect to do the same evil **** you used to, of course that won't work right! If they do something that in adult life would be found criminal, then you have to sentence them to "jail". If they do things that an adult is allowed to do, leave them alone, or ask their help. And the results is that no child in the same classroom gets a good education. ---------------- Jail the evildoer, or send them home. The latter will scare the more abused ones more, but jail is boring. A few times in a featureless room with no furniture for an hour or two and they will avoid it if you're kind to them when they come out. But you must ONLY use jail when they abuse others criminally. And, it has been my impression that the "don't you DARE punish my child because I don't believe in punitive parenting" parents are the ones who generally have the WORST behaved children, and who stand up for their child, shielding them from even natural consequenses the most-rather than the other way around. ----------------------- You oughta see the way THEY treat them AT HOME! It is their paranoia of their home-behavior being discovered that causes them to lash out first and PRETEND to be a non-punitive parent. Actually they're just possessive of their favorite "punching bag" and the school getting close enough to their kid to find out!! Those parents who do use consequences at home generally don't have to use many. They're not shrieking lunatics beating their child with an extention cord (actually, those are more likely to be the parent who has never before punished their child and then snaps-the worst cases of abuse we've had in the school were exactly that). Rather, they've learned that saying "NO" and enforcing that "When I say NO, and you don't listen, there are consequenses" works. Punishment doesn't always mean spanking. It doesn't have to ever mean spanking. But there needs to be some way of showing that the child doesn't always have complete control of all situations. ------------------------ Terror is violence, no matter if threat of harm, or the few instances of harm that were done to cowe them. It makes kids swear revenge, and that leads to hatred of others and society even if they leave their parents to linger in nursing homes with bone-deep bed-sores. Steve |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
Nathan A. Barclay wrote:
In fairness to non-punitive parenting techniques, public schools are probably a pretty lousy laboratory from which to see how good their results are. Suppose you take a child who is used to finding cooperative win-win solutions at home, and you put him in a school where the teacher keeps telling him what to do all the time. Suddenly, the child goes from having parents who bend over backward to cooperate to having an adult in charge whose job description doesn't allow much room for cooperation. -------------------- You can bully such teachers by arranging appointments with them and haranguing them, they are late getting home a number of times and they learn not to **** with your kid. Also, you let the kid leave school at 14 or 15 or home-school them and dummy the reports to the state. If you're a great parent your kid will learn more on their own anyway. Worse, where the child's love for and relationship with his parents provides a motivation for cooperating with their desires, the child does not have similar love for or a similar relationship with the teacher. ---------------------- Nonsense, the model of everyone is the parent. It's hard to even convince them the teacher might not be nice if YOU are! Ultimately, what a purely non-punitive parenting style needs is either home schooling or a kind of school that is more oriented toward cooperating with the child's desires. And in a voucher system, parents who want to could experiment with such schools without imposing their preferences (or their children) onto others. Personally, I would expect mixed results from such schools, with some bending over too far backwards catering to children's whims but others finding ways to interest children in learning. ----------------------------------- We need to ban vouchers because it causes societal schizm. We need to subject everyone to viciousness so that they'll gang up on it and change it. But if parents who use non-punitive techniques at home do want to send their children to a school that is not prepared to cater sufficiently to their children's desires, I think they should have two choices: either the parents accept responsibility for finding non-punitive solutions that deal with the issue to the school's satisfaction in a timely manner, or they allow the school to punish. Anything else is grossly unfair to the other children in the class, and also to the teacher whose hands are tied by both the school administration and the parents. Nathan ------------------- Nonsense, kids who are treated properly are no trouble at all at school, leave them alone as if you're ignoring them and they'll do what they ought to do anyway and learn by osmosis! These are the kind who read a book in math class and ace the test. I was, my kids were. Steve |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
Donna Metler wrote:
"toto" wrote in message No, actually, what has been pushed is *not* teaching without punishing, though teaching without corporal punishment has been pushed in 27 states for more than a decade. Using different punishments like detentions and bad grades is still punitive. And what has been pushed is using material rewards like stickers and bribes which is the other side of the control coin. It works just as poorly. Detention isn't allowed in my school-too many parents don't want it. IN general, just about everything which could be deemed "punitive" has been disallowed. A teacher in my school was given a formal reprimand just for requiring that students clean up a mess that they had made-because it was "humiliating" for the students. And teachers are told not to use rewards because it "ruins intrinsic motivation". ------------------- You're merely lying in everything you just said. How pitiful. Steve |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| | Kids should work... | Kane | General | 13 | December 10th 03 02:30 AM |
| | Kids should work... | Kane | Spanking | 12 | December 10th 03 02:30 AM |
Kids should work. | LaVonne Carlson | General | 22 | December 7th 03 04:27 AM |
Kids should work. | ChrisScaife | Spanking | 16 | December 7th 03 04:27 AM |
Kids should work. | ChrisScaife | Foster Parents | 16 | December 7th 03 04:27 AM |