91
Post by: Hordini
It's very disappointing that we have these examples of complete idiocy and lack of thought in places that are supposed to be institutions of learning.
What is a suspension supposed to teach a kindergartner or young elementary school student? You'd probably make a bigger impression by making them stay inside for recess that day. In these cases even that would probably be an overreaction.
27391
Post by: purplefood
That was weird...
Those stories are just odd.
Odd reaction to an odd situation...
5470
Post by: sebster
Zero tolerance nonsense.
91
Post by: Hordini
Exactly. Just an excuse for teachers and administrators to not have to actually use their brains and make an actual decision on what kind of discipline is appropriate.
1464
Post by: Breotan
I don't see how discipline is warranted in any of these cases.
10312
Post by: LuciusAR
What a load of hippy nonsense. Young boys play at war, it's what they do. Give 2 young lands sticks and I guarantee they will be pretend sword fighting within minutes.
I’m glad these idiots weren’t in charge when I was at school.
10097
Post by: Ensis Ferrae
Actually, i think that these are cases of weak/poor parenting..
To explain further, when my younger brother was 6, his school attempted to suspend him (and incidentally, some of his friends) because they were playing cops and robbers, and were using 'finger guns'. I say attempted, because my parents basically said, no, he is a boy and boys play games like this and there is absolutely nothing wrong with games at his age, and that he would be in class because there was no suspendable offense done.
These were the same 'educators' who thought that he had add because he was disruptive to the class....again, he was a 6-7 year old boy, who also happened to be learning to play drums.
To me, it is a sad state of affairs when kids can no longer be kids, and we do not allow them to learn real life lessons their own way.
7653
Post by: Corpsesarefun
Seriously? Shouting at children for feth all?
Sigh.
36184
Post by: Alfndrate
AMERICA! FETH YEAH!
As someone that spent 5 years learning the 'greatness" of the American education system, I can certainly tell you that these schools are within their rights to act as they did. They are COMPLETE fethwads for not using this as a teachable moment, showing the young kids the differences between school and play time, when playing at war is appropriate, and when it is not. You have a 6 year old sit in from recess, and just talk with him about why bringing telling a kid that you're going to shoot them and then yourself (Terrorist with Hello Kitty gun) is wrong, explain that some very bad men have come in to schools and have done that to little kids his or her age. Explain to them that you understand youngin's like to play war, cops and robbers, cowboys and indians, what have you, but they need to remember school is not the place for this.
BAM! Just helped a kid be a better person.
*sigh* School districts and their 0 tolerance policies make me ill. I had a friend get suspended for 2 days in 7th grade because he made a comment about the principal being flat chested, and some little tattle-tale told her. And said that he violated the school's 0 tolerance harassment policy.
21720
Post by: LordofHats
When I was in the 3rd grade I almost got suspended for having a spork in my pocket.
The best part? I got the spork from the school cafeteria.
The above story in 100% true 
37231
Post by: d-usa
Quick sue parents are just as much to blame for zero-tolerance policies as schools are.
36184
Post by: Alfndrate
 d-usa wrote:Quick sue parents are just as much to blame for zero-tolerance policies as schools are.
*sigh*... yes, yes they are...
10312
Post by: LuciusAR
d-usa wrote:Quick sue parents are just as much to blame for zero-tolerance policies as schools are.
Agreed, this horrible litigious culture has started to make its way over here as well and it's not pretty.
91
Post by: Hordini
d-usa wrote:Quick sue parents are just as much to blame for zero-tolerance policies as schools are.
That seems like it'd be walking a fine line. I'd think parents could just as easily bring a suit against a school for one of these stupid zero tolerance policy incidents (not that it would necessarily be successful).
12313
Post by: Ouze
Is this the thread where we pretend zero tolerance policies only exist in the northeastern US? Because, you know, even 10 seconds of googling reveals this obviously isn't even slightly true. I mean, you can put in nearly any state in the country and add "zero tolerance school" to get your states stupid stories. So we could either have an honest dialogue about why zero tolerance is stupid, or we could pretend it's simply a regional problem because thinking is difficult.
PS: Pro-tip: "Colorado" isn't considered to be in the Northeastern US, which is where the very first link you dropped happened.
61627
Post by: KalashnikovMarine
 LuciusAR wrote:What a load of hippy nonsense. Young boys play at war, it's what they do. Give 2 young lands sticks and I guarantee they will be pretend sword fighting within minutes.
I’m glad these idiots weren’t in charge when I was at school.
This, many a grand battle in the fantasy/medieval setting, and many others in more modern times were fought in my neighborhood with sticks! The most versatile battle implement known to man! Also ironically one of our first ACTUAL battle implements.
Then again I was a terror in school and was tossed out of a private catholic institution with enough demerit slips to wallpaper a mid-size room.
53375
Post by: hotsauceman1
LuciusAR wrote:What a load of hippy nonsense. Young boys play at war, it's what they do. Give 2 young lands sticks and I guarantee they will be pretend sword fighting within minutes.
I’m glad these idiots weren’t in charge when I was at school.
While I agree that the school is overacting in one of these( it didnt read the other) If you have two kids playing with sticks hitting eachother on the playground, and one get poked in the eye, the school can hear from parents real soon. Its better safe then sorry.
I think its like this with zero-tolerance. They be extra careful because parents like to complain to schools alot.
36184
Post by: Alfndrate
 hotsauceman1 wrote: LuciusAR wrote:What a load of hippy nonsense. Young boys play at war, it's what they do. Give 2 young lands sticks and I guarantee they will be pretend sword fighting within minutes.
I’m glad these idiots weren’t in charge when I was at school.
While I agree that the school is overacting in one of these( it didnt read the other) If you have two kids playing with sticks hitting eachother on the playground, and one get poked in the eye, the school can hear from parents real soon. Its better safe then sorry.
I think its like this with zero-tolerance. They be extra careful because parents like to complain to schools alot.
Just read the links, no one is hitting another with sticks. It was an example of "boys will be boys".
53375
Post by: hotsauceman1
Oh I agree, I just think it was a poor example, because unlike the stories given, Baning stick can result in injury.
91
Post by: Hordini
If two elementary school kids are "sword fighting" on the playground, just take the sticks away and make them go inside or miss the next recess or something. You don't need to suspend them, that's pretty much completely meaningless to a kid that age.
21720
Post by: LordofHats
 Hordini wrote:You don't need to suspend them, that's pretty much completely meaningless to a kid that age.
Talk about positive conditioning
91
Post by: Hordini
 LordofHats wrote: Hordini wrote:You don't need to suspend them, that's pretty much completely meaningless to a kid that age.
Talk about positive conditioning
Yeah, exactly. I can just imagine the thought process of my kindergarten-age self after an incident like that:
"Oh, I get to stay home all day after having an epic sword fight on the playground?! YES!!! We should do this again sometime."
12313
Post by: Ouze
Nah, you only think that as an adult. In my experience kids that age (kindergarten etc) love going to school.
30265
Post by: SoloFalcon1138
it is a problem of parenting and the overreach of zero tolerance policies. If the parents were doing their jobs, ie keeping the toy guns at home, the teachers wouldn't be doing it for them, ie massive punishments for pointing at each other and saying bang.
The lack of parental guidance has turned into school-assisted parenting. Two boys, on their own, will most likely play war or cops and robbers; this is normal. But because no one coaches the kids as to how to behave, schools end up filling the gap. Because teachers can't really inflict a parental level of punishment (like a good ass-whipping), zero tolerance became the norm.
Let the parents raise the kids. Let the schools do the educating. Unless a kid is a threat or an actual disturbance, neither the twain should mix. Parents and teachers need to talk, but teachers are not in the parenting business from 9 to 5 on the clock.
36184
Post by: Alfndrate
 Ouze wrote:Nah, you only think that as an adult. In my experience kids that age (kindergarten etc) love going to school.
Kindergarten and 1st grade Alfndrate would have to agree with you, I thoroughly enjoyed school, it was 2nd through 8th grade that I dreaded, and I enjoyed the "social" aspects of high school, though most of the classes were boring. But I blame my disdain for grade school (private catholic school) on the fact that in 2nd grade one of my best friends moved away, I got into a fight because 4 classmates were calling me by my last name mockingly by making pig calling sounds (while I am a larger person now, I was far from a tubby little fat kid then), and I was being constantly bullied by a 4th grader for the next two years (who ended that fight in 2nd grade when he practically gave me a concussion when he pushed me down on the parking lot of the school). The results of this fight? The antagonists got off scot-free and I got recess taken away from me for a week as well as a parent-teacher meeting explaining all of this because I had "started" a fight. And the torment only ended when we all graduated, and the boys were split amongst 2 catholic high schools and after freshman year, I entered the illustrious American Public Education system.
91
Post by: Hordini
Ouze wrote:Nah, you only think that as an adult. In my experience kids that age (kindergarten etc) love going to school.
You're right, they do and I did too. But I liked having days off as well. We had some awesome snow days and things like that. If I had actually been suspended in elementary the biggest factor would have really been whether or not I was in trouble with my parents. If it was for a stupid reason like some of these examples, I probably wouldn't have been.
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
In other news, children all over the world started to pretend to have guns.
20243
Post by: Grey Templar
Hordini wrote:If two elementary school kids are "sword fighting" on the playground, just take the sticks away and make them go inside or miss the next recess or something. You don't need to suspend them, that's pretty much completely meaningless to a kid of any age.
This seems more fitting. Suspending kids IMO is a counter productive punishment. I would assert that in most cases the kid in question wouldn't give 2 feths about missing school. It means they get to stay home and play video games, so really this just reinforces bad behavior.
Suspension is only a punishment to a child thats wants to learn, which I would also argue is very rare in a child under the age of 12. Many kids don't hate school, but neither do they like it to the point where being deprived of it would be a punishment.
This action should only be taken in events where the kid in question is actually disruptive/harmful to the education of the other children and/or it would be an actual punishment for the kid.
5559
Post by: Ratbarf
I think you are all somewhat unaware as to the purpose of a suspension. The punishment doesn't come from the having missed a day of school. The reason a child is suspended is because the punishment the Teachers/Principals deem suitable to the offence is too severe for them to legally administer, and thus the expectation is that when you get home your parents will administer said punishment. Colloquially known as, "a good old fashioned ass whoopin."
Unfortunately, most parents no longer believe in the benefits of said ass whoopin, so the punishment goes undelivered. I, however, had the good grace to be born into a family which did and does still recognize the educational benefit of an ass whoopin, and thus suspensions where the thing I feared the most when it came to disciplinary action by the school.
20243
Post by: Grey Templar
That too. We need more ass woopin. it builds character.
Another reason the suspension is completely ineffective.
91
Post by: Hordini
 Ratbarf wrote:I think you are all somewhat unaware as to the purpose of a suspension. The punishment doesn't come from the having missed a day of school. The reason a child is suspended is because the punishment the Teachers/Principals deem suitable to the offence is too severe for them to legally administer, and thus the expectation is that when you get home your parents will administer said punishment. Colloquially known as, "a good old fashioned ass whoopin."
Unfortunately, most parents no longer believe in the benefits of said ass whoopin, so the punishment goes undelivered. I, however, had the good grace to be born into a family which did and does still recognize the educational benefit of an ass whoopin, and thus suspensions where the thing I feared the most when it came to disciplinary action by the school.
While spankings might be appropriate for some children in some cases, getting suspended for making a "finger gun" or talking about a Hello Kitty bubble pistol isn't one of them.
221
Post by: Frazzled
 Breotan wrote:I don't see how discipline is warranted in any of these cases.
By following struct procedure and getting the police whenever when absolutely ever possible, they avoid lawsuits. "We followed policy" is way to avoid parents and lawsuits, or frankly any criticism. Automatically Appended Next Post: Hordini wrote: Ratbarf wrote:I think you are all somewhat unaware as to the purpose of a suspension. The punishment doesn't come from the having missed a day of school. The reason a child is suspended is because the punishment the Teachers/Principals deem suitable to the offence is too severe for them to legally administer, and thus the expectation is that when you get home your parents will administer said punishment. Colloquially known as, "a good old fashioned ass whoopin."
Unfortunately, most parents no longer believe in the benefits of said ass whoopin, so the punishment goes undelivered. I, however, had the good grace to be born into a family which did and does still recognize the educational benefit of an ass whoopin, and thus suspensions where the thing I feared the most when it came to disciplinary action by the school.
While spankings might be appropriate for some children in some cases, getting suspended for making a "finger gun" or talking about a Hello Kitty bubble pistol isn't one of them.
Plus you might run into a parent like me who may decide beat the hell out of you for touching their kid. No one beats my kids but me! Oh wait thats doesn't sound right... 
37231
Post by: d-usa
You gave that kid a warning for something, and my kid a suspension? What my kid did wasn't that much worse than the other kid! You discriminated against my kid, I am going to sue you!
=
Kid gets a warning for pointing a stick or using his fingers as a "gun". Another kid brings a toy gun and gets suspended. Parent: "that toy gun wasn't any more of a real gun than the stick. I am going to sue the pants of this school!"
=
Zero tolerance policies where everybody gets the same punishment for any level of breaking the rules.
1464
Post by: Breotan
Or just go with, oh I don't know, common sense policies and stop punishing children for being children.
Well, it seems that moronic school policies aren't limited to the USA.
http://shine.yahoo.com/parenting/australian-kids-banned-birthday-tradition-school-181900033.html
51639
Post by: CuddlySquig
some people were traumatized by Sandy Hook is all.
21499
Post by: Mr. Burning
The precedent over make believe weapons has been set in the case of Iraq Vs Coalition.
37231
Post by: d-usa
Breotan wrote:Or just go with, oh I don't know, common sense policies and stop punishing children for being children.
It's a legal liability to have common sense when the people that sue you don't have it.
53375
Post by: hotsauceman1
d-usa is right, Its no the schools lacking common senses, its parents.
Its all comes down to the way parents act, many think their kids cannot do wrong(my cousins kid ran down almost into the street and they didnt get punished.) And you dont mess with parents at all.
5470
Post by: sebster
Ratbarf wrote:I think you are all somewhat unaware as to the purpose of a suspension. The punishment doesn't come from the having missed a day of school. The reason a child is suspended is because the punishment the Teachers/Principals deem suitable to the offence is too severe for them to legally administer, and thus the expectation is that when you get home your parents will administer said punishment. Colloquially known as, "a good old fashioned ass whoopin."
Unfortunately, most parents no longer believe in the benefits of said ass whoopin, so the punishment goes undelivered. I, however, had the good grace to be born into a family which did and does still recognize the educational benefit of an ass whoopin, and thus suspensions where the thing I feared the most when it came to disciplinary action by the school.
I never got an ass whoopin, and I never even got close to getting suspended from school. Never even got detention. So there might be a lot more to it than what you've considered. Automatically Appended Next Post:  Frazzled wrote:By following struct procedure and getting the police whenever when absolutely ever possible, they avoid lawsuits. "We followed policy" is way to avoid parents and lawsuits, or frankly any criticism.
And this isn't just a school thing. In an increasingly bureaucratic world policies and procedures are being put front and centre - and everyone is being taught the only thing to do is follow the written policy every time. The value of things like discretion are so much dismissed as not even considered.
I was at a manager's ethics course a few months ago, and we had all these examples of misbehaviour, some big and some small. In every instance the 'answer' was to follow the process, write it up, speak to the employee formally etc. There was no concept that a manager is there because he's a professional capable of exercising professional judgement, and that in many situations an informal 'don't do that' is an ideal resolution.
5559
Post by: Ratbarf
 sebster wrote: Ratbarf wrote:I think you are all somewhat unaware as to the purpose of a suspension. The punishment doesn't come from the having missed a day of school. The reason a child is suspended is because the punishment the Teachers/Principals deem suitable to the offence is too severe for them to legally administer, and thus the expectation is that when you get home your parents will administer said punishment. Colloquially known as, "a good old fashioned ass whoopin."
Unfortunately, most parents no longer believe in the benefits of said ass whoopin, so the punishment goes undelivered. I, however, had the good grace to be born into a family which did and does still recognize the educational benefit of an ass whoopin, and thus suspensions where the thing I feared the most when it came to disciplinary action by the school.
I never got an ass whoopin, and I never even got close to getting suspended from school. Never even got detention. So there might be a lot more to it than what you've considered.
I don't understand the point you're striving for. I was talking about the purpose of a suspension, which many people in the thread had called a positive experience, which is not the intention of a suspension. The fact that it can be a positive experience is solely at the feet of the parents.
The fact that you never got an ass whoopin, while at the same time seemingly staying out of trouble, doesn't make sense to me. I mean, were you expecting random ass whoopings? Ass whoopings must only be applied in cases of severe discipline and with a defined message and purpose. If you never got in trouble, you never should have received one.
91
Post by: Hordini
d-usa wrote:You gave that kid a warning for something, and my kid a suspension? What my kid did wasn't that much worse than the other kid! You discriminated against my kid, I am going to sue you!
=
Kid gets a warning for pointing a stick or using his fingers as a "gun". Another kid brings a toy gun and gets suspended. Parent: "that toy gun wasn't any more of a real gun than the stick. I am going to sue the pants of this school!"
=
Zero tolerance policies where everybody gets the same punishment for any level of breaking the rules.
But the thing is, I'm pretty sure a parent could sue a school over the results of a ridiculous zero tolerance policy just as easily as they could a policy that allows for some discretion. Consistency doesn't make a policy more lawsuit-proof if the results of the policy are abusive.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Hordini wrote: Ratbarf wrote:I think you are all somewhat unaware as to the purpose of a suspension. The punishment doesn't come from the having missed a day of school. The reason a child is suspended is because the punishment the Teachers/Principals deem suitable to the offence is too severe for them to legally administer, and thus the expectation is that when you get home your parents will administer said punishment. Colloquially known as, "a good old fashioned ass whoopin."
Unfortunately, most parents no longer believe in the benefits of said ass whoopin, so the punishment goes undelivered. I, however, had the good grace to be born into a family which did and does still recognize the educational benefit of an ass whoopin, and thus suspensions where the thing I feared the most when it came to disciplinary action by the school.
While spankings might be appropriate for some children in some cases, getting suspended for making a "finger gun" or talking about a Hello Kitty bubble pistol isn't one of them.
Plus you might run into a parent like me who may decide beat the hell out of you for touching their kid. No one beats my kids but me! Oh wait thats doesn't sound right...
I think that's the point Frazz. No one is saying anyone other than the parents should decide whether or not corporal punishment is an appropriate form of discipline for their kids.
37231
Post by: d-usa
Hordini wrote: d-usa wrote:You gave that kid a warning for something, and my kid a suspension? What my kid did wasn't that much worse than the other kid! You discriminated against my kid, I am going to sue you!
=
Kid gets a warning for pointing a stick or using his fingers as a "gun". Another kid brings a toy gun and gets suspended. Parent: "that toy gun wasn't any more of a real gun than the stick. I am going to sue the pants of this school!"
=
Zero tolerance policies where everybody gets the same punishment for any level of breaking the rules.
But the thing is, I'm pretty sure a parent could sue a school over the results of a ridiculous zero tolerance policy just as easily as they could a policy that allows for some discretion. Consistency doesn't make a policy more lawsuit-proof if the results of the policy are abusive.
Consistency does make it more lawsuit-proof. In this case it would be a simple "don't bring guns, anything that looks like a gun, don't act like you have a gun, don't pretent you have a gun, don't make gun noises" policy. Any violation will be handled with "x punishment". That policy isn't really something you can sue over as long as it is applied universally. But you can sue if you feel your kid was treated differently than other kids.
91
Post by: Hordini
d-usa wrote: Hordini wrote: d-usa wrote:You gave that kid a warning for something, and my kid a suspension? What my kid did wasn't that much worse than the other kid! You discriminated against my kid, I am going to sue you!
=
Kid gets a warning for pointing a stick or using his fingers as a "gun". Another kid brings a toy gun and gets suspended. Parent: "that toy gun wasn't any more of a real gun than the stick. I am going to sue the pants of this school!"
=
Zero tolerance policies where everybody gets the same punishment for any level of breaking the rules.
But the thing is, I'm pretty sure a parent could sue a school over the results of a ridiculous zero tolerance policy just as easily as they could a policy that allows for some discretion. Consistency doesn't make a policy more lawsuit-proof if the results of the policy are abusive.
Consistency does make it more lawsuit-proof. In this case it would be a simple "don't bring guns, anything that looks like a gun, don't act like you have a gun, don't pretent you have a gun, don't make gun noises" policy. Any violation will be handled with "x punishment". That policy isn't really something you can sue over as long as it is applied universally. But you can sue if you feel your kid was treated differently than other kids.
You could sue if you believe the punishment was inappropriate. If a school started administering some sort of corporal punishment for a certain infraction, it wouldn't matter how consistently they applied the policy, it wouldn't prevent a parent from initiating a lawsuit.
Note that I'm not saying the parents would always win. But the school saying, "We're just following a consistent policy!" isn't an invincible lawsuit deflector shield, especially if the policy is moronic.
5470
Post by: sebster
Ratbarf wrote:I don't understand the point you're striving for. I was talking about the purpose of a suspension, which many people in the thread had called a positive experience, which is not the intention of a suspension. The fact that it can be a positive experience is solely at the feet of the parents.
Your second paragraph goes on to say that most parents no longer believe in the benefits of an ass whoopin, and that because yours did you feared suspension. I was questioning that assertion, by giving my own experience - no ass whoopin, no threat of an ass whoopin, and I didn't act up.
The fact that you never got an ass whoopin, while at the same time seemingly staying out of trouble, doesn't make sense to me. I mean, were you expecting random ass whoopings? Ass whoopings must only be applied in cases of severe discipline and with a defined message and purpose. If you never got in trouble, you never should have received one.
I got in trouble for various stuff, here and there, but it was minor and never at school. But there was never any threat of an ass whoopin for any of it.
Now, I'm not saying no parent needs to give an ass whoopin, because my experience is just my experience and isn't the way all children must be raised. Point is, every parent has to find their own to raise their kids, and unfortunately that simple lesson gets lost in all manner of nonsense (like the tut-tut brigade acting morally superior to parents who punish their kids physically, or the nostalgia brigade who tut-tut modern society by pretending there used to be a lot more physical punishment and that kids were better behaved when there was).
5559
Post by: Ratbarf
sebster wrote: Ratbarf wrote:I don't understand the point you're striving for. I was talking about the purpose of a suspension, which many people in the thread had called a positive experience, which is not the intention of a suspension. The fact that it can be a positive experience is solely at the feet of the parents.
Your second paragraph goes on to say that most parents no longer believe in the benefits of an ass whoopin, and that because yours did you feared suspension. I was questioning that assertion, by giving my own experience - no ass whoopin, no threat of an ass whoopin, and I didn't act up.
The fact that you never got an ass whoopin, while at the same time seemingly staying out of trouble, doesn't make sense to me. I mean, were you expecting random ass whoopings? Ass whoopings must only be applied in cases of severe discipline and with a defined message and purpose. If you never got in trouble, you never should have received one.
I got in trouble for various stuff, here and there, but it was minor and never at school. But there was never any threat of an ass whoopin for any of it.
Now, I'm not saying no parent needs to give an ass whoopin, because my experience is just my experience and isn't the way all children must be raised. Point is, every parent has to find their own to raise their kids, and unfortunately that simple lesson gets lost in all manner of nonsense (like the tut-tut brigade acting morally superior to parents who punish their kids physically, or the nostalgia brigade who tut-tut modern society by pretending there used to be a lot more physical punishment and that kids were better behaved when there was).
Okay, I think I see where you're coming from now.
5531
Post by: Leigen_Zero
Personally, I really don't see how suspension is an effective punishment at all regardless of education system or age...
Speaking from my experience, the only people who were typically suspended, due to bad behaviour, in my secondary school (would be approx high-school to you americans) were those brain-dead delinquents who were only in school because there is a legal requirement for them to attend it until they are 16. So essentially, the school was saying to the misbehaving mouth-breathers 'you did a very bad thing today, here, have a day or two off from this place that you hate and begrudge coming to every day of your life'
(And no, they would not have got an ass-whupping from their parents, more likely they would have been allowed to stay at home, play video games or go get drunk/high with the other deliquents)
25703
Post by: juraigamer
In america, land of the free, I cannot make my hand look like a pistol, and then say "bang".
16387
Post by: Manchu
 Kilkrazy wrote:In other news, children all over the world started to pretend to have guns.
It follows that we start having a serious debate about pretend gun control. Automatically Appended Next Post:  Leigen_Zero wrote:Personally, I really don't see how suspension is an effective punishment at all regardless of education system or age...
I pretty well agree. I have minimal experience supervising children in an educational setting but what little I have, plus my own experience in school, leads me to believe that a lot of serious behavior problems come from a sense of marginalization and divestment. Suspensions seem to reinforce the problem.
25990
Post by: Chongara
All available data from credible sources contradicts this.
15818
Post by: PhantomViper
Then all available data from credible data sources is wrong.
I've never met a child from those "progressive parents" that didn't believe in any form of corporal punishment that wasn't a badly behaved monster, some of them even going so far in their lack of respect as to raise their hands against their parents (and I'm talking about 3 to 5 year old children).
I don't advocate in applying ass whoopings for just about everything, but in the most extreme cases a well applied hand to the behind does wonders for a child's behaviour. 
53375
Post by: hotsauceman1
Please describe what a "progressive parent" is. Because I hear it slot. But I never hear what it means. Does it mean a parent who refused to harm a child?
15818
Post by: PhantomViper
hotsauceman1 wrote:Please describe what a "progressive parent" is. Because I hear it slot. But I never hear what it means. Does it mean a parent who refused to harm a child?
Read what I wrote, I think I explain quite clearly what I think it means.
36184
Post by: Alfndrate
Alternatively, this page provides a nice tidy list: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaley_Scott#13_Principles_of_Progressive_Parenting #3 is the one that I don't agree with. There are plenty of punishments that fall far away from beating your kid, but still get the message across. Just giving the kid time outs is a stupid idea, giving the kid a time out and explaining why he's getting it is smarter. Also I chuckled at #6 (as parents often go too far on the safety issue), 9 (because there are just too many times where I was a little fether and didn't know what I was talking about. An equal? Hell no), and well some of them are a little odd, but I can get behind most of the points.
15818
Post by: PhantomViper
Holly baloney, what a load of crap!  
#1 - Every parent they I know of does this. The age of not displaying love to your children ended in 1959.
#2 - What in Everblights name does "Find The Yes" even mean?
#3 - Absolutely not! Humans learn not only by positive affirmation but by negative as well. The idea of instilling in my child the notion that his actions won't have consequences (good or bad), is completely ludicrous and harmful!
#4 - Every decent parent tries to do this, but sometimes authority is required.
#5 - Load of crap. Criticism is useful, that doesn't mean berating the child if he doesn't "get it right".
#6 - Every decent parent does this.
#7 - Every decent parent does this.
#8 - Every decent parent does this.
#9 - Absolutely not! A child doesn't have either its cognitive or emotional development complete yet and simply cannot make the right decisions regarding most things.
#10 - A parent that is resentful of his child under any circumstance, shouldn't be a parent in the first place. This is another load of crap, you will have to make sacrifices in your life one way or the other when you have a child!
#11 - Every decent parent does this.
#12 - Wrong. Children need to be encouraged to display the right attitudes or else they will treat others badly.
#13 - Every decent parent does this.
20243
Post by: Grey Templar
I don't advocate physical punishment for everything, only certain things.
I was spanked for certain things, sent to a corner for others, and told off for others still.
Spankings have a place in disciplining children, to cut them out completely is a major mistake. And some people can abuse thise punishment, of course they are also probably people that shouldn't be parents period(which is a seperate issue)
And yeah, that progressive parenting bit is a load of crap.
8617
Post by: Hulksmash
As an adult every lesson I remember from childhood that stuck with me was a result of physical punishment or having an activity end in pain. Granted it's a view I lean heavily toward with male children but boys don't seem to learn well from logic in their early years. You have to keep it simple with them. I can still remember my though process for doing something when I was a kid. "Will this hurt?" Followed by: "Will it hurt because I could get hurt or because it's likely to result in a whoopin?" Followed by: "Is it worth it anyway?"  Oddly I only got whooped twice by my dad and switched once by my grandmother. I was a terror but outside of things that were dangerous to others or myself or would be a major issue if not corrected my parents found other ways of dealing with me. But those whoopins didn't feel good and were definitely an impact on my thinking as I grew up. The idea that I could be suspended for playing cops and robbers or war with friends on the playground would have been ridiculous. Almost as ridiculous as the school telling my father I had ADD as a child. My dad told them I concentrate fine when I'm interested or challenged. Figure out a way to make him interested or challenged.
36184
Post by: Alfndrate
A switch?!
did you have to walk 15 miles to school in the snow old timer? Was it uphill both ways?
My dad, who's 66, said he was only ever physically punished twice, and both with his dad's leather belt across his backside. If I had known my grandfather, that would have been a bigger deterrent when he offered it to me as an option when I was truly an unruly little gak.
25990
Post by: Chongara
Indeed! Goddamn those wily scientists and their "Observations" and "Research". Why didn't I see it before!?!? all their "Facts" are nothing more than a liberal conspiracy to ruin america with undisciplined children!
From now on, I'm only advocating the teachings of bender: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7aVxohAMmDs
8617
Post by: Hulksmash
 Alfndrate wrote:A switch?!
did you have to walk 15 miles to school in the snow old timer? Was it uphill both ways?
Nah, it was only 25 years ago or so. My granny is kinda old fashioned and they live in rural Virginia
19370
Post by: daedalus
I'm 28 and I got the belt several times. Mom preferred wooden spoons, on account of the fact that when she finally hit too hard, they'd break. 
Looking back on it, I think I deserved it every time, and still somehow usually got off to easy.
I fear for the well-being of any household that takes anything coming from the orifice that Chaley Scott makes noise from as anything other than entertainment.
21720
Post by: LordofHats
Chongara wrote:Indeed! Goddamn those wily scientists and their "Observations" and "Research". Why didn't I see it before!?!? all their "Facts" are nothing more than a liberal conspiracy to ruin america with undisciplined children!
You'd actually be surprised. The fields of sociology and psychology are at times highly politicized and just because someone is a scientist doesn't mean they don't fudge the results (consciously or otherwise) or create tests that bias towards their preferred outcome. Of course that should be a generally accepted rule of thumb for anyone dealing with research into highly political subjects.
I read a study once about the effects of film violence on someone's willingness to help others. The testers would stage an incident outside a movie theater and see how people reacted. They would have someone pretend to break their leg and see who came to help. They determined that violent movies reduce the willingness of people to help others. The two movies? The Descent, and the Nim's Island.
The flaw? Who do you think went to see the Descent? People who like don't queze from a violent flick, probably of college age, hanging out with their buddies. College kids are douche bags (I should know I was one ). The audience for Nim's Island? Families with children. Of course the audience coming from Nim's Island would be more likely to help, and it has nothing to do with violence but the presence of a reason to help; children. The study in no way addressed this eventuality, nor that there surely would have been other movies that could have produced similar audiences (romantic comedies?). The only conclusion I could draw is that the study overlooked this flaw, or willfully ignored it for its own benefit.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7aVxohAMmDs
Teach me oh great master!
20243
Post by: Grey Templar
Yeah, in my Hum320 class I am taking right now(Values, Media, and Culture) we actually discussed that very thing.
Violence on TV/movies and in Video games doesn't make a person more violent. It actually makes people more fearful, it creates a distorted view of the outside world as one full of violence. Thus a person like that is more likely to be fearful.
It may numb someone to violence, thats true, but it doesn't predispose them to be violent.
221
Post by: Frazzled
d-usa wrote:You gave that kid a warning for something, and my kid a suspension? What my kid did wasn't that much worse than the other kid! You discriminated against my kid, I am going to sue you!
=
Kid gets a warning for pointing a stick or using his fingers as a "gun". Another kid brings a toy gun and gets suspended. Parent: "that toy gun wasn't any more of a real gun than the stick. I am going to sue the pants of this school!"
=
Zero tolerance policies where everybody gets the same punishment for any level of breaking the rules.
Exactly. Automatically Appended Next Post: Ratbarf wrote: sebster wrote: Ratbarf wrote:I think you are all somewhat unaware as to the purpose of a suspension. The punishment doesn't come from the having missed a day of school. The reason a child is suspended is because the punishment the Teachers/Principals deem suitable to the offence is too severe for them to legally administer, and thus the expectation is that when you get home your parents will administer said punishment. Colloquially known as, "a good old fashioned ass whoopin."
Unfortunately, most parents no longer believe in the benefits of said ass whoopin, so the punishment goes undelivered. I, however, had the good grace to be born into a family which did and does still recognize the educational benefit of an ass whoopin, and thus suspensions where the thing I feared the most when it came to disciplinary action by the school.
I never got an ass whoopin, and I never even got close to getting suspended from school. Never even got detention. So there might be a lot more to it than what you've considered.
I don't understand the point you're striving for. I was talking about the purpose of a suspension, which many people in the thread had called a positive experience, which is not the intention of a suspension. The fact that it can be a positive experience is solely at the feet of the parents.
The fact that you never got an ass whoopin, while at the same time seemingly staying out of trouble, doesn't make sense to me. I mean, were you expecting random ass whoopings? Ass whoopings must only be applied in cases of severe discipline and with a defined message and purpose. If you never got in trouble, you never should have received one.
I think he's saying he never got paddled. I can't tell is=f he's sad about that or not...
10097
Post by: Ensis Ferrae
Chongara wrote:
Indeed! Goddamn those wily scientists and their "Observations" and "Research". Why didn't I see it before!?!? all their "Facts" are nothing more than a liberal conspiracy to ruin america with undisciplined children!
From now on, I'm only advocating the teachings of bender: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7aVxohAMmDs
Based on the couple of courses i've taken on psychology, these sorts of science are really pseudo-science at best, and hocus-pocus magic at worst.
Purely anecdotally here, but in my near 9 yrs in the military, the best behaved/most disciplined soldiers are the ones who were spanked or otherwise physically punished (not abused, we all know there's a line and ANY punishment can become abusive)
25990
Post by: Chongara
 Ensis Ferrae wrote:Chongara wrote:
Indeed! Goddamn those wily scientists and their "Observations" and "Research". Why didn't I see it before!?!? all their "Facts" are nothing more than a liberal conspiracy to ruin america with undisciplined children!
From now on, I'm only advocating the teachings of bender: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7aVxohAMmDs
Based on the couple of courses i've taken on psychology, these sorts of science are really pseudo-science at best, and hocus-pocus magic at worst.
Purely anecdotally here, but in my near 9 yrs in the military, the best behaved/most disciplined soldiers are the ones who were spanked or otherwise physically punished (not abused, we all know there's a line and ANY punishment can become abusive)
Right I know. Listen up people:
This guy has taken a couple of courses in psychology, so he knows it's hocus-pocus. I don't think anyone should be fooled by all those "universities" and "clear results" or "accurate predictions" supposedly backing up the field. You'd have to be a fool to buy into any of that mumbo jumbo, it doesn't speak to your gut. You know what does speak to your gut though? Anecdotes. Anecdotes are where the real reliable information is. Clearly this guy has delivered on that, case settled. Remember folks he's taken a couple of courses.
Behavioral Sciences: 0
DakkaDakka Forums: 163,539,362,846,289,120,018,236
Oh yeah, take look at how huge that score is. I don't think you could possibly take anything seriously after it loses by that many points.
16387
Post by: Manchu
What military were you in???
21720
Post by: LordofHats
The kinky one?
36184
Post by: Alfndrate
US Navy obviously* HEY-O!
* - This statement is in jest, and I have the utmost respect for all members of the armed services, also you could like totally kill me with your thumbs right? I don't want that to happen.
221
Post by: Frazzled
So many nonDakka appropriate jokes here...
This one?
10097
Post by: Ensis Ferrae
Lol, the Army actually... it's odd that when I ask people who I KNOW have had article 15s, most were raised by a family member who refused to beat them (whoop, spank, switch, whatever term folks want to call it)
@ Frazzled..... Wait, you mean there was a MARINE in the Village people!? holy feth balls, I never knew that.. I mean, I've seen the video for "in the navy" where they were all in seamen outfits (hehehe), but i didnt realize one went like that all the time
5559
Post by: Ratbarf
Actually, a study done in Canada roughly two years ago found that children from a family which employed spanking as a correctional action where more disciplined on average than children from families that did not spank their children. So your statement is false.
37231
Post by: d-usa
Correlation is not causation. Would be pretty hard to raise two control groups in exactly the same way and environment and only make spanking the difference.
20043
Post by: Mattman154
Chongara wrote: Ensis Ferrae wrote:Chongara wrote:
Indeed! Goddamn those wily scientists and their "Observations" and "Research". Why didn't I see it before!?!? all their "Facts" are nothing more than a liberal conspiracy to ruin america with undisciplined children!
From now on, I'm only advocating the teachings of bender: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7aVxohAMmDs
Based on the couple of courses i've taken on psychology, these sorts of science are really pseudo-science at best, and hocus-pocus magic at worst.
Purely anecdotally here, but in my near 9 yrs in the military, the best behaved/most disciplined soldiers are the ones who were spanked or otherwise physically punished (not abused, we all know there's a line and ANY punishment can become abusive)
Right I know. Listen up people:
This guy has taken a couple of courses in psychology, so he knows it's hocus-pocus. I don't think anyone should be fooled by all those "universities" and "clear results" or "accurate predictions" supposedly backing up the field. You'd have to be a fool to buy into any of that mumbo jumbo, it doesn't speak to your gut. You know what does speak to your gut though? Anecdotes. Anecdotes are where the real reliable information is. Clearly this guy has delivered on that, case settled. Remember folks he's taken a couple of courses.
Behavioral Sciences: 0
DakkaDakka Forums: 163,539,362,846,289,120,018,236
Oh yeah, take look at how huge that score is. I don't think you could possibly take anything seriously after it loses by that many points.
And entire civilizations used to think that human sacrifice worked.
10097
Post by: Ensis Ferrae
I never said i was an expert in psych...heck, even the textbook used at devry university for "intro to psychology" calls it a pseudo-science....i mean, how can on gather precise information if no two subjects are precisely the same?? As each person is different so is all of our upbringings, traditions and nearly everything else, sure we have similarities, but that doesnt make them the exact same.
But this is all getting off the original topic, imo
5470
Post by: sebster
Cool. That sentence there is perhaps the most perfect example of anti-intellectualism I've ever seen. Automatically Appended Next Post: PhantomViper wrote:I've never met a child from those "progressive parents" that didn't believe in any form of corporal punishment that wasn't a badly behaved monster, some of them even going so far in their lack of respect as to raise their hands against their parents (and I'm talking about 3 to 5 year old children).
There is a millions miles between 'you don't have to hit your kids' and 'progressive parenting'. Automatically Appended Next Post:  Grey Templar wrote:Spankings have a place in disciplining children, to cut them out completely is a major mistake. And some people can abuse thise punishment, of course they are also probably people that shouldn't be parents period(which is a seperate issue)
No. Spankings are, for some parents, an effective way of raising their children. They are not something that every parent needs to use.
For other parents the gap between spanking a child out of discipline and spanking a child out of anger is just too fine, and they're much better off using other methods. And then there's the kids themselves, a whole lot don't respond that well to direct physical punishment, either spiralling further or just seeing it as the price you pay (and therefore removing the moral cost of the act).
But, of course, for other parents it works fine.
The point, of course, being that it is beyond stupid to make a sweeping statement on how all children should be raised. It's a complicated thing, and every parent needs to find their own. Automatically Appended Next Post: LordofHats wrote:You'd actually be surprised. The fields of sociology and psychology are at times highly politicized and just because someone is a scientist doesn't mean they don't fudge the results (consciously or otherwise) or create tests that bias towards their preferred outcome. Of course that should be a generally accepted rule of thumb for anyone dealing with research into highly political subjects.
Absolutely, it is not only highly politicised but also an inherently subjective field. But that means you have to read not just the newspaper heading of the survey, but the methods and full results of the study itself and do that for a range of studies.
Not saying every person has to do that, but whether they do or not, it simply isn't acceptable to say the stuff we've seen in this thread along the lines of 'I don't care what findings are out there, I've got an opinion that I'm just going to assume is completely correct'.
53839
Post by: Shredsmore
Ouze wrote:Nah, you only think that as an adult. In my experience kids that age (kindergarten etc) love going to school.
Ehhh.
No.
I hated school until 8th grade.
5559
Post by: Ratbarf
He was talking about kindergarteners and the lower grades of public school.
62863
Post by: ExNoctemNacimur
Fighting with sticks? I fought my friends with cricket bats (I'm not even joking)!
This is a stupid, stupid case.
12313
Post by: Ouze
PhantomViper wrote:I've never met a child from those "progressive parents" that didn't believe in any form of corporal punishment that wasn't a badly behaved monster, some of them even going so far in their lack of respect as to raise their hands against their parents (and I'm talking about 3 to 5 year old children).
I don't advocate in applying ass whoopings for just about everything, but in the most extreme cases a well applied hand to the behind does wonders for a child's behaviour.
Well, I can't speak to your anecdotal evidence, but let me contrast with some of my own. My mother and her sisters used to be beaten severely by her mother (in this year, she would almost certainly have had her kids taken away from her, I believe she broke my aunt's arm once). As a result, my mother didn't hit any of her children, my sister brother or I. None of us turned out poorly - all have stable careers, happy families, and so on; and weren't especially poorly behaved.
My friend Carl was on the receiving end of some ass-beatings as a child (not abuse, just what I suspect you'd consider to be "reasonable" disciplinary beatings). He has remained a huge mess ever since he was a child and to this day is a severe alcoholic and drug addict. Eventually he'll go to prison, I suppose, for too many DUIS - he already has spent x weekends in for it.
I think being reasonable, reliable, and consistent with your children will engender better results then physical violence. The only time I'd even consider hitting a child would be for an activity that posed substantial threat to their life or health (playing with matches, maybe? I dunno).
I mean, if you go back through the history of the country when physical discipline was much more commonplace, we had no shortage of rapists, criminals, etc etc. So I'm dubious on the value of it.
5534
Post by: dogma
d-usa wrote: Breotan wrote:Or just go with, oh I don't know, common sense policies and stop punishing children for being children.
It's a legal liability to have common sense when the people that sue you don't have it.
I would argue its more a case of "common sense" not really being a thing. People judge things in different ways, and some will consider an action "common sense" while another will not. It is why appealing to common sense is roughly equivalent to assuming your own position as the default position of everyone; which is plainly not the case.
To use Breotan's statement as example: We punish children for being children all the time. Indeed, that's a big part of turning children into adults. However, questions arise when we start discussing what sorts of childishness should be punished, in what way, and at what time.
d-usa wrote:Correlation is not causation. Would be pretty hard to raise two control groups in exactly the same way and environment and only make spanking the difference.
Also, no ethics board in the world would approve that. Researchers get a fair amount leeway when performing experiments on consenting adults but it would be very, very difficult to get approval to allow a consenting adult to, essentially, perform experiments on their children.
20243
Post by: Grey Templar
Ouze wrote:PhantomViper wrote:I've never met a child from those "progressive parents" that didn't believe in any form of corporal punishment that wasn't a badly behaved monster, some of them even going so far in their lack of respect as to raise their hands against their parents (and I'm talking about 3 to 5 year old children).
I don't advocate in applying ass whoopings for just about everything, but in the most extreme cases a well applied hand to the behind does wonders for a child's behaviour.
Well, I can't speak to your anecdotal evidence, but let me contrast with some of my own. My mother and her sisters used to be beaten severely by her mother (in this year, she would almost certainly have had her kids taken away from her, I believe she broke my aunt's arm once). As a result, my mother didn't hit any of her children, my sister brother or I. None of us turned out poorly - all have stable careers, happy families, and so on; and weren't especially poorly behaved.
My friend Carl was on the receiving end of some ass-beatings as a child (not abuse, just what I suspect you'd consider to be "reasonable" disciplinary beatings). He has remained a huge mess ever since he was a child and to this day is a severe alcoholic and drug addict. Eventually he'll go to prison, I suppose, for too many DUIS - he already has spent x weekends in for it.
I think being reasonable, reliable, and consistent with your children will engender better results then physical violence. The only time I'd even consider hitting a child would be for an activity that posed substantial threat to their life or health (playing with matches, maybe? I dunno).
I mean, if you go back through the history of the country when physical discipline was much more commonplace, we had no shortage of rapists, criminals, etc etc. So I'm dubious on the value of it.
The issue is that you need to distinguish between properly administered physical punishment, and abusive punishments. What you described is abuse.
It also must be combined with other disciplinary measures.
Properly administered, it is a very effective technique that a child understands.
12313
Post by: Ouze
I think I pretty clearly did distinguish between the two. The first example was simply background for my mother's motivations as to why she eschewed physical discipline.
8221
Post by: Zathras
You can't blame the Sandy Hook shootings for idiocy like this, which has been happening in public schools since way before that incident.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Mattman154 wrote:Chongara wrote: Ensis Ferrae wrote:Chongara wrote:
Indeed! Goddamn those wily scientists and their "Observations" and "Research". Why didn't I see it before!?!? all their "Facts" are nothing more than a liberal conspiracy to ruin america with undisciplined children!
From now on, I'm only advocating the teachings of bender: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7aVxohAMmDs
Based on the couple of courses i've taken on psychology, these sorts of science are really pseudo-science at best, and hocus-pocus magic at worst.
Purely anecdotally here, but in my near 9 yrs in the military, the best behaved/most disciplined soldiers are the ones who were spanked or otherwise physically punished (not abused, we all know there's a line and ANY punishment can become abusive)
Right I know. Listen up people:
This guy has taken a couple of courses in psychology, so he knows it's hocus-pocus. I don't think anyone should be fooled by all those "universities" and "clear results" or "accurate predictions" supposedly backing up the field. You'd have to be a fool to buy into any of that mumbo jumbo, it doesn't speak to your gut. You know what does speak to your gut though? Anecdotes. Anecdotes are where the real reliable information is. Clearly this guy has delivered on that, case settled. Remember folks he's taken a couple of courses.
Behavioral Sciences: 0
DakkaDakka Forums: 163,539,362,846,289,120,018,236
Oh yeah, take look at how huge that score is. I don't think you could possibly take anything seriously after it loses by that many points.
And entire civilizations used to think that human sacrifice worked.
And it did until guys with metal hats and guns came and messed everything up...
19370
Post by: daedalus
Frazzled wrote:
And it did until guys with metal hats and guns came and messed everything up...
School systems appear to show that pretend guns might have been almost as effective.
57289
Post by: MetalOxide
Wow, they must be some messed up kids! I remember when I was their age we used to do play football, using the trees as goal posts or play with trading cards.
53375
Post by: hotsauceman1
Trading cards are now longer allowed in schools.
Why? Because fights get started over them. I remember yu-gi-oh caused fist fights in my middle school.
67656
Post by: Terentius
Not surprised. We saw similar stories immediately after Columbine.
19370
Post by: daedalus
hotsauceman1 wrote:Trading cards are now longer allowed in schools.
Why? Because fights get started over them. I remember yu-gi-oh caused fist fights in my middle school.
Why would printed cardstock result in fistfights? Automatically Appended Next Post: I'm not being rhetorical when I ask that either. I really don't get it.
I wagered my Sliver Queen back when I played Magic, in Junior High. I lost it at one point.
That was the cornerstone to my magic deck, but I never attacked the person responsible for me losing it.
36184
Post by: Alfndrate
Because kids would steal cards from younger kids.
53375
Post by: hotsauceman1
 daedalus wrote: hotsauceman1 wrote:Trading cards are now longer allowed in schools.
Why? Because fights get started over them. I remember yu-gi-oh caused fist fights in my middle school.
Why would printed cardstock result in fistfights?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
I'm not being rhetorical when I ask that either. I really don't get it.
I wagered my Sliver Queen back when I played Magic, in Junior High. I lost it at one point.
That was the cornerstone to my magic deck, but I never attacked the person responsible for me losing it.
Rule arguments. Mostly that and stealing.
20243
Post by: Grey Templar
Thats why TT wargames are superior. Its kinda hard to steal a model without people noticing, plus you have your unique paint schemes.
|
|
