A Parenting & kids forum. ParentingBanter.com

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.

Go Back   Home » ParentingBanter.com forum » alt.parenting » Spanking
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Teenagers faced with spankings



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #71  
Old December 10th 06, 10:41 PM posted to alt.parenting.spanking
Nathan A. Barclay
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 34
Default Teenagers faced with spankings


"0:-" wrote in message
ps.com...

Nothing wrong with testing. The problem is now they are teaching to the
test, and these tests are predetermined, NOT created by teachers to fit
the setting and children he or she is in.

Have you seen any of the test questions? The absurd pile of crap
imaginable.


Tests created by individual teachers provide no basis for comparing children
outside one particular class. They can create an illusion of success when
teachers hand out inflated grades, with no way of telling how successful a
school really is. They also can't tell us how different methods of
instruction compare. For that matter, what are you using to compare the
learning in states that paddle with the learning in states that don't, if
not standardized tests?

Standardized tests do have some value as long as we don't place too much
emphasis on them. But it would be nice if we could come up with an
information-gathering process that goes beyond the limits of the kinds of
standardized testing we currently use.

snip

Children get spanked for making mistakes.


There is a huge difference between spanking children for all kinds of
mistakes, and spanking them only when their "mistakes" are either clearly
deliberate or a result of gross negligence in trying to control their
behavior.


  #72  
Old December 10th 06, 10:48 PM posted to alt.parenting.spanking
Nathan A. Barclay
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 34
Default Teenagers faced with spankings


"0:-" wrote in message
ps.com...

Nathan A. Barclay wrote:
Is "sit and watch" triggered by the child's going out in the street?


Is intervening at any time you see your child needing instruction
triggered by their behavior?

Seems like it to me.

I guess you didn't get around to stating your point.


I was asking a question, not stating a point. I find it interesting that
you did not directly answer my question. Instead, you answered it with a
question that presumes that the reason the child ran out in the street must
automatically have been a lack of information rather than some other factor.

Kane



"0:-" wrote in message
ps.com...

Nathan A. Barclay wrote:
"Doan" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 9 Dec 2006, Nathan A. Barclay wrote:

The Safe Playing program has little to do with
spanking/non-spanking.
It's
about using rewards and punishment. Kane claimed that there was no
punishment is FALSE! Here is an earlier admission on the issue of
punishment:


"One of the conversations between Doan and I concerns his claim that
my
comments on Dr. Embry's use of the word "punishment" in regards to a
technique he calls "sit and watch," has to do with my disagreeing
that
having the child sit and watch other children at "safe play" for a
few
minutes is "punishment," not just that Dr. Embry never mentions the
word. "

Oh, what a tangled web we weaved... ;-)

Really? How so?

I've noticed that Kane has an interesting habit of pretending that
punishments are not punishments when it suits his purposes. If "sit
and
watch" is what it sounds like - a child who goes out in the street
having
to
sit and watch other children play instead of being allowed to play -
that
is
very definitely a punishment.

I presume you haven't read the study report, so Doan can more easily
con you.

The sit and watch included the parent, usually the mother, being with
the child.

The real distinguishing feature as to whether or not something is a
punishment is in whether its intent is that the unpleasant experience
deter
the child from doing the same thing again.

No, that's called 'discipline.' A pure punishment is not limited to
teaching. It's done to hurt, or take something from the one punished.

If that motive plays a
significant role in a parent's choice, the parent is punishing the
child.

What if the parent is simply instructing? That's really at that sit and
watch is about.

Trying to deny that fact is fundamentally dishonest, and that
dishonesty
is
probably a large part of why Kane views "punishment" as such a
terrible
thing. He's figured out a way to accept the need for punishment on a
practical level while still denying it on an intellectual level.

Nope. I know perfectly well what punishment is, and what teaching is,
and what logical consequences are.

Punishment is meant to hurt.

Teaching, even if it's not what the child wants at the time is not
meant by the parent to hurt the child.

It's you that seems now to be figuring out a way to claim something not
true.

Having a child sit and watch and be attended by the parent is not
intended as punishment. It's intended as teaching. Or certainly should
be.

What I have seen is a great many parents fail for a time to get this
fact, and negate a non-cp, non-punishing method by delivering it as
though it were punishment. A few never get past it, and they claim the
method doesn't work, while they can see all around them parents that
are making it work.

They jump then to, "my child is different."

Doan is playing with you.

Enjoy.

I'm not going to carry on much more conversation with you if you insist
on doing so from ignorance. Read the Embry study. Get back to me.

Kane




  #73  
Old December 10th 06, 10:49 PM posted to alt.parenting.spanking
0:->
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,968
Default Teenagers faced with spankings


Nathan A. Barclay wrote:
"0:-" wrote in message
oups.com...

Okay. YOU call it a punishment, I call it a consequence.


Herein lies your self-deception.


Yah think so, do yah? 0:-]

You reject the concept of punishment,


Nope. Only for certain circumstances.

A teen that stole from a store, for instance, I'd want to see do a
little time and pay a fine.

A 6 year old?

Naw. Maybe some sweeping and thinking.

A teen that punched someone in the face. Sure, punish.

A 4 year old? Heck, even a ten year old?

They are indicating someone didn't teach them well when they were
younger, and in fact probably are from a spanking family.

which in turn forces you to look for excuses to pretend that disciplinary
strategies you approve of are something else - a "consequence" rather than a
punishment.


Your circular reasoning claim is simply not true for me.

As I don't reject "punishment." I simply know what it is and where it
should and shouldn't be used.

I have no doubt that when a teen socks someone in the face he or she is
pretty much aware of what they are doing, and the consequences to all
parties.

I'm not the least sure a 4 or 6 or even 10 year old is.

I'd have to assess the situation pretty carefully, and I can assure
you, the 8 and 4 year old would be pretty likely to NOT fall into the
same category the teen ager would.

You have to pretend


I don't have to pretend anything, sonny.

that the only goal is to spend additional
time showing the child what safe playing is like when the reality is that a
significant part of the goal is normally that the child won't want to have
his play disrupted by having to sit and watch again. (That's especially
true if "sit and watch" continues to be used long after the child clearly
understands what safe play is.)


You presume much. Read the study.

You aren't teaching a toddler WHY safe play is safe, you are training
him or her to play someone that YOU call safe.

You are telling them information that an older child can use, and will
use when he or she becomes older. Just playing down the tracks, as it
were, on his or her little brain.

But don't kid yourself. You cannot fail to continue to supervise just
because you trained a 5 year old to play somewhere away from traffic.

Read the study.

Further, if sitting with the parent and watching truly is something the
child would rather do than play, and the parent isn't willing to sit with
the child and watch whenever the child wants the parent to, "sit and watch"
would actually become an incentive for the child to go out in the street in
order to get attention.


Doesn't work that way. That's the oldest anti "behavioral" argument in
the book.

I didn't claim the child wants the parent to sit with them. Only that
they welcome it in safety, unafraid they'll be spanked or chided.

Your logic fails on the drive that nature gives the child to explore,
and on the fact that the un punished child doesn't have to do something
to get parental attention. They just ask for it.

That's exactly the problem that Dr. Emory was
trying to work against when he designed the program.


Dennis 'Embry.'

Only a child wouldn't
have to be anywhere near as desperate for attention to solicit positive
attention as to solicit negative attention.


Children in negative parenting envirionments learn to use negative
attention getters.

Children living with parents who are safe to approach, and who are safe
when the parent approaches, don't have that little problem.


I've asked Doan for a copy of the study if he has one he can e-mail me, but
I don't have a copy yet.


Okay.

Would you mind, when you get it, answering a couple of questions so
that I'm assured you have the same publication I have? Thanks.

In the meantime, I have to go by what I can
understand based on what little I've seen. Please let me know if I'm
misunderstanding something about it.


Okay, happy to oblige.

I'll wait for you to have a copy.

If Doan keeps you waiting, there is always the AAA copy. I seem to
recall it costing about $20 or so, post paid.

Kane

  #74  
Old December 10th 06, 10:49 PM posted to alt.parenting.spanking
Doan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,380
Default Teenagers faced with spankings

On 10 Dec 2006, 0:- wrote:


Nathan A. Barclay wrote:
"0:-" wrote in message
newst6dnaKGOMnBJObYnZ2dnUVZ_uW3nZ2d@scnresearch. com...

I didn't make that claim. My claim is, as you conveniently point out for
me, quoting me, is that I disagree with Embry's use of the word to
describe something the child is unlikely to experience as punishment,
attention from mommy. Mom does sit with the child and encourage him to
watch safe play.

Normal humans consider parental attention a good thing, not a punishment,
unless of course mom is whacking the child while he's doing "sit and
watch."


Children only view parental attention as a good thing at times when it is
something they want. Being forced to accept parental attention when
children want to do something else can be decidedly unpleasant.


And you, the parent, can't cope with that? Hell a dog trainer knows how
to make an interaction pleasant for the dog for training purposes.
Surely a human parent can figure that out.

By the way, what makes those parental attentions unwelcome, I wonder?

If "sit and watch" is voluntary,


Would you wait for the child to come to you in other situations if you
saw they needed information and teaching and support?

Boy, will your kids be deprived.

with the parent inviting the child to sit
and watch while the parent points out how the other children are playing
safely, I agree with you that "sit and watch" is not a punishment in that
situation.


Right. In fact, they parent and child in the study trained for those
episodes before the real thing.

You still haven't asked Doan for a copy and read it, right?

But forcing a child to sit and watch when the child wants to be
playing very definitely is a punishment.


Okay. YOU call it a punishment, I call it a consequence.

The study called it punishment!

Doan


  #75  
Old December 10th 06, 11:06 PM posted to alt.parenting.spanking
0:->
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,968
Default Teenagers faced with spankings

Doan wrote:
On 10 Dec 2006, 0:- wrote:


Nathan A. Barclay wrote:
"0:-" wrote in message
newst6dnaKGOMnBJObYnZ2dnUVZ_uW3nZ2d@scnresearch. com...

I didn't make that claim. My claim is, as you conveniently

point out for
me, quoting me, is that I disagree with Embry's use of the word to
describe something the child is unlikely to experience as

punishment,
attention from mommy. Mom does sit with the child and encourage

him to
watch safe play.

Normal humans consider parental attention a good thing, not a

punishment,
unless of course mom is whacking the child while he's doing

"sit and
watch."

Children only view parental attention as a good thing at times

when it is
something they want. Being forced to accept parental attention when
children want to do something else can be decidedly unpleasant.


And you, the parent, can't cope with that? Hell a dog trainer knows how
to make an interaction pleasant for the dog for training purposes.
Surely a human parent can figure that out.

By the way, what makes those parental attentions unwelcome, I wonder?

If "sit and watch" is voluntary,


Would you wait for the child to come to you in other situations if you
saw they needed information and teaching and support?

Boy, will your kids be deprived.

with the parent inviting the child to sit
and watch while the parent points out how the other children are

playing
safely, I agree with you that "sit and watch" is not a punishment

in that
situation.


Right. In fact, they parent and child in the study trained for those
episodes before the real thing.

You still haven't asked Doan for a copy and read it, right?

But forcing a child to sit and watch when the child wants to be
playing very definitely is a punishment.


Okay. YOU call it a punishment, I call it a consequence.

The study called it punishment!


Okay. That's what it says.

I disagree. In two ways. Embry's use of the word, and using "punishment"
as an approach to the child.

So?

Might you argue that this "punishment" was the deciding factor in the
reduction of street entries?

Notice it included no CP? 0:-



Doan

  #76  
Old December 10th 06, 11:36 PM posted to alt.parenting.spanking
Doan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,380
Default Teenagers faced with spankings

On Sun, 10 Dec 2006, 0:- wrote:

Doan wrote:
On 10 Dec 2006, 0:- wrote:


Nathan A. Barclay wrote:
"0:-" wrote in message
newst6dnaKGOMnBJObYnZ2dnUVZ_uW3nZ2d@scnresearch. com...

I didn't make that claim. My claim is, as you conveniently

point out for
me, quoting me, is that I disagree with Embry's use of the word to
describe something the child is unlikely to experience as

punishment,
attention from mommy. Mom does sit with the child and encourage

him to
watch safe play.

Normal humans consider parental attention a good thing, not a

punishment,
unless of course mom is whacking the child while he's doing

"sit and
watch."

Children only view parental attention as a good thing at times

when it is
something they want. Being forced to accept parental attention when
children want to do something else can be decidedly unpleasant.

And you, the parent, can't cope with that? Hell a dog trainer knows how
to make an interaction pleasant for the dog for training purposes.
Surely a human parent can figure that out.

By the way, what makes those parental attentions unwelcome, I wonder?

If "sit and watch" is voluntary,

Would you wait for the child to come to you in other situations if you
saw they needed information and teaching and support?

Boy, will your kids be deprived.

with the parent inviting the child to sit
and watch while the parent points out how the other children are

playing
safely, I agree with you that "sit and watch" is not a punishment

in that
situation.

Right. In fact, they parent and child in the study trained for those
episodes before the real thing.

You still haven't asked Doan for a copy and read it, right?

But forcing a child to sit and watch when the child wants to be
playing very definitely is a punishment.

Okay. YOU call it a punishment, I call it a consequence.

The study called it punishment!


Okay. That's what it says.

Hihihi! So you lied!

I disagree. In two ways. Embry's use of the word, and using "punishment"
as an approach to the child.

So?


Doan:
He would also know that along with positive reinforcement, giving
stickers for
safe play, Dr. Embry also prescribed punishment, using time-out, for
unsafe
play.

Kane:
"Actually he did no such thing. He prescribed sitting and watching
other children playing safely. Dr. Embry knows how the human brain
actually works and the power of learning through modeling."

Remember that, Kane?

Might you argue that this "punishment" was the deciding factor in the
reduction of street entries?

It was one of the factor, was it not?

Notice it included no CP? 0:-

So? The study wasn't about CP. That is why I pointed your LIES when you
said:

"Pretty remarkable when one considers that parents who spanked before
had children that attemped entries at the highest rate of all per hour."

Remembered? ;-)

Doan


  #77  
Old December 10th 06, 11:50 PM posted to alt.parenting.spanking
0:->
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,968
Default Teenagers faced with spankings

Doan wrote:
On Sun, 10 Dec 2006, 0:- wrote:

Doan wrote:
On 10 Dec 2006, 0:- wrote:


Nathan A. Barclay wrote:
"0:-" wrote in message
newst6dnaKGOMnBJObYnZ2dnUVZ_uW3nZ2d@scnresearch. com...

I didn't make that claim. My claim is, as you conveniently

point out for
me, quoting me, is that I disagree with Embry's use of the word to
describe something the child is unlikely to experience as

punishment,
attention from mommy. Mom does sit with the child and encourage

him to
watch safe play.

Normal humans consider parental attention a good thing, not a

punishment,
unless of course mom is whacking the child while he's doing

"sit and
watch."

Children only view parental attention as a good thing at times

when it is
something they want. Being forced to accept parental attention when
children want to do something else can be decidedly unpleasant.

And you, the parent, can't cope with that? Hell a dog trainer knows how
to make an interaction pleasant for the dog for training purposes.
Surely a human parent can figure that out.

By the way, what makes those parental attentions unwelcome, I wonder?

If "sit and watch" is voluntary,

Would you wait for the child to come to you in other situations if you
saw they needed information and teaching and support?

Boy, will your kids be deprived.

with the parent inviting the child to sit
and watch while the parent points out how the other children are

playing
safely, I agree with you that "sit and watch" is not a punishment

in that
situation.

Right. In fact, they parent and child in the study trained for those
episodes before the real thing.

You still haven't asked Doan for a copy and read it, right?

But forcing a child to sit and watch when the child wants to be
playing very definitely is a punishment.

Okay. YOU call it a punishment, I call it a consequence.

The study called it punishment!


Okay. That's what it says.

Hihihi! So you lied!


About what?

You are still ignoring that I disagreed, not that the word wasn't used.

You are a pathological liar, Doan.

I disagree. In two ways. Embry's use of the word, and using "punishment"
as an approach to the child.

So?


Doan:
He would also know that along with positive reinforcement, giving
stickers for
safe play, Dr. Embry also prescribed punishment, using time-out, for
unsafe
play.

Kane:
"Actually he did no such thing. He prescribed sitting and watching
other children playing safely. Dr. Embry knows how the human brain
actually works and the power of learning through modeling."

Remember that, Kane?

Might you argue that this "punishment" was the deciding factor in the
reduction of street entries?

It was one of the factor, was it not?


Yep, and what you just posted kind of proves my point...no?

Did you forget this from your own post?

"And here is the problems the parents reported with the Sit and Watch
PUNISHMENT:

1) child wouldn't sit - 51.4%
2) child talked back - 8.6%
3) child cried - 8.6%
4) parent didn't like it 5.7%
5) other children around 5.7%
6) No excuse 5.7%
7) child stubborn 2.9%
8) hard to use it 2.9%
9) parent's lack self-discipline - 2.9%
10) Answer left blank 5.7% "

Notice it included no CP? 0:-

So? The study wasn't about CP.


So, this is a CP newsgroup. Is it not?

That is why I pointed your LIES when you
said:


I didn't lie. You are doing so now.

You pointed out my disagreement with Embry's use of the word,
"punishment," and called it a lie.

Note how small the percentage is for each item on the "problems list"
above, that it isn't of "parents," but just items. ONE parent could have
made all those complaints, or two or three, Doan.

You and I both know there were more than 10 parents, genius.

"Pretty remarkable when one considers that parents who spanked before
had children that attemped entries at the highest rate of all per hour."

Remembered? ;-)


That's what Embry said he observed with spanking parents. Are you
suggesting it was the unspanked children that were spanked?

And that this group had no parents that spanked before? R R R R R R


Doan


Sure Doan. That's it. It's a 'lie' to disagree with a researcher.

Your argument just fell on your ass.

0:-
  #78  
Old December 11th 06, 12:34 AM posted to alt.parenting.spanking
Nathan A. Barclay
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 34
Default Teenagers faced with spankings

"0:-" wrote in message
oups.com...

Nathan A. Barclay wrote:
"0:-" wrote in message
oups.com...


You reject the concept of punishment,


Nope. Only for certain circumstances.

A teen that stole from a store, for instance, I'd want to see do a
little time and pay a fine.

A 6 year old?

Naw. Maybe some sweeping and thinking.


You are engaging in a sophistry here. The fact that you accept the concept
of punishment as valid for teenagers and adults does not change the fact
that you reject it for children in the age range we're discussing. Thus, it
does absolutely nothing to invalidate my accusation that you are deluding
yourself into pretending that punishments aren't punishments.

Forcing a six-year-old to sweep is a form of punishment.

They are indicating someone didn't teach them well when they were
younger, and in fact probably are from a spanking family.


If the only problem is a lack of teaching, why make them sweep? Why not
just teach them?

As I don't reject "punishment." I simply know what it is and where it
should and shouldn't be used.

I have no doubt that when a teen socks someone in the face he or she is
pretty much aware of what they are doing, and the consequences to all
parties.

I'm not the least sure a 4 or 6 or even 10 year old is.

I'd have to assess the situation pretty carefully, and I can assure
you, the 8 and 4 year old would be pretty likely to NOT fall into the
same category the teen ager would.


I think part of the difference in our thinking is in where we draw the line.
I don't think children have to have an essentially adult level of
understanding of why something is wrong before they can understand enough
that some kind of punishment is warranted. Care is required in regard to
how much the child really understands, and in regard to whether the behavior
was intentional, or a result of gross negligence, or simply a result of the
fact that no child can remember every rule all the time. But when children
do understand enough to know that a behavior is unacceptable, and they
either deliberately misbehave or don't bother to make any real effort to
behave, I believe punishment is justified.

That still doesn't necessarily mean that punishing the child is the best
option. If there is still a chance that additonal explaining will work,
that may be a better choice, or even a much better one. But the minimum
threshold for me to view punishment as justified - the child's knowing that
a behavior is not allowed and either deliberately choosing to engage in it
anyhow or not making a reasonable effort to try to avoid it - has been
crossed.

A more complex issue arises when unacceptable behavior is too frequent to
all be essentially honest mistakes, but where individual instances might
still be essentially honest mistakes. I find that kind of situation
extremely awkward because of how hard it is to draw a clear line without
creating a situation where the child could cross the line accidentally. And
without a clear line, it's hard for children to understand how much danger
of being punished they might be in at any given time.

The idea that seems best of what I can think of at the moment, once children
are old enough to understand it, is modeled after a traffic signal. I
haven't had a chance to try it yet, so I don't know how well it would work
in practice. The idea is to assign colors for different kinds of behavior.
Green means a child is behaving generally well, so there isn't any danger of
getting in trouble over minor, unintentional misbehavior. Yellow means the
child is misbehaving too often, and if the child keeps it up, he or she will
run out of additional chances pretty soon. And red means the child has been
misbehaving so much that any farther misnehavior for a while will be
punished even if it might have been an accident. The punishment isn't just
a result of the last thing the child did. It's a result of the child's
having misbehaved so much that the situation got to red.

That mechanism creates a lot of room for a child to feel safe as long as he
or she is trying to behave reasonably well (which addresses your concern
about the chilid's always being afraid), and gives the child a warning
before there is any immediate danger, but still leaves a point where
repeated deliberate misbehavior or persistent refusal to try to behave will
result in punishment. I've also added the color purple (because it's at the
opposite end of the rainbow from red) for consistently good behavior.

You have to pretend
that the only goal is to spend additional
time showing the child what safe playing is like when the reality is that
a
significant part of the goal is normally that the child won't want to
have
his play disrupted by having to sit and watch again. (That's especially
true if "sit and watch" continues to be used long after the child clearly
understands what safe play is.)


You presume much. Read the study.


Please don't tell me I presume too much without bothering to tell me WHY you
are saying that. The only "why" you offered was so mixed in with your
ideology that I see no indication that I am wrong.

Further, if sitting with the parent and watching truly is something the
child would rather do than play, and the parent isn't willing to sit with
the child and watch whenever the child wants the parent to, "sit and
watch"
would actually become an incentive for the child to go out in the street
in
order to get attention.


Doesn't work that way. That's the oldest anti "behavioral" argument in
the book.

I didn't claim the child wants the parent to sit with them. Only that
they welcome it in safety, unafraid they'll be spanked or chided.


You must have a very screwed-up definition of the word "welcome." I suppose
you would welcome someone's burning down your house as long as they don't
spank or chide you? There are a lot more things that people can find
unpleasant than just being spanked or chided.

Your logic fails on the drive that nature gives the child to explore,
and on the fact that the un punished child doesn't have to do something
to get parental attention. They just ask for it.


Who says? The only way your claim can be true is if it is impossible to
rear children without punishing them unless the parents are willing to give
the children all the attention they want, whenever they want it. And if
that is a requirement for successful nonpunitive parenting, you've just
disqualified an awful lot of people from any possibility of having purely
nonpunitive approaches work for them.

Only a child wouldn't
have to be anywhere near as desperate for attention to solicit positive
attention as to solicit negative attention.


Children in negative parenting envirionments learn to use negative
attention getters.

Children living with parents who are safe to approach, and who are safe
when the parent approaches, don't have that little problem.


Who says? If the children can't get the attention they want, when they want
it, through positive means, why would the absence of punishment make them
less likely to resort to negative means? Conversely, why would the presence
of punishment make children more likely to misbehave in order to get
attention than if misbehaving could get them the same attention without
being punished in the process?

If Doan keeps you waiting, there is always the AAA copy. I seem to
recall it costing about $20 or so, post paid.


Not worth the cost to me at present.


  #79  
Old December 11th 06, 01:17 AM posted to alt.parenting.spanking
0:->
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,968
Default Teenagers faced with spankings


Nathan A. Barclay wrote:
"0:-" wrote in message
ps.com...

Nothing wrong with testing. The problem is now they are teaching to the
test, and these tests are predetermined, NOT created by teachers to fit
the setting and children he or she is in.

Have you seen any of the test questions? The absurd pile of crap
imaginable.


Tests created by individual teachers provide no basis for comparing children
outside one particular class.


You seem to miss my point.

They can create an illusion of success when
teachers hand out inflated grades, with no way of telling how successful a
school really is.


Then YOU are part of the problem, Nathan.

The distrust of teachers has been carefully cultivated as part of the
campaign to educationally disenfranchise children of all but the elite.
The wealthy and powerful.

HAVE YOU READ THE DAMN TEST QUESTIONS? Why did you NOT answer that
question?

They also can't tell us how different methods of
instruction compare. For that matter, what are you using to compare the
learning in states that paddle with the learning in states that don't, if
not standardized tests?


It doesn't matter. The standardized tests have become *******ized at
this point. They used to tell us something. And one of those things was
that paddling states are low scoring states.

Standardized tests do have some value as long as we don't place too much
emphasis on them.


You just paraphrased my comment as though YOU created it, thus
attempting to argue against my argument with my own argument.

" Nothing wrong with testing. The problem is now they are teaching to
the
test, and these tests are predetermined, NOT created by teachers to fit
the setting and children he or she is in."

That is the same thing. TOO much emphasis on the test, instead of the
teachers judgement...the part YOU left out and then fall into the
"don't trust the teacher" trap and bull****.

But it would be nice if we could come up with an
information-gathering process that goes beyond the limits of the kinds of
standardized testing we currently use.


We can, could, and did. They are called "teachers."

Are you so young you don't remember that? I'd say if you are 45 or
younger you are victim of the scam to take education away from
teachers.

snip

Children get spanked for making mistakes.


Snipping my supporting commentary is not nice. It changes what it
appears I am saying.

There is a huge difference between spanking children for all kinds of
mistakes,


Really?

and spanking them only when their "mistakes" are either clearly
deliberate or a result of gross negligence in trying to control their
behavior.


Now how, that didn't believe that children are born evil, and are in
battle for control with the parents, could possibly argue with you on
that.

I mean, there are so many grossly negligent toddlers, after all...and
that is the most spanked population, so surely we have uncovered the
enemy, we beliguered parents, poor souls.

And those damn grossly negligent 9 year olds. Let me tell you, their
constant yammering things like "it's not fair," certainly doesn't have
anything to do with Mother Nature plonking them on the head to become
little classification engines (WHICH IS THE BUSINESS OF THIS AGE
RANGE).

So they whine. And they are seen as being "clearly deliberate." You
might as well kick a pot of flowers for not blooming in December.

For **** sakes, did you NOT look at a single developmental reference I
posted links to?

Children are "grossly negligent," or make mistakes that are "clearly
deliberate."

Those are properly called ignorance, and the drive to DO IT to learn.

Even make mistakes.

You wallop a kid for making mistakes and there is no telling what you
just trained that child NOT to do that could have benefited him or her,
or humankind, or even YOU in your old age, when they decide that YOU
are being deliberately mistaken.

Chezzzz....are you ever going to wake up?

This is disgusting.

I've had more intelligent response from mentally ill 15 year olds.

Were do YOU get off claiming children are deliberatly ANYTHING. They
are happening, and most of the time totally unconscious to their
actions and to cause and effect.

Hell, half the time we adults aren't either.

And as adults we cut each other slack for that..unless we are a raving
maniac.

Just as I'm feeling at the moment. 0:-]

What IS this bull**** low down controlling vicious meaness with
children all about?

It drives them to drink, insanity, and crime, for **** sakes. Stop
doing it.

Best wishes, Kane

  #80  
Old December 11th 06, 04:42 AM posted to alt.parenting.spanking
Nathan A. Barclay
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 34
Default Teenagers faced with spankings


"0:-" wrote in message
ups.com...

The distrust of teachers has been carefully cultivated as part of the
campaign to educationally disenfranchise children of all but the elite.
The wealthy and powerful.


In any profession, some of the people who enter it are very good, some are
incompetent, and most are somewhere in between. And in any profession, it
is possible for people who start off good to become lazy or complacent, or
to get burned out.

In most professions, the free market sorts out such differences, with
workers who aren't measuring up getting replaced by people who do better.
But because our public education system is a government monopoly (or, more
precisely, made up of a bunch of local monopolies), and because teachers'
unions do such a good job of resisting attempts to judge how good a job
individual teachers are doing, a relative handful of bad teachers are able
to drag the entire profession's reputation through the mud. And the harder
the unions try to protect the substandard teachers, the more of the mud gets
splattered across the entire profession.

What I want - and am writing a book to promote - is a well-funded voucher
system. That wouldn't ensure equality in the communist sense of
deliberately limiting people's opportunities in order to keep anyone from
having more than anyone else. But it would guarantee that government power
couldn't be used to artificially and unnecessarily limit families'
opportunities to get good education for their children.

HAVE YOU READ THE DAMN TEST QUESTIONS? Why did you NOT answer that
question?


No, I haven't read the questions. And I resent your tone of acting like you
have some kind of magical right to demand that I waste my time answering
every question you care to write.

Standardized tests do have some value as long as we don't place too much
emphasis on them.


You just paraphrased my comment as though YOU created it, thus
attempting to argue against my argument with my own argument.

" Nothing wrong with testing. The problem is now they are teaching to
the test, and these tests are predetermined, NOT created by teachers
to fit the setting and children he or she is in."


The fact that you did not include the word "standardized" in your first
sentence, coupled with your later emphasis on the idea that tests should be
created by teachers, led me to interpret your position as being inherently
against standardized testing. Thanks for clarifying your position. As for
what I wrote, I've felt that way for several years. It's more or less my
standard response when the issue comes up.

That is the same thing. TOO much emphasis on the test, instead of the
teachers judgement...the part YOU left out and then fall into the
"don't trust the teacher" trap and bull****.


Let me clue you in on something. I'm the son of a former teacher and a
college professor. Two of my aunts are retired schoolteachers. One of my
cousins is a schoolteacher, and another is a teacher's aide studying to
become a teacher. So I am NOT the sort of person who has any kind of
sweeping distrust for the entire teaching profession.

There is, however, a difference between reasonable trust and blind faith.
There is NO profession that I have so much faith in that I'd be satisfied
with having government assign me a professional more or less at random, and
trust that the person government picks will necessarily make the best
choices. Nor, as a professional myself, would I expect a person I work for
to put blind faith in me to always make the best choices without paying any
attention to how good a job I am doing.

Too much trust can be just as dangerous as too little, and sometimes even
more dangerous. Professionals need enough trust that they can get on with
their work without being continually second-guessed or micromanaged. But
there needs to be enough oversight to make sure they are doing a good job,
and to replace them if they aren't.

Unfortunately, my impression is that our current public education system has
too much micromanagement where it isn't necessary, while at the same time
often not having nearly as much capacity as it should to actually replace
teachers who are doing a substandard job. Thus, to a large extent, we get
the worst of both worlds.

But it would be nice if we could come up with an
information-gathering process that goes beyond the limits of the kinds of
standardized testing we currently use.


We can, could, and did. They are called "teachers."

Are you so young you don't remember that? I'd say if you are 45 or
younger you are victim of the scam to take education away from
teachers.


In any profession, some workers are able to do an excellent job with very
little supervision and oversight, while others are more prone to make
mistakes and therefore need greater supervision and oversight.
Unfortunately, our current system seems to be so geared toward trying to
make sure the worst teachers don't make mistakes that it doesn't give good
teachers anywhere near the autonomy they need and deserve.

There is a huge difference between spanking children for all kinds of
mistakes,


Really?

and spanking them only when their "mistakes" are either clearly
deliberate or a result of gross negligence in trying to control their
behavior.


Now how, that didn't believe that children are born evil, and are in
battle for control with the parents, could possibly argue with you on
that.

I mean, there are so many grossly negligent toddlers, after all...and
that is the most spanked population, so surely we have uncovered the
enemy, we beliguered parents, poor souls.

And those damn grossly negligent 9 year olds. Let me tell you, their
constant yammering things like "it's not fair," certainly doesn't have
anything to do with Mother Nature plonking them on the head to become
little classification engines (WHICH IS THE BUSINESS OF THIS AGE
RANGE).

So they whine. And they are seen as being "clearly deliberate." You
might as well kick a pot of flowers for not blooming in December.


Nice examples of how dangerous it can be when parents' expectations are
unrealistic relative to their children's ages.

Parents need to recognize that there are limits to how long and how reliably
toddlers can be expected to remember what they aren't supposed to do, and to
understand that expecting toddlers to control their behavior more reliably
than those limits allow is unfair and unrealistic. Parents need to
recognize the difference between children's disagreeing with them about
whether something is fair, and children's deliberately defying them. And
when there is a gray area, children should generally be given the benefit of
reasonable doubts - although there can be exceptions when one child's
benefit of the doubt risks becoming a license to harm another.

But the fact that you can give examples where children's behavior is beyond
their reasonable ability to control doesn't mean that there are not also
situations where children do have the ability to control their behavior if
they make a reasonable effort to do so.

For **** sakes, did you NOT look at a single developmental reference I
posted links to?


There is a huge difference between posting links to specific references and
posting links to Google searches. With a link to a specific reference, I
could take a few minutes to read it and know I'm looking at something that
you regard as offering good quality information. Google searches are more
of a hit-or-miss proposition in terms of how quickly good-quality
information can be found, and thus far, I haven't been in a mood to mess
with them.

Children are "grossly negligent," or make mistakes that are "clearly
deliberate."

Those are properly called ignorance, and the drive to DO IT to learn.


Believe it or not, children have other motives besides learning. A lot of
the time, their most immediate motive is to have fun or to get something
they want.

Even make mistakes.

You wallop a kid for making mistakes and there is no telling what you
just trained that child NOT to do that could have benefited him or her,
or humankind, or even YOU in your old age, when they decide that YOU
are being deliberately mistaken.


That's why it is important for children to have a clear understanding of
what is expected, and to keep the expectations reasonable. If children
understand what the rules are and why they are being punished, the risk of
accidental side effects of scaring them away from other types of behavior is
reduced enormously.

Were do YOU get off claiming children are deliberatly ANYTHING. They
are happening, and most of the time totally unconscious to their
actions and to cause and effect.

Hell, half the time we adults aren't either.

And as adults we cut each other slack for that..unless we are a raving
maniac.


Here, again, I think you're takiing a very reasonable concept to an
unreasonable extreme. I agree that children deserve to be cut a reasonable
amount of slack, usually more than adults would expect to receive in similar
situations (and for the youngest children, often a whole lot more). But
there are limits to how much slack I think it is fair or reasonable to
expect parents to cut their children, and to how much slack I think it is
good for the children to have cut for them.


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
More Teenagers Seek Help From Psychiatrists Jan Kids Health 29 April 23rd 06 05:53 PM
Third of US teenagers are unfit Roman Bystrianyk Kids Health 1 January 3rd 06 03:57 AM
Teenagers' behaviour 'worsening' Roman Bystrianyk Kids Health 1 September 20th 04 12:12 PM
PA: Erie Co., CYS failure-Busy chasin' spankings? Fern5827 Spanking 0 June 14th 04 04:19 PM
Why are so many teenagers so foul mouthed and disgusting? [email protected] General 8 April 13th 04 06:59 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:31 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 ParentingBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.