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 |
#71
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|
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 02:57 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 |