Misbehaving pupils ending up in court

[Lucrece]

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

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

I believe the scope in which we teach values is rather narrow and confined to parental consensus. The values we teach are those that every family already accepts in their home. We don't tend to teach, for example, the value of austerity and foregoing personal benefit for the sake of passing it up to others, because some parents would flip their shit and make life miserable for the administrators until that lesson is removed.

Sex ed is a good example of how limited we are in teaching values -- the school will try to stay away from ethics as much as possible for their own sake.

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

How much time did you spend with your parents and family relative to your teacher? Do you have a parent that stayed home at one point?

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

You're going about it the wrong way. It's not whether parental permission is initially required -- it's whether there's parental approval and disapproval after the fact. Do you believe children don't discuss with their parents what they are taught in school? When a child gets a syllabus he needs materials for, do you think parents don't go through said syllabus?

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

We should. We should. We should. The problem is what you're asking of teachers NOW while they don't have what you suggest they should get.

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

You are free to disobey an establishment if you somehow think a tucked in shirt is such an affront to your existence, but you have never been immune to the consequences of failure to comply with behavioral codes available to you prior before your parent enrolls you in school, codes which your parent --legally entitled to make choices for you-- approves of. You'll have to convince me that disallowing wearing whatever the hell you want to school is abusive or harmful in any way to a student.

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

You seem to be under the impression that having a job and a relationship turns the "average" parent into an incompetent and negligent guardian disinterested and unwilling to participate in the education of his/her child. It is your impression that checking the material your child is given, attending the occassional PTA, and spending time with them doing homework is some uphill task that few parents can muster.

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

Logistics is a problem when the practicality of risking citation for wanting to wear whatever you want as a minor in a public institution is fine? So the administration changing their policy based on the popularity of their policies among the student body made up of minors is any more practical?

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

You can defy authority all you want, but the manner in which you defy it determines the outcome. So does picking your battles. When students are protesting the requirement to wear a uniform, ignoring administrative measures to the point of ending with citation isn't a way to win votes from the people who vote on such decisions. These students had other options to lobby parents on why the uniform is harmful to them and it should be removed. Instead, they choose the blowhard way. And are enraged when they're met with the blowhard response.

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

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

Yeah, you're so mature and above it all. Dismiss other people by psychoanalizing them via an internet forum and deeming their position the result of "personal issues". The bolded part is just gold in its placement within that post of yours. Rights of the parents, rights of the students to not suffer class disruption, rights of the students who feel their first amendment right is violated by uniform and proceed to cause class disruption. You seem to only care for one group.

You're even claiming that this is a rights abuse. I'll ask you to provide a source of any federal court ruling striking down this particular instance of uniform implementation.

[Zcorp]

I believe the scope in which we teach values is rather narrow and confined to parental consensus. The values we teach are those that every family already accepts in their home. We don't tend to teach, for example, the value of austerity and foregoing personal benefit for the sake of passing it up to others, because some parents would flip their shit and make life miserable for the administrators until that lesson is removed.

Sex ed is a good example of how limited we are in teaching values -- the school will try to stay away from ethics as much as possible for their own sake.

So because the culture being taught is something you describe as 'confined to parental consensus' you don't view it as shaping culture? You believe that shaping culture is only something that happens to create a culture other than the aspects of the one currently in power?

Sex ed is a wonderful example in how our values. It is a wonderful example of how we shape our culture. Our culture is hilariously scared of sex, our practices in sex ed demonstrate this wonderfully. The culture of silence we have in America is largely shaped by our schools.

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

How much time did you spend with your parents and family relative to your teacher? Do you have a parent that stayed home at one point?

My questions were not meant to be rhetorical.

I spent very little time with my parents and family relative to my parents, specifically my father who was often working, during my young childhood. I would go to school, come home and play with friends, do home work while my mother cooked dinner or while she was working late and picked up dinner. We ate together and I kept doing homework, read, watched tv or played video games. Sometimes that TV was with my parents in the room.

My average day has maybe 1/6th of the meaningful interaction with my parents compared to my teacher. In high school my meaningful time spent with my parents was further reduced and the time i spent with each teacher in 50-100 minute classes far surpassed that of my parents.

I grew up in a house hold lucky enough that my parents only had one job and that my mother did not have to hold a job to support our living through the majority of my youth.

You're going about it the wrong way. It's not whether parental permission is initially required -- it's whether there's parental approval and disapproval after the fact. Do you believe children don't discuss with their parents what they are taught in school? When a child gets a syllabus he needs materials for, do you think parents don't go through said syllabus?

And you believe that parents should dictate our curriculum based on their opinions of a syllabus? You also believe they are qualified to do so?

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

We should. We should. We should. The problem is what you're asking of teachers NOW while they don't have what you suggest they should get.

Which is why I choose employment that involves working toward solving these problems. Instead of blaming the parents and children.

You are free to disobey an establishment if you somehow think a tucked in shirt is such an affront to your existence, but you have never been immune to the consequences of failure to comply with behavioral codes available to you prior before your parent enrolls you in school, codes which your parent --legally entitled to make choices for you-- approves of. You'll have to convince me that disallowing wearing whatever the hell you want to school is abusive or harmful in any way to a student.

Forcing a dress code on a population opposed to it results in a conflict between the authority figure trying to control the population and the population. These types of conflicts are something any intelligent educator should try to avoid. In fact there is nothing that can cause greater harm to an educational relationship than creating conflict not related to the learning objectives.

This establishment is displaying they don't respect their students or care about their well-being. It isn't the job of the students to just accept that, although many will (see learned helplessness). it is the job of the teachers and administrators educate as that is what we are paying them to do. If they can't do that and can't do that to such an extreme that their pupils are ending up in court maybe they need to learn how to teach.

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

You seem to be under the impression that having a job and a relationship turns the "average" parent into an incompetent and negligent guardian disinterested and unwilling to participate in the education of his/her child. It is your impression that checking the material your child is given, attending the occassional PTA, and spending time with them doing homework is some uphill task that few parents can muster.

Why do you refuse to answer any questions? Are you worried you might find inconsistencies between reality and your beliefs?

I do not seem to be under that impression, you are the one asserting the concrete premises. I'm just trying to understand your beliefs. Which you continually refuse to articulate when they are challenged beyond a surface layer.

You can defy authority all you want, but the manner in which you defy it determines the outcome. So does picking your battles. When students are protesting the requirement to wear a uniform, ignoring administrative measures to the point of ending with citation isn't a way to win votes from the people who vote on such decisions. These students had other options to lobby parents on why the uniform is harmful to them and it should be removed. Instead, they choose the blowhard way. And are enraged when they're met with the blowhard response.

You right, we should expect our students to be masters of overcoming and negotiating with unjust authority. My mistake.

[Griffin]

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

Should we judge by a single action?
Lets say I lied to my wife. Does this make me a bad person?

Perhaps we should judge by results?
I lied to my wife, and she was killed in a horrible car accident as a direct result. Am I a bad person?

Perhaps we should judge by intentions?
I lied to my wife about needing something from the store so I could prepare her birthday surprise. She was killed in a car accident while she was out. Am I a bad person?

And the answer to all of them is the same - we have no way to tell. A single action at a single moment in their life does not a person make, and it only reflects poorly on those eager to rush to judgement. Bad people are capable of good decisions, and good people of bad. No one is harmed, in our specific situation, of a kid showing lip at court - it seems not so much a question of moral fiber so much as undeveloped intelligence and a natural human resistance to unrecognized authority.

The same resistance that (in America at least), defines out national heroes.

You see, you aren't judging people by their actions so much as you are judging people by an action, singular.

A good person is a person who has a /pattern/ of doing good things. A bad person is one who has a /pattern/ of doing bad.

And there are degrees of goodness and badness.

So, ultimately, the way you judge a person as good or bad should be by their patterns rather than their actions. If its even worth anything to judge people as good or bad at all (Hint: It really, really isn't)

[Lucrece]

So because the culture being taught is something you describe as 'confined to parental consensus' you don't view it as shaping culture? You believe that shaping culture is only something that happens to create a culture other than the aspects of the one currently in power?

Sex ed is a wonderful example in how our values. It is a wonderful example of how we shape our culture. Our culture is hilariously scared of sex, our practices in sex ed demonstrate this wonderfully. The culture of silence we have in America is largely shaped by our schools.

You're not even shaping culture when you're just reinforcing what these children already bring in. Maybe I'm stuck on the word shaping, because to me that word suggest altering the default.

My questions were not meant to be rhetorical.

I spent very little time with my parents and family relative to my parents, specifically my father who was often working, during my young childhood. I would go to school, come home and play with friends, do home work while my mother cooked dinner or while she was working late and picked up dinner. We ate together and I kept doing homework, read, watched tv or played video games. Sometimes that TV was with my parents in the room.

My average day has maybe 1/6th of the meaningful interaction with my parents compared to my teacher. In high school my meaningful time spent with my parents was further reduced and the time i spent with each teacher in 50-100 minute classes far surpassed that of my parents.

I grew up in a house hold lucky enough that my parents only had one job and that my mother did not have to hold a job to support our living through the majority of my youth.

In my household we spent more time with the parent. Classes started at 7:30 am and ended at 2:30pm, with about a 1 hr break and a 30 minute "home room". So, about 6 hours and thirty minutes 5 days a week, excluding the many holidays in the year, summer vacations, Christmas vacations, etc. After I got from school, my brother and spent time around our mother and doing homework, which she checked. If we needed further help, we could wait till 6:00 pm, when our dad got home. We ate dinner, discussed our day, and watched our remaining time together until 8:00 pm when we were sent to sleep. As high school went up, the time allowed was extended to 11:00 pm. Sometimes my mother also worked, at which times she got home at 4:00 pm., although for the most part she was a stay at home mom.

By comparison, in school we would spend about 52 minutes with a different teacher each time, and by we I mean about 30 students.

And you believe that parents should dictate our curriculum based on their opinions of a syllabus? You also believe they are qualified to do so?

What I believe is meaningless. The parents can circumvent any measures I might come up with to lessen their impact via the democratic process and pooled monetary power. It's not that I think it's right; it's that said parents are perfectly capable of asserting their interests. There is no practical way you will keep a parent from interfering with the education of a child short of removing the child from him/her.

Which is why I choose employment that involves working toward solving these problems. Instead of blaming the parents and children.

Well, that's good. When you get to the point where teachers have the means, desire, and compensation for fulfilling the expanded role you want them to take on, I'll back you on the idea of shifting the responsibility of socializing children to them. Until then, it is the responsibility of the parents to teach and discipline their children to behave adequately before they foist them upon somebody else.

Forcing a dress code on a population opposed to it results in a conflict between the authority figure trying to control the population and the population. These types of conflicts are something any intelligent educator should try to avoid. In fact there is nothing that can cause greater harm to an educational relationship than creating conflict not related to the learning objectives.

But according to them and the parents that voted said policy in, learning to dress according to professional conventions is part of the learning objectives. Learning objectives is a painfully loose concept -- students could even object to what subjects they're being taught based on its relevance to them and their desire for freedom from educational conventions as well as dress conventions.

At some point you're making an arbitrary decision on what you will dictate is necessary for them to accept, and you'll have to take into account the enforcement of that decision.

This establishment is displaying they don't respect their students or care about their well-being. It isn't the job of the students to just accept that, although many will (see learned helplessness). it is the job of the teachers and administrators educate as that is what we are paying them to do. If they can't do that and can't do that to such an extreme that their pupils are ending up in court maybe they need to learn how to teach.

And now you get to make a call on which of their desires is worth respecting. Can you justify disrespecting any of their desires, if being made to wear a khaki and a shirt with the school logo is disrespect? The teachers are educating -- the students just don't like what is being educated. What's to keep them from rejecting any other educational endeavors that run counter to their personal interests?

Why do you refuse to answer any questions? Are you worried you might find inconsistencies between reality and your beliefs?

I do not seem to be under that impression, you are the one asserting the concrete premises. I'm just trying to understand your beliefs. Which you continually refuse to articulate when they are challenged beyond a surface layer.

Because the questions you are asking are leading questions. You keep trying to sneak in assumptions into them that I should fall for and implicitly accept by answering them on their ground.

You ask the question of whether parents can realistically equip themselves and participate with such degree of hyperbole, as if it was somehow unheard of that parents do often take interest and actively participate in their child's education. You jump to the extreme of equating parental participation in the decisions school boards make with becoming well-versed professionals able to replace educators. All colored through your notion of what "average" parents do, because my reality is out of touch while yours is obviously in tune with real American families.

You right, we should expect our students to be masters of overcoming and negotiating with unjust authority. My mistake.

See? You interpret stringent criteria to make others' positions seem absurd. Suddenly it's too much to ask students to organize and petition against uniforms, when we see that students constantly do this for other purposes. They set up a SGA and elect representatives to it. They live with parents who ideally love them and are open to listening to their input.

But somehow, the authority made up of educators and administrators, many of whom are parents, who answer to and work together alongside parents, is some shadowy Orwellian organization set on keeping the students a group of serfs for the thrill of it. When these people signed up for these comparatively shitty positions in the job market, they just rushed to it for the joy of saddling students with intransigent injustice. It's all about the power trip, not some belief that what they do is for the good of their children and everybody else's children.

[Djehutynakht]

In other news, 6 year-old handcuffed and driven downtown for temper tantrum.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sideshow/6- ... 49882.html

[Zcorp]

You're not even shaping culture when you're just reinforcing what these children already bring in. Maybe I'm stuck on the word shaping, because to me that word suggest altering the default.

? Their be default means what? What they were born with?

In my household we spent more time with the parent. Classes started at 7:30 am and ended at 2:30pm, with about a 1 hr break and a 30 minute "home room". So, about 6 hours and thirty minutes 5 days a week, excluding the many holidays in the year, summer vacations, Christmas vacations, etc. After I got from school, my brother and spent time around our mother and doing homework, which she checked. If we needed further help, we could wait till 6:00 pm, when our dad got home. We ate dinner, discussed our day, and watched our remaining time together until 8:00 pm when we were sent to sleep. As high school went up, the time allowed was extended to 11:00 pm. Sometimes my mother also worked, at which times she got home at 4:00 pm., although for the most part she was a stay at home mom.

By comparison, in school we would spend about 52 minutes with a different teacher each time, and by we I mean about 30 students.

So you feel that you spent more quality time examining society, yourself and learning about the world during the day with your parents than your teachers?

And you feel that this is the norm and that we shouldn't expect schools to be involved in shaping culture?

What I believe is meaningless. The parents can circumvent any measures I might come up with to lessen their impact via the democratic process and pooled monetary power. It's not that I think it's right; it's that said parents are perfectly capable of asserting their interests. There is no practical way you will keep a parent from interfering with the education of a child short of removing the child from him/her.

Considering that this entire tangent is based on your beliefs they are entirely relevant and meaningful.

Well, that's good. When you get to the point where teachers have the means, desire, and compensation for fulfilling the expanded role you want them to take on, I'll back you on the idea of shifting the responsibility of socializing children to them. Until then, it is the responsibility of the parents to teach and discipline their children to behave adequately before they foist them upon somebody else.

I'm confused, do you think this works now? What should be we doing when the parents fail to do the above? Isn't that the goal of a authority above parents, or resources outside of the house to provide isn't found at home?

Or should we just create stupid rules they have to follow and threaten them with jail and fines when they don't do what we tell them?

But according to them and the parents that voted said policy in, learning to dress according to professional conventions is part of the learning objectives. Learning objectives is a painfully loose concept -- students could even object to what subjects they're being taught based on its relevance to them and their desire for freedom from educational conventions as well as dress conventions.

At some point you're making an arbitrary decision on what you will dictate is necessary for them to accept, and you'll have to take into account the enforcement of that decision.

If we create environments where they don't want to learn it doesn't really matter what learning objectives we set for them.

And now you get to make a call on which of their desires is worth respecting. Can you justify disrespecting any of their desires, if being made to wear a khaki and a shirt with the school logo is disrespect? The teachers are educating -- the students just don't like what is being educated. What's to keep them from rejecting any other educational endeavors that run counter to their personal interests?

Many students do this already, part of being a good teacher and having a good system is displaying why what you are teaching is worth learning rather than dictating objectives.

You ask the question of whether parents can realistically equip themselves and participate with such degree of hyperbole, as if it was somehow unheard of that parents do often take interest and actively participate in their child's education. You jump to the extreme of equating parental participation in the decisions school boards make with becoming well-versed professionals able to replace educators. All colored through your notion of what "average" parents do, because my reality is out of touch while yours is obviously in tune with real American families.

So if parents aren't capable of doing those things why are you expecting them to do it? Why are you putting the responsibility of education on the parent?

But somehow, the authority made up of educators and administrators, many of whom are parents, who answer to and work together alongside parents, is some shadowy Orwellian organization set on keeping the students a group of serfs for the thrill of it. When these people signed up for these comparatively shitty positions in the job market, they just rushed to it for the joy of saddling students with intransigent injustice. It's all about the power trip, not some belief that what they do is for the good of their children and everybody else's children.

Hardly, my perception of most people involved in the education system is that they are largely incompetent or to impotent to fix what is established. They certainly aren't actively trying to oppress students and hinder learning. Many of them just have rules to follow, paychecks they need to keep making and liabilities that threaten their job security.

Its not about a power trip so much as it is about fear and ignorance. Like most things involving human systems. To few people take a step back and ask, is what we are doing achieving our goals? If not what can we change? Are we sure these are the right goals to have? It also very difficult to do this when you don't have the power to actually change anything or when asking these questions is frowned upon by your peers and employers.

[addams]

In other news, 6 year-old handcuffed and driven downtown for temper tantrum.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sideshow/6- ... 49882.html

I was involved with restraining a 2nd grader. It took two adult women to do it. He had thrown books. Knocked over a book case. Hit and scratched the librarian. He was amping up not calming down.

The little Bastard was a hand full. The other woman and I had to decide, "Do you want the top half or the bottom?"

Thank God I ended up with his legs. Legs don't bite.

There are darling little children that can be given a hamster or a rabbit to hold. There are darling little children that are sweet, kind and funny from the day that they are born. There are children that are frightening. Just, fact.

Is this thread about uniforms, now?

I did a bunch of reading about uniforms. Uniforms tend to have a positive effect on academic learning.
There are wide reasons why this is true.
Yes. Girls almost always alter their uniforms. Good schools have learned how do deal with this kind of thing. The US does not have one good school left?

People being people. If, the bar is set high, then, those that will not meet the standard, still, do fairly well. When the bar is set low, then, few if any reach a reasonable standard.
Remember the Race to the Bottom? THERE IS NO BOTTOM!

[Ormurinn]

I'm really very shocked that anyone can think criminalising normal adolescent behaviours is acceptable. The conversation seems to have diverged into two main threads however:

School Uniform

I attended a pretty standard working-class comprehensive wich had uniform, and I can't say anything against it save that it imposed additional and unnecessary costs on parents without providing anything of value (State school uniforms don't appear smart). Having no uniform in sixth form had a value all in itself though - Being responsible for choosing your own attire is a better introduction than a school uniform to the real world, and allowing social pressures to control clothing is ultimately a fairer and more wxpedient decision in my view, as well as providing a creative outlet.

Disruptive Behaviour

As I've said, sending children to court for being disruptive is a gross overreaction. Again, allowing the social environment to self-regulate is a more expedient solution, in my experience, bullies and idiots soon tried the rest of the schools patience, and lost whatever momentary popularity the achieved. Theres also the risk of featherbedding students, by artificially insulating them from the real social mileu - IMHO (and I say this as someone who was relentlessly bullied) It's important that children learn to stand up for themselves, when to moderate certain elements of their character and when to express them, and who around. Learning to take a joke, how to banter, is essential if you're going to end up well rounded.

That said, I think the compulsory schooling age in most countries is too high - Once they've attained a basic standard in literacy, numeracy and science, school doesnt provide much of worth to a lot of students - I used to work as a cleaner in a high school, and had one of the teachers confide in me that controlling and motivating students in the area was a challenge as their role models (tradesmen and labourers) hadn't ever had to rely on schooling (I thought the same thing in my youth). The solution in my mind is to lower the school leaving age to 14, conditional on an offer of employment or an apprenticeship. As soon as possible, school should be a resource for those who want it, not a prison for those who don't. I'm ideologically opposed to compulsary schooling altogether, but I'm bowing to practicality here

[addams]

Ormurinn;
"School should be a resource for those who want it, not a prison for those who don't."

That is a beautiful sentence. Just, lovely.

[Griffin]

I agree.

Also:

What's to keep them from rejecting any other educational endeavors that run counter to their personal interests?

I think this is the core of your problem. If you are intentionally embarking on educational endeavours that are not in the best interest of your students, you are, quite simply, doing it wrong. You do not deserve your job.

A student in such a situation has every right to, and perhaps an obligation to, reject your attempts. In since they are uneducated, naive, misinformed or otherwise not properly enabled to make a whole host of good decisions (hence your task of educating them), they are probably going to do it in a pretty "stupid" way. Which is regrettable, true, but no reason to eject them from the system while the person who's truly at fault here gets a free pass.

[addams]

That other guy had a point. We can not teach the unwilling.

Reject them from the system? Many of these young people are rejecting the system.

I have had first hand experience. It is confounding. One young man said to me, "I don't know anything. And; I don't want to know anything. So; Shut up, Bitch."

I was in a fortunate position. I shut up and walked out. I could. What about the teachers that can not walk out?

[sourmìlk]

I'm really very shocked that anyone can think criminalising normal adolescent behaviours is acceptable.

'Normal adolescent behaviours' include assault and vandalism. Those are (and should be) more than class-c misdemeanors.

[addams]

The teachers in some schools are working in war zones. The students that want to know stuff are overpowered by those that don't want to know and don't want anyone else to know, either.

Remember Bush and his bunch. They were much more subtle. They say that God does not want us to know. It amounts to the same thing. The race to the bottom.

Expelling a disruptive student is a reward for that student. We want these people to be happy. School is such a precious thing to some of us. It is hard to imagine that others find use of the contents of their heads to do more than hold their ears apart is abhorant.

It is a huge cultural problem. TV is the teacher of all age groups and the curriculum has degraded as the thirst for knowledge has degraded.

Another Rant; BECAUSE I am in a foul mood.

Spoiler:

I could name names. Want some? Who decides that shows like 24 and Jersey Girls are good for the people? Have you noticed a Jersey accent sneaking into our mass communications.
The Bushes of kennebunkport.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kennebunkport,_Maine
(Bush neither one are Ranch hands. Clearing brush was a photo op.)
Yes. The head of the CIA. Arguably the most powerful man on the planet.
Charles Dages of Warner Brothers? from New Jersey and LA. ech. I know his kid.
They do not pretend that what they do is wholesome. It is a projection of the world as they want it to be seen.

They sure as shit do not like to be disagreed with. I know that for a fact! But, who does?

https://www.cia.gov/about-cia/cia-visio ... index.html
Dig around in there. The morals and values of the broadcast media goes through these offices.
Do you ever wonder why Amy Goodman does not come off like that little morning blonde? The answers are there.

It may seem off topic. But; It is related. The tube. The tube in every home has one guy that can say yeah or neah to any program. He is a well paid son of a gun, too.

The TV tells these young people what is important. Have you seen some of that stuff? Charles hates me. I simply disagreed with him. Then at a dinner party as he was laughing about what he was doing for Bush II in Africa, I could no longer talk. It must have been rude, even by Jersey standards. I, just, sat and stared at him.

I know it sounds weird. He went to Africa with Bush II. They shook hands and went shopping. Then Charles made video games to teach safe sex to people that do not have electricty. He was laughing about spending money to make money.
He spent 50 K. He got 2 million every year Bush was in office.

What did the people of Africa get? Not much. From what I understand the video games are in a storage shed somewhere.

And; What did you get? Reality TV and the Jeresy Girls and of course Dora the Explorea. So, Jeresy.

The US is not a censor free nation. It lost fairness in broadcasting about 30 years ago.

Just prattling on in the night.

[addams]

Rejecting them from the system? Many are rejecting the system.

I had a large 16 year old man yell at me, "I don't know anything, And; I don't want to know anything. So; Shut up, Bitch."

Lucky me. I shut up and walked out. I could walk out and not look back.

What about the teachers that can not walk out?

The teachers in some schools are working in war zones. The students that want to know stuff are overpowered by those that don't want to know and don't want anyone else to know, either.

Remember Bush and his bunch. They were much more subtle. They say that God does not want us to know. It amounts to the same thing. The race to the bottom.

Expelling a disruptive student is a reward for that student. We want these people to be happy. School is such a precious thing to some of us. It is hard to imagine that others find use of the contents of their heads to do more than hold their ears apart is abhorant.

It is a huge cultural problem. TV is the teacher of all age groups and the curriculum has degraded as the thirst for knowledge has degraded.

Another Rant; BECAUSE I am in a foul mood.

Spoiler:

I could name names. Want some? Who decides that shows like 24 and Jersey Girls are good for the people? Have you noticed a Jersey accent sneaking into our mass communications.
The Bushes of kennebunkport.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kennebunkport,_Maine
(Bush neither one are Ranch hands. Clearing brush was a photo op.)
Yes. The head of the CIA. Arguably the most powerful man on the planet.
Charles Dages of Warner Brothers? from New Jersey and LA. ech. I know his kid.
They do not pretend that what they do is wholesome. It is a projection of the world as they want it to be seen.

They sure as shit do not like to be disagreed with. I know that for a fact! But, who does?

https://www.cia.gov/about-cia/cia-visio ... index.html
Dig around in there. The morals and values of the broadcast media goes through these offices.
Do you ever wonder why Amy Goodman does not come off like that little morning blonde? The answers are there.

It may seem off topic. But; It is related. The tube. The tube in every home has one guy that can say yeah or neah to any program. He is a well paid son of a gun, too.

The TV tells these young people what is important. Have you seen some of that stuff? Charles hates me. I simply disagreed with him. Then at a dinner party as he was laughing about what he was doing for Bush II in Africa, I could no longer talk. It must have been rude, even by Jersey standards. I, just, sat and stared at him.

I know it sounds weird. He went to Africa with Bush II. They shook hands and went shopping. Then Charles made video games to teach safe sex to people that do not have electricty. He was laughing about spending money to make money.
He spent 50 K. He got 2 million every year Bush was in office.

What did the people of Africa get? Not much. From what I understand the video games are in a storage shed somewhere.

And; What did you get? Reality TV and the Jeresy Girls and of course Dora the Explorea. So, Jeresy.

The US is not a censor free nation. It lost fairness in broadcasting about 30 years ago.

Just prattling on in the night.

[jakovasaur]

You think The Wire and The Sopranos (to name just two subversive Time Warner shows) are a projection of the world as "they" want it to be seen?

[addams]

You think The Wire and The Sopranos (to name just two subversive Time Warner shows) are a projection of the world as "they" want it to be seen?

oops. I double posted and don't know how to fix it.

I don't watch TV any more. It is too dark and scary.
I watched part of 24. eww.
I have seen some of the Reality TV. When talking to Charles Dages he is against the Happy Ending. If, the program is not violent and has a happy ending, then, it is most likely, not his baby.
Good night. I think that it is late here.

[sourmìlk]

I don't watch TV any more. It is too dark and scary.

There's still some good stuff on. Although House and probably The Office are going off the air

[Chen]

Disruptive Behaviour

As I've said, sending children to court for being disruptive is a gross overreaction. Again, allowing the social environment to self-regulate is a more expedient solution, in my experience, bullies and idiots soon tried the rest of the schools patience, and lost whatever momentary popularity the achieved. Theres also the risk of featherbedding students, by artificially insulating them from the real social mileu - IMHO (and I say this as someone who was relentlessly bullied) It's important that children learn to stand up for themselves, when to moderate certain elements of their character and when to express them, and who around. Learning to take a joke, how to banter, is essential if you're going to end up well rounded.

The bullies in my high school bullied those who were unpopular and thus never lost their OWN popularity. I don't see how that's self-regulating at all. Standing up for yourself is definitely something to learn, but when you're faced with a force you cannot beat on your own you go to a higher authority. This is how it works in adult life as well as in school. Bullying should be treated like what it actually is; harassment and/or assault. Now since they are children the punishements should not be as severe as those for adults, but the currently its not even in the same realm.

[Griffin]

There are ways to teach children to stand up for themselves without teaching OTHER children that its acceptable to torment those weaker than them, either to boost up their own ego or obtain the approval of their peers. And it is more likely to teach kids to hide and avoid confrontation, to avoid being noticed, whenever possible (when bullied), than it is to teach them to stand up for themselves.

Allowing bullying does far more damage in negative lessons than benefits in good ones. Unsurprisingly, learning correctly is more likely to happen when a person is "taught". You don't just give a kid a guitar and tell him to learn how to play it, and that you're going to punch him in the face every day until he does. You're more likely to teach him how to take a punch (or how to be conspicuously absent whenever you are around) than how to play guitar correctly.

[savanik]

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

Ok, now this is just particularly inflammatory. Lucrece may be personally identifying with students, but that's no reason to drop down to ad hominem attacks. He's making good, logical points. If you want to argue with those, refute them.

Both schools and parents have responsibility for shaping the values of children. However, one of the first values that parents need to instill is that the teachers have something the students should pay attention to. Whether you're going to instill this through role models that needed education or through respect for authoritarian figures, without that value, teachers will have difficulty instilling anything at all into children.

Schools have very little choice about what values they're even allowed to attempt to instill to students. Those are all dictated at the state and, to some degree, the federal level. There's no sign of this changing any time soon because we, as a nation, are psychotically fixated on protecting children from any perceived risks. We've given schools authority over these kids, and then come up with a long list of things schools can't do to 'protect the children' because we don't actually trust the schools or teachers to behave appropriately with that authority.

The fact that the police are taking students into court over minor violations is symptomatic of these deeper issues we have in education. We are literally trying to teach our students in a schizophrenic environment. It's the causes that we should be addressing, not the symptoms. The regulations we have around schooling are not working - we should remove them, or at least replace them with something sensible.

[Zcorp]

He's making good, logical points. If you want to argue with those, refute them.

Both schools and parents have responsibility for shaping the values of children. However, one of the first values that parents need to instill is that the teachers have something the students should pay attention to. Whether you're going to instill this through role models that needed education or through respect for authoritarian figures, without that value, teachers will have difficulty instilling anything at all into children.

His points are neither good (in that they don't account for reality) nor logical.

And this is so entirely wrong. We certainly should not be teaching students that they should respect older people simply because they are older. Earning the respect and building a relationship with your students is half of what teaching is about. If you as a teacher can't do that with your students you really shouldn't be teaching.

Schools have very little choice about what values they're even allowed to attempt to instill to students. Those are all dictated at the state and, to some degree, the federal level. There's no sign of this changing any time soon because we, as a nation, are psychotically fixated on protecting children from any perceived risks. We've given schools authority over these kids, and then come up with a long list of things schools can't do to 'protect the children' because we don't actually trust the schools or teachers to behave appropriately with that authority.

No where on that list does it require you to use uniforms, punish kids for not/incorrectly wearing the uniform or punish them by sending them to court.

The fact that the police are taking students into court over minor violations is symptomatic of these deeper issues we have in education. We are literally trying to teach our students in a schizophrenic environment. It's the causes that we should be addressing, not the symptoms. The regulations we have around schooling are not working - we should remove them, or at least replace them with something sensible.

RIght, which is one of the primary arguments against Lucrece. One of the our problems is that we have some adults so incompetent at their jobs that this uniform problem is an issue and then they react by sending kids to court. Often we have situations where schools are worried about 'keeping the students in line' where in line leans bullshit that the adults have made to have power over the students rather than teaching the students.

[Ormurinn]

Allowing bullying does far more damage in negative lessons than benefits in good ones.

Depends on what you consider bullying Griffin. I'd never suggest that actions liable to cause physical harm shouldn't be stopped by teachers (though its a foregone conclusion that any lad worth his salt is going to get into fights), but name calling? "You're not my friend anymore!"? Teasing and banter? Those are just facts of life! Drawing on my experience as a high school cleaner again, I once overheard in an after school class, as a teacher turned off the lights for a powerpoint projection, "Well done miss, now I can't see Shahib!" The two boys were obviously friends, no offense had bee taken, and the whole class was laughing - It's that kind of social bonding that contributes to an atmosphere where everyone can learn. Unbidden the teacher promptly ordered the "Racist" out of the classroom (a much bigger disruption than a mere joke), gave him a dressing down, sent him home, and could still be heard an hour after the class was finished telephoning Student support, the Headmaster and the faculty head.

So as a rough guideline, Assault, battery etc. I'm with you on. Hurt feelings or un-politically correct speech? Grow a thicker skin, Grow up. welcome to the real world.

It seems to me that a lot of the problems the west has with teaching at the moment stem from the fact that we're taking a system developed in the 1800's to train Prussian conscripts, and extrapolating it to the basis of our whole society, tacking on ammendments to the system without tackling the root and branch issues. There is an obsession with controlling and coralling children in a gaol-like environment, restricting their speech, freedom of expression, access to information and social interaction. The rallying cry seems to be "If only we could squash a bit MORE individuality out of them, make sure they think the way we want them to, dress the way we want them to". I'd hoped society had moved on from wanting to produce good little machine men, but in my time at school, I watched clever students funnelled away from science and mathematics to easier humanities subjects to inflate the colleges position in the league tables. Student's political views were routinely censored (a mock election was held at the same time as a general election - great idea in my view, but my defining memory of the event was when a friend of mine who was representing the BNP was told he wouldn't be allowed to run in case people agreed with him!)

It's not the place of a school to socialise its students. It's there to educate them, and should take as hands-off a position as possible.

[Griffin]

None of what you just described is bullying - good natured joking, even a bit of jockying for position, is perfectly healthy.

But there are ways for me to a fuckton of damage to you in real life without ever touching you, and I don't see why bullies should get a free ride with those methods just because they don't physically injure a person.

Intent is hard to tease out, but intent matters when your teaching.

If a persons intent is solely to tear down the other person, just to build themselves up, that is never okay, regardless of which form it takes or how physical they get doing it, and I don't want schools to let students think that behaviour is acceptable, if only BECAUSE there are more than enough adults who do already.

Plus, we're locking these kids up with their tormentors. Most of the "real life" solutions to bullying - get the guy fired, get another job, get legal action taken - are not available to these students. And adults tend not to be nearly so cruel as children. (Tend, keyword)

[addams]

Zcorup wrote:

"RIght, which is one of the primary arguments against Lucrece. One of the our problems is that we have some adults so incompetent at their jobs that this uniform problem is an issue and then they react by sending kids to court. Often we have situations where schools are worried about 'keeping the students in line' where in line leans bullshit that the adults have made to have power over the students rather than teaching the students."

we have some adults so incompetent at their jobs that this uniform problem is an issue
Let's chat about this for a few minutes. Just you and me.

School is the child's job. It is an unpaid job. Child labor?! Send in the Clowns! The poor children! Showing up at the same fucking place day after boring day; Toiling away over books and papers. Jeeze. It is enough to break a heart.
To add insult to injury they are required to be dressed. In some schools all the people wear the same clothes.

How can these poor souls show any individuality? What happens when these out of control jerks get into the adult world where adult people make decisions and contribute? Uniforms?

Well, Honey; I don't know what rock you have been under, but, many people are in uniform.
1. Hospitals are full of them. I know. Universal standards have done a great deal to make the hospital uniforms more and more dull. There used to be some flexability. Hey! Those people had earned it! Still White on White was the only choice in color. Paints were a 'No Go' for women.
Scrubs are what everyone is wearing these days. It is not easy to look good in scrubs. In many hospitals each employee must wear the hospital's scrubs. The color and the size and the level of fadedness is random chance, unless you are able to make friends with the laundry team.

2. The Police have quite the zoot suit that they all wear.

3. All branches of the military.

4. The upperty class executive types with the stupid tie and jacket with matching pants.

5. Labs have Uniforms. It is not only rude to walk into a lab without the proper attire, it is also dangerous. Some fabrics create a static charge when we move inside of them. Personally, I like that. It is not safe in a Lab.

The list goes on and on. Many people have uniforms to wear when they go to work. It has the effect of letting others know that you are 'Working'. It reminds the individual that they are 'Working'. Uniforms in adult life serve many purposes. Reasonable adults learn to love their uniforms. Some have padding and space age plastic at the knees. Some have full face shields.

School is 'Work' for many. Learning some of that stuff is hard.

Your issue is that adults are forcing little helpless 6 foot tall 220 pound men to wear uniforms and behave themselves when inside the sacred buildings that belong to the people? Not all 16 year old men are that large, but, many are.

Now; Back to the incompetent adults that are being allowed to draw a line in the sand. Good on 'em.

When the adults are no longer distracted by a fear of the students; (Some are.)
When the adults are no longer distracted by the poetry on the students pants or shirt, then, the adults will be able to do their job better and easier for everyone.

Off duty, School children can wear what they want to wear or nothing at all. I don't care. I have seen so many naked bodies I am not impressed by much.

[Ormurinn]

None of what you just described is bullying - good natured joking, even a bit of jockying for position, is perfectly healthy.

But there are ways for me to a fuckton of damage to you in real life without ever touching you, and I don't see why bullies should get a free ride with those methods just because they don't physically injure a person.

Intent is hard to tease out, but intent matters when your teaching.

If a persons intent is solely to tear down the other person, just to build themselves up, that is never okay, regardless of which form it takes or how physical they get doing it, and I don't want schools to let students think that behaviour is acceptable, if only BECAUSE there are more than enough adults who do already.

Plus, we're locking these kids up with their tormentors. Most of the "real life" solutions to bullying - get the guy fired, get another job, get legal action taken - are not available to these students. And adults tend not to be nearly so cruel as children. (Tend, keyword)

I wouldn't consider thos things bullying ither. The problem is that some thin skinned bureaucrat somewhere has decided that they are, and kids pay the price.

Speaking purely verbally and socially, I don't think there is a great deal anyone can do to cause a "fuckton of damage" to a well-adjusted, ordinary person. I think we have a difference of opinion here, I respect your desire to protect people, but what you see as bullies getting a free ride I just see as them expressing their right to free speech. I wouldn't expect teachers to tolerate arguments in their classrooms, but in their own time, including breaks and lunches, students have as much of a right to be insulting as adults.

It's not a question of if such behaviour is acceptable, its a fact of life. There are bullies in the world, best that kids get used to them on "easy mode."

I agree, we shouldn't lock kids up with bullies. I've already mentionned that i'm opposed to mandatory public schooling.

[Griffin]

Except, again, we lock have laws against and lock people up, in the adult world, for verbal, nonviolent stuff that is INCREDIBLY common in schools.

Speaking purely verbally and socially, I don't think there is a great deal anyone can do to cause a "fuckton of damage" to a well-adjusted, ordinary person.

We are not talking about well-adjusted, ordinary people. We are talking about normal children and teenagers. Who, by the very nature of adolescence, are neither of things.

And bullies tend to go after those who are the least of both. If a person IS mal-adjusted or different, is that, to you, an acceptable justification for daily insults, the spreading of vicious rumours, the purposeful and malicious exclusion from groups and activities? The repeated "accidents" knocking stuff off desks, "misplacing" belongings out windows, etc? The repeated harassment and harriment, year in and year out, for multiple years?

You really don't think that sort of stuff would do damage to a "well-adjusted, ordinary" person going through school, trying to find their place in the world, trying to master the art of social interaction and just learning to become comfortable with themselves and how to obtain some small part of independence? Because a "well-adjusted, ordinary" person, at this age, craves acceptance, and this sort of stuff can lead to not maintain the well adjusted state for long.

It's not a question of if such behaviour is acceptable, its a fact of life. There are bullies in the world, best that kids get used to them on "easy mode."

School is not "easy mode" - it is literally the MOST damaging time in a persons life for bullying to occur. There is no other situation in a normal victims life where they are more likely to be emotionally unstable, environmentally confined, and socially inexperienced. This is the exact opposite of easy mode.

Frankly, I get the feeling that you have no fucking clue what you are talking about.

[jakovasaur]

Except, again, we lock have laws against and lock people up, in the adult world, for verbal, nonviolent stuff that is INCREDIBLY common in schools.

Could you give some examples of this? The typical non-violent bullying, such as taunting, name-calling, exclusion, is not illegal.

[addams]

Except, again, we lock have laws against and lock people up, in the adult world, for verbal, nonviolent stuff that is INCREDIBLY common in schools.

Speaking purely verbally and socially, I don't think there is a great deal anyone can do to cause a "fuckton of damage" to a well-adjusted, ordinary person.

We are not talking about well-adjusted, ordinary people. We are talking about normal children and teenagers. Who, by the very nature of adolescence, are neither of things.

And bullies tend to go after those who are the least of both. If a person IS mal-adjusted or different, is that, to you, an acceptable justification for daily insults, the spreading of vicious rumours, the purposeful and malicious exclusion from groups and activities? The repeated "accidents" knocking stuff off desks, "misplacing" belongings out windows, etc? The repeated harassment and harriment, year in and year out, for multiple years?

You really don't think that sort of stuff would do damage to a "well-adjusted, ordinary" person going through school, trying to find their place in the world, trying to master the art of social interaction and just learning to become comfortable with themselves and how to obtain some small part of independence? Because a "well-adjusted, ordinary" person, at this age, craves acceptance, and this sort of stuff can lead to not maintain the well adjusted state for long.

It's not a question of if such behaviour is acceptable, its a fact of life. There are bullies in the world, best that kids get used to them on "easy mode."

School is not "easy mode" - it is literally the MOST damaging time in a persons life for bullying to occur. There is no other situation in a normal victims life where they are more likely to be emotionally unstable, environmentally confined, and socially inexperienced. This is the exact opposite of easy mode.

Frankly, I get the feeling that you have no fucking clue what you are talking about.

Umm. You; Griffin. Thank you. From one of the odd balls; Thank you.
I have no idea how you know that, but, I am glad that you do. And; That you have both the skill and the courage to type it.

[sourmìlk]

Except, again, we lock have laws against and lock people up, in the adult world, for verbal, nonviolent stuff that is INCREDIBLY common in schools.

Could you give some examples of this? The typical non-violent bullying, such as taunting, name-calling, exclusion, is not illegal.

Theft (people still take lunch / lunch money, right?), harassment, various 'pranks' that amount to theft, vandalism, etc.

[Ormurinn]

Except, again, we lock have laws against and lock people up, in the adult world, for verbal, nonviolent stuff that is INCREDIBLY common in schools.

That doesn't necessarily mean it's moral to do so. Give me an example of a case that could simu;taneously provoke this response, and that you think is justified.

We are not talking about well-adjusted, ordinary people. We are talking about normal children and teenagers. Who, by the very nature of adolescence, are neither of things.

I'd say kids in their early-to-mid teens are mostly pretty well adjusted - they're certainly capable of holding down part time jobs in addition to studying, and interacting well socially. It's a bit demeaning to assume that someone necessarily lacks maturity or mental fortitude because of their youth.

And bullies tend to go after those who are the least of both. If a person IS mal-adjusted or different, is that, to you, an acceptable justification for daily insults, the spreading of vicious rumours, the purposeful and malicious exclusion from groups and activities? The repeated "accidents" knocking stuff off desks, "misplacing" belongings out windows, etc? The repeated harassment and harriment, year in and year out, for multiple years?

You really don't think that sort of stuff would do damage to a "well-adjusted, ordinary" person going through school, trying to find their place in the world, trying to master the art of social interaction and just learning to become comfortable with themselves and how to obtain some small part of independence? Because a "well-adjusted, ordinary" person, at this age, craves acceptance, and this sort of stuff can lead to not maintain the well adjusted state for long.

I think most people put up with daily insults, even the well-liked ones, though perhaps this is a difference in national character. as for "malicious exclusion" what do you want? Teachers to mandate that people assosciate and include people they don't like? Freedom of assosciation includes the freedom not to assosciate, and attempting to make kids include people who aren't their friends is sure to 1) Foster resentment and 2) Be ineffective. Vicious rumors spread in all workplaces, It's something people have to get used to.

You seem to have misinterpreted me though, I'm not proposing for a minute that any kind of bullying is laudable - I just think that trying to regulate students enough to eliminate the kind of low level spats we're talking about here is doomed to failure, if we can't even regulate mature adults to behave in the fashion we want. Better that people learn to live with it.

School is not "easy mode" - it is literally the MOST damaging time in a persons life for bullying to occur. There is no other situation in a normal victims life where they are more likely to be emotionally unstable, environmentally confined, and socially inexperienced. This is the exact opposite of easy mode.

In school, there is easy acess to counselling, a vast student support team, and a big enough social mileu that there are always friends availiable. Theres a library and labs for escapism and always at least one teacher you get on well with. Contrast that with the hard mode of adult life - access to counselling is more restricted, theres a vastly curtailed support network, consisting mainly opf friends and family not professionals. Your place of employment is a lot less well-suited to forging friendships, and you have to put up with shit from your superiors all the time. You also have to work for a living, and that living might be dependent on not rocking the boat.

Frankly, I get the feeling that you have no fucking clue what you are talking about.

I'm no trained edagogue or psychologist, I'm going only from my own experiences, and those of my peers. Kindly tone down the hostility, I'm no foe of yours and even if I was, thats no language to use to persuade.

[Zcorp]

Frankly, I get the feeling that you have no fucking clue what you are talking about.

I'm no trained edagogue or psychologist, I'm going only from my own experiences, and those of my peers. Kindly tone down the hostility, I'm no foe of yours and even if I was, thats no language to use to persuade.

I'm often confused by this, if you don't want to be responded to in a way that you view as rude - as in someone is calling you on your bullshit - it might behoove you not to treat the topic and knowledge of the topic thoughtlessly.

Kindly don't assert premises as if you are someone credible on a topic when you "have no fucking clue what you are talking about."

[Griffin]

Sorry, the aggression was uncalled for. And we do agree that low level stuff, joshing around, a bit of horseplay and rude or even off color jokes isn't a huge deal. But while there are a good deal of well adjusted kids, many of them are not, and bullies tend to go for those because they are easier targets.

I feel like you don't really understand how bad it gets in some places, and in part I'm actually happy for you - it means you probably had a good and normal childhood. But there are going to be vulnerable students in high school, who are not well adjusted and ordinary but who could make really swell adults, but those facets make them very appealing to bullies.

People are not mentally immature, inherently, because of their youth, but many young people ARE immature and WILL grow out of it, given time and a good environment. And bullying, the kind that people are trying to stop, can do a lot to fuck that process up.

I'm lucky too - I was mal-adjusted and extremely weird in school, making me a popular target, but I was also a vicious little fuck who didn't take much shit, and managed to orchestrate the expulsion of two of my bullies which made others think twice about messing with me, and I didn't particularly care about or like people so long as they left me alone. Not everyone is going to work that way (and thank goodness, since I'm pretty sure I managed more harm than good overall).

I think most people put up with daily insults, even the well-liked ones, though perhaps this is a difference in national character. as for "malicious exclusion" what do you want? Teachers to mandate that people assosciate and include people they don't like?

Daily insults, of the legitimate insult sort rather than the banter sort, are not something 'most' people have to put up with, in my experience. Where are you from that this is the case? (Its important to keep in mind that MOST kids are not bullied in the way I've been talking about here)

Freedom of assosciation includes the freedom not to assosciate, and attempting to make kids include people who aren't their friends is sure to 1) Foster resentment and 2) Be ineffective.

This is more about making is so students are excluded from interaction with groups and people OTHER than your own, which I've seen in action. Purposely lying to people about a party they were invited to being cancelled, for example, or said spreading of rumours to isolate them from others, or even as simple as refusing to work with them in a school work group they've been assigned (or refusing to play on their 'side' in a sports game). This shit does not fly in the workplace, and it's actually more likely to be damaging for the bully (and their future employers) than the victim (in this case) to let that sort of shit slide.

Vicious rumors spread in all workplaces, It's something people have to get used to.

They do not in mine. They do not in any place I've worked. And I certainly wouldn't stand for it if it did - it's not good for business, not good for the company, not good for the employees, and not good for me.

The thing is, you seem to indicate we should just ignore it, but addressing it seems like a more effective way to prepare both bullies AND their victims (neither of whom are usually well adjusted, and some of whom manage to be both at once) for successful integration into the adult workforce. That be addressing it, we are all better off by having to deal with people who were taught as children that being dicks is NOT acceptable.

Yes, we are /surviving/ by ignoring it. (except the ones who are dead)
But I don't think its too much to ask to believe we can do better. At least some bullies are bullies simply because they don't know any better way to act, because they are NOT socially well-adjusted - those, at least, we can help, and I think its worth the effort.
(and the bullies who are well-adjusted need a couple slaps upside the head, metaphorically speaking, until they realize that tormenting those below them on the totem pole is not an accepted method of social advancement)

[sourmìlk]

Frankly, I get the feeling that you have no fucking clue what you are talking about.

I'm no trained edagogue or psychologist, I'm going only from my own experiences, and those of my peers. Kindly tone down the hostility, I'm no foe of yours and even if I was, thats no language to use to persuade.

I'm often confused by this, if you don't want to be responded to in a way that you view as rude - as in someone is calling you on your bullshit - it might behoove you not to treat the topic and knowledge of the topic thoughtlessly.

Kindly don't assert premises as if you are someone credible on a topic when you "have no fucking clue what you are talking about."

No, no matter how wrong somebody is, that doesn't give anybody an excuse to insult him. One person's logical failings don't justify another person's.

[Griffin]

Mind you, it wasn't much of an insult, but it was still inappropriate.

[Zcorp]

Frankly, I get the feeling that you have no fucking clue what you are talking about.

I'm no trained edagogue or psychologist, I'm going only from my own experiences, and those of my peers. Kindly tone down the hostility, I'm no foe of yours and even if I was, thats no language to use to persuade.

I'm often confused by this, if you don't want to be responded to in a way that you view as rude - as in someone is calling you on your bullshit - it might behoove you not to treat the topic and knowledge of the topic thoughtlessly.

Kindly don't assert premises as if you are someone credible on a topic when you "have no fucking clue what you are talking about."

No, no matter how wrong somebody is, that doesn't give anybody an excuse to insult him. One person's logical failings don't justify another person's.

My comment was not excuse anything, it was meant to point out something. People often act in rude ways in return of being treated rudely.

[Ormurinn]

Griffin:

First off, thanks for the debate - It's made me re-evaluate some of my positions, and after doing a bit of reading on the subject I can definately see where you're coming from - I think my opinions have been coloured by my personal experiences, I always got a lot more shit from teachers than students, particularly for fighting.

I've seen a lot of kids pounced on by overzealous teachers for the kind of verbal insults We both agree aren't too serious. Coupling that with all the bullying I experienced being physical in nature might have resulted in some of my views. I was the nerd and made fun of - but I wore it as a badge of pride and I'm glad for the experience, which might further have influenced my view of verbal bullying as something natural and not extremely harmful. I didn't see getting my head kicked in in the same light.

I do get the feeling we went to different sorts of schools - I went to a small, rural, working class comprehensive. Fights were pretty frequent, as were all the aspects of social bullying we've been discussing, but no-one ever killed themselves, as I'm reading is far more common than I thought.

I'm English, and insulting people is seen as a pretty basic aspect of bonding and establishing a pecking order, at least amongst blokes.

I was never part of the partying set, but do remember people refusing to play for a side in school sports. The people who did that were near-universally hated, by both teams. Thats the kind of thing I was referring to with my remark about some kinds of bullying being self regulating. If people realise you're a dick, they don't want to be your friend.

I've definately experienced rumors in workplaces first hand - It certainly is bad for business, and perhaps in more sophisticated workplaces it would be stamped out, but implying someone isn't pulling their weight/is looking at so-and-so in a creepy fashion etc has been pretty common in my admittedly limited work experience.