T3B@psuvm.BITNET (08/26/85)
As a parent, occasional school district committee person, and ACLU
member, I've discovered an odd situation here in Pennsylvania.
Corporal punishment, administered by a paddle, is occasionally used
in our local district. It is "legal" in a curious way: it is not
specifically legalized in statutes, but is permitted in the school
code, written by the Dept. of Education, to be established and
regulated by local School Boards (which are elected in most parts of
the State, but appointed in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh). In my own
district, State College, a university town, the punishment is used
fairly infrequently: perhaps half a dozen times a year, officially.
It is an anomolous situation: the state government's child abuse hotline
specifically refuses to handle any calls relating to abuse of students
by school officials. The punishment is, I believe, the only case in which,
aside from capital punishment, physical punishment is permitted. For example,
it is clearly against the law to corporally punish prisoners, mental patients,
head start clients, etc. But public (and private) school students are in
a unique legal and moral situation, where, without appeal, they may be
subjected to the pain and humiliation of a semi-public (it must be
witnessed) beating.
I would be interested to see postings that describe the situation in
other areas, and to read the net's views on corporal punishment as a
form of school discipline.
-- Tom Benson
Penn State University
227 Sparks Bldg., University Park, PA 16802
814-238-5277 (ATT)
{akgua,allegra,ihnp4,cbosgd}!psuvax1!psuvm.bitnet!t3b (UUCP)
T3B@PSUVM (BITNET) 76044,3701 (COMPUSERVE)
ray@rochester.UUCP (Ray Frank) (08/27/85)
> As a parent, occasional school district committee person, and ACLU > member, I've discovered an odd situation here in Pennsylvania. > Corporal punishment, administered by a paddle, is occasionally used > in our local district. > > -- Tom Benson > Penn State University > 227 Sparks Bldg., University Park, PA 16802 > 814-238-5277 (ATT) > > {akgua,allegra,ihnp4,cbosgd}!psuvax1!psuvm.bitnet!t3b (UUCP) > > T3B@PSUVM (BITNET) 76044,3701 (COMPUSERVE) > What's so odd about corporal punishment. When I was a kid, I used to get it in school, and sometimes at home for getting it in school. Every time I got it, I DESERVED IT. What I find odd is the amount of abuse teachers get from students. The amount of lack of disipline by students. The disregard of respect for the instructors. The passionate embraces I'm told occurs commonly in public hallways. The heavy use of drugs on school grounds. The total lack of any kind of dress code. These things bother me a lot more than corporal punishment, and believe me when I tell you, I know first hand about the paddle (ouch). P.S. What also bothers me is the ACLU, based on an admittedly small amount of information from reading the newspapers.
smh@rduxb.UUCP (henning) (08/27/85)
> I've discovered an odd situation here in Pennsylvania. > Corporal punishment, administered by a paddle, is occasionally used > in our local district. It is "legal" in a curious way: is used > fairly infrequently: perhaps half a dozen times a year, officially. > But public (and private) school students are in > a unique legal and moral situation, where, without appeal, they may be > subjected to the pain and humiliation of a semi-public (it must be > witnessed) beating. In Pennsylvania, public school teachers including my wife have the rights of a parent in disciplining a child. If a parent can spank a child, then the teacher can. Any other restrictions are provided by the local school board. No one has the right to beat a child in Pa. The reason spanking is prohibited or restricted in most Pa. schools is due to the parents that sue school districts. The most important item in school discipline, is that it be consistent and enforced. Kids respect rules and parents and teachers that care enough about them try to teach them right from wrong and instill in them a sensitivity to antisocial behavior. Believe me, I don't envy my wife one minute spending each day in classrooms with 35 eight and ninth graders. Teachers need to keep discipline or the taxpayers are just wasting their money on the teachers and more importantly, denying other children their education.
carl@aoa.UUCP (Carl Witthoft) (08/28/85)
>What's so odd about corporal punishment. When I was a kid, I used to get it >in school, and sometimes at home for getting it in school. Every time I >got it, I DESERVED IT. What I find odd is the amount of abuse teachers get ...and other stuff... >These things bother me a lot more than corporal punishment, and believe me >when I tell you, I know first hand about the paddle (ouch). ... and more stuff. At the risk of repeating myself, I ask: how does this relate to anything legal? First of all, this is flame-quality prose. Second, it shows a staggering lack of knowledge of child psych., and leads me to worry about the attitude of the author towards people in general. Followup is to net.flame only because I dont subscribe to that group. If net.legal doesn't get more sensible, it ought to be dumped or divided . Disclaimer:(rare) Not a lawyer or a psychologist. Darwin's Dad (Carl Witthoft) ...!{decvax,linus,ima,ihnp4}!bbncca!aoa!carl @ Adaptive Optics Assoc., 54 Cambridgepark Dr. Cambridge, MA 02140 617-864-0201 "Put me in, Coach. I'm ready to play today. Look at me! I can be centerfield."
T3B@psuvm.BITNET (08/28/85)
In response to my posting on corporal punishment in schools,
11212@Rochester.uucp adds a P.S.:
>What also bothers me is the ACLU, based on an admittedly
>small amount of information from reading the newspapers.
I mentioned my ACLU membership in the original posting only because
I wanted to indicate the context of my remarks, and my orientation.
I'd be happy to get into a discussion of the merits of the American
Civil Liberties Union, though perhaps that should be done in either
net.legal or net.politics, and kept out of net.kids. Followup to
either group and we can see whether other netters would find such a
discussion useful. Just to get things started, I'd note that ACLU
has been a group that primarily advocates procedural fairness in
application of the U.S. Constitution, with a special emphasis on the
Bill of Rights. What bothers you about that?
Tom Benson T3B at PSUVM (Bitnet)
lkk@teddy.UUCP (08/28/85)
In article <658@rduxb.UUCP> smh@rduxb.UUCP (henning) writes: >> I've discovered an odd situation here in Pennsylvania. >> Corporal punishment, administered by a paddle, is occasionally used >> in our local district. It is "legal" in a curious way: is used >> fairly infrequently: perhaps half a dozen times a year, officially. >> But public (and private) school students are in >> a unique legal and moral situation, where, without appeal, they may be >> subjected to the pain and humiliation of a semi-public (it must be >> witnessed) beating. > >In Pennsylvania, public school teachers including my wife have the >rights of a parent in disciplining a child. If a parent can spank >a child, then the teacher can. Any other restrictions are provided >by the local school board. No one has the right to beat a child in Pa. >The reason spanking is prohibited or restricted in most Pa. schools >is due to the parents that sue school districts. > >The most important item in school discipline, is that it be consistent >and enforced. Kids respect rules and parents and teachers that care >enough about them try to teach them right from wrong and instill in >them a sensitivity to antisocial behavior. > >Believe me, I don't envy my wife one minute spending each day in >classrooms with 35 eight and ninth graders. Teachers need to keep >discipline or the taxpayers are just wasting their money on the >teachers and more importantly, denying other children their education. Discipline based on fear is worse than no discipline at all. If a teacher can't command the respect of students through non-violent means, there is something wrong with the teacher. My mother teaches second grade in one of the nastier areas of the Bronx, in New York City. She maintains order by letting the students know, in no uncertain terms, that she will be fair with them, but NOT TAKE ANY CRAP. She has their respect, and never resorts to corporal punishment (which is illegal). BTW, these are tough streetwise kids who are normally quite unruly (to put it nicely) outside of the classroom. -- Sport Death, Larry Kolodney (USENET) ...decvax!genrad!teddy!lkk (INTERNET) lkk@mit-mc.arpa
fsks@unc.UUCP (Frank Silbermann) (08/29/85)
>-- Tom Benson >Corporal punishment, administered by a paddle, is occasionally used >in our local district. >I would be interested to see postings that describe the situation in >other areas, and to read the net's views on corporal punishment as a >form of school discipline. I have mixed feelings about corporal punishment. Where it is permitted, the danger always exist that a teacher with a brutal streak will terrorize the children. On the other hand, I wonder what sort of punishment SHOULD be used. In New York City, corporal punishment is forbidden. Also, no child may be expelled for any reason, under the reasoning that ALL children have a RIGHT to education. The only motivation teachers may provide is to giving and withholding approval, via grades and praise. This sort of incentive doesn't work for the child who DOESN'T CARE what the teacher thinks of him (in many cases, the child's parents don't care, either). The out-and-out rebel can call the teacher's bluff, leaving the teacher no means to keep control of his class. The other children notice that such a rebel is more powerful than the teacher. This destroys the teacher's prestige and authority, destroying his ability to teach anybody else. The result of this is that hardly anybody learns much in the inner city schools. If this trend does not reverse, the parents who do care will lose confidence in the public school system. Private schools will become the rule, rather than the exception. Since most private schools are run for the benefit of special-interest groups (the affluent minority, religious denominations), in the long run this may increase the polarization of society. The only way to stop this trend is to take back control of the schools from the insubordinate students and return it to the teachers. But how can we accomplish this with neither the option to expell the hard-line trouble- makers, nor the permission to beat them into submission? What do you guys think? Can anyone come up with more palatable options? Frank Silbermann
smh@rduxb.UUCP (henning) (08/29/85)
> At the risk of repeating myself, I ask: how does this relate to anything > legal? The discussion is about Pennsylvania school law, hence, legal. OK?????
smh@rduxb.UUCP (henning) (08/29/85)
> Discipline based on fear is worse than no discipline at all. If a teacher > can't command the respect of students through non-violent means, > there is something wrong with the teacher. > > My mother teaches second grade in one of the nastier areas of the > Bronx, in New York City. She maintains order by letting the > students know, in no uncertain terms, that she will be fair with > them, but NOT TAKE ANY CRAP. She has their respect, and > never resorts to corporal punishment (which is illegal). Is NOT TAKE ANY CRAP emotional terrorism? Hence, fear?? Actually back when paddling was used, the greatest fear was not of the paddle, since life has many more displeasures than that. The fear was of the parents finding out that one got paddles and the they would really catch hell. Today you call the parents to express concern about a child, and 50% of the time the parents don't want to be bothered.
ray@rochester.UUCP (Ray Frank) (08/29/85)
> > I mentioned my ACLU membership in the original posting only because > I wanted to indicate the context of my remarks, and my orientation. > I'd be happy to get into a discussion of the merits of the American > Civil Liberties Union, though perhaps that should be done in either > net.legal or net.politics, and kept out of net.kids. Followup to > either group and we can see whether other netters would find such a > discussion useful. Just to get things started, I'd note that ACLU > has been a group that primarily advocates procedural fairness in > application of the U.S. Constitution, with a special emphasis on the > Bill of Rights. What bothers you about that? > > Tom Benson T3B at PSUVM (Bitnet) > Here in Rochester the ACLU prevented the police dept. from issuing good driving tickets to motorists deserving them. It was only a good will drive by the police dept., but the ACLU said it was unconstitutional. When that 15 yr. old Russian boy wanted to stay in America and not leave the country with his parents several years ago, the ACLU said he must go back. These are a few examples of where the ACLU seems to 'pop' out of the wood work and get involved in other peoples affairs, even when they're not invited to get involved. Right or wrong, I get the impression that the ACLU wraps the Bill of Rights around a lead pipe and uses it to 'get' peoples attention in order to protect them.
todd@scirtp.UUCP (Todd Jones) (08/29/85)
> > I've discovered an odd situation here in Pennsylvania. > > Corporal punishment, administered by a paddle, is occasionally used > > in our local district. It is "legal" in a curious way: is used > > fairly infrequently: perhaps half a dozen times a year, officially. > > But public (and private) school students are in > > a unique legal and moral situation, where, without appeal, they may be > > subjected to the pain and humiliation of a semi-public (it must be > > witnessed) beating. > > In Pennsylvania, public school teachers including my wife have the > rights of a parent in disciplining a child. If a parent can spank > a child, then the teacher can. What about parents who don't believe in corporal punishment for their children? I have spanked our four-year-old twice so far, only as a last resort and after many warnings, but I don't want anyone other than my wife and me to dole out spankings. That is my job. > > Believe me, I don't envy my wife one minute spending each day in > classrooms with 35 eight and ninth graders. Teachers need to keep > discipline or the taxpayers are just wasting their money on the > teachers and more importantly, denying other children their education. I don't envy her either. But, who said that corporal punishment is effective? I'm not sure it is, after my experiences with my son. -todd jones
ned@scirtp.UUCP (Ned Robie) (08/30/85)
Anyone that spanks or paddles my kid in school or anywhere without my permission is going to incur my wrath, I don't care what the reason. One of my most difficult responsibilities as a parent is knowing when to inflict physical punishment upon my children. It is certainly a responsibility that I would never entrust to strangers or even our closest friends. -- Ned Robie
carnes@gargoyle.UUCP (Richard Carnes) (08/30/85)
ray@rochester.UUCP (Ray Frank) writes: >What's so odd about corporal punishment. When I was a kid, I used to get it >in school, and sometimes at home for getting it in school. Every time I >got it, I DESERVED IT. I'm sure Mr. Frank is sincere and writes with the best of intentions. However, his statement raises some questions in my mind: 1) What do you mean when you say that you deserved corporal punishment? How can a child "deserve" corporal punishment or beating? By annoying or inconveniencing the parents or teachers? 2) Assuming that the first question has been answered, how can anyone know that he did deserve to be beaten? It is well known that our childhood memories are often distorted in various ways. Isn't it possible that Mr. Frank's, or anyone else's, memories of childhood events and the feelings associated with them are inaccurate? Often we forget (repress) feelings, such as rage and shame, that are too painful to be borne because they conflict with our desperate need to be loved by our parents. The result is often an adult who lacks the psychological basis for empathizing with these feelings in others, especially children, hence an adult who feels that treating children cruelly is really "for their own good." smh@rduxb writes: >In Pennsylvania, public school teachers including my wife have the >rights of a parent in disciplining a child. If a parent can spank >a child, then the teacher can. Any other restrictions are provided >by the local school board. No one has the right to beat a child in Pa. Spanking isn't beating? Why is it considered beating to strike a person on the back or head, but not on the buttocks (a part of the body, by the way, which is associated with shame and humiliation)? Some kinds of beating are worse than others, of course, but children have *died* of spankings. I can't stand this kind of mealy-mouth euphemistic language -- it is a way we hide the truth from ourselves. If you believe in spanking children, you believe that a certain kind of child-beating is a good thing in some circumstances -- don't be afraid to say so in plain English, if you really believe in it. Ray Frank again: >What I find odd is the amount of abuse teachers get >from students. The amount of lack of discipline by students. The disregard >of respect for the instructors. I agree that it is desirable for children to respect teachers and parents, but how does corporal punishment achieve this? Surely there is a difference between respect and fear. To make a person fear you, you use your superior physical strength to beat them up. To make a person respect you, you must act like a person who is worthy to be admired and imitated. Several generations ago, John Dewey explained why good discipline comes from good teaching, not the reverse. It seems that many Americans still have not understood the lesson Dewey taught, and still think that "discipline" in the repressive military sense is the way to provide a good learning environment for their children. Children who are truly antisocial and disruptive in the classroom require special handling. I used to work (although not as a teacher) at the Orthogenic School of the University of Chicago, which is a residential school (first grade through high school) for children with severe emotional disturbances. Many were severely delinquent and antisocial before enrolling in the school, some were schizophrenic or suicidal; none of them could be handled by regular public or private schools. They all attend classes every weekday at the School, and NONE of them is EVER punished corporally or cruelly. Of course, they are not allowed to do just whatever they please, either. As a result, discipline in the true sense (the word means "teaching" -- it's related to "disciple") prevails at the School. For many of the kids, it is the first time anyone has ever cared about them (in a way they could perceive) or treated them as human beings, and many of them really blossom. One of them is a dear friend and teacher of mine. If you want to learn more about the educational methods of the School, read some of Bruno Bettelheim's books about it (I recommend *A Home for the Heart*). One of the basic lessons, applicable throughout life, is that you cannot teach kindness by any amount of harshness, and you cannot help someone join human society by treating him as an animal. The basic reason the Orthogenic School can achieve results that inner-city public schools cannot is that the School has resources (particularly money and an enlightened philosophy) that the inner-city public schools do not possess. The bottom line here is that a good education for our children costs a lot of money, money that the American taxpayer prefers to spend on video recorders and Caribbean vacations or to throw into black holes like Star Wars or the MX missile. In the trite but true phrase, children are our most precious resource, but America does not care very much about its children. Richard Carnes, ihnp4!gargoyle!carnes
mmar@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP (Mitchell Marks) (08/30/85)
>P.S. What also bothers me is the ACLU, based on an admittedly small amount >of information from reading the newspapers. Like Tom Benson (who posted the original concerned note about corporal punishment), I'm an ACLU member. I think their positions have been consistent, vigorous, and worthwhile -- within the limits imposed on any organization that has a diverse membership and a long history. Taken all in all, I'd say they're one of the very best of the political or quasi-political organizations in American life. So, what bothers you about the ACLU? Let's try for a calm, serious discussion of this, abstaining from flamage all around. Since you offered the criticism, it's your option to set the agenda. But to save time, let me propose some topics and ask whether net readers object to ACLU positions or activities in any of these areas: 1. Defense of free speech for unpopular or unsavory people and groups (e.g. Nazis). 2. Emphasis on `establishment clause' before `free exercise' clause in freedom of religion (e.g. civic-sponsored Christmas displays). 3. Rights of suspects. 4. Family and government -- in re Walter Polovchak. Of course the list remains open for whatever you'd like to bring up. I don't promise to defend them 100%, but I do think usually the ACLU position makes sense. -- -- Mitch Marks @ UChicago ...ihnp4!gargoyle!sphinx!mmar
mcal@ihuxb.UUCP (Mike Clifford) (08/30/85)
> > Discipline based on fear is worse than no discipline at all. If a teacher > > can't command the respect of students through non-violent means, > > there is something wrong with the teacher. > > My mother teaches second grade in one of the nastier areas of the > > Bronx, in New York City. She maintains order by letting the > > students know, in no uncertain terms, that she will be fair with > > them, but NOT TAKE ANY CRAP. She has their respect, and > > never resorts to corporal punishment (which is illegal). > > Is NOT TAKE ANY CRAP emotional terrorism? Hence, fear?? Emotional Terrorism???? Come on, get serious! Terrorism isn't close to being the appropriate word here. I think relief is more like it. The best teachers that I had when I was in school were the ones that made it known right from the start that they weren't going to take any "crap". When I had a teacher for the first time, this is the first thing that was established. Who's the boss? And the tough (good) teachers made it clear that they weren't going to tolerate any bullsh*t. When I knew that the teacher was serious, I would knuckle down and get to work, and wouldn't spend time trying to think of ways to fool around,because I knew that, at least in this class, I could get into trouble. > Actually back when paddling was used, the greatest fear was not of > the paddle, since life has many more displeasures than that. The > fear was of the parents finding out that one got paddles and the > they would really catch hell. > Today you call the parents to express concern about a child, > and 50% of the time the parents don't want to be bothered. And that's a damn shame! I fully intend to be part of a team, working with my child's teacher. At the beginning of the school year, I will let the teacher(s) know that I am a parent that cares, and that I want the teacher to not hesitate to call if there seems to be a problem brewing concerning my child. Mike Clifford
mcal@ihuxb.UUCP (Mike Clifford) (08/30/85)
> >-- Tom Benson > >Corporal punishment, administered by a paddle, is occasionally used > >in our local district. > >I would be interested to see postings that describe the situation in > >other areas, and to read the net's views on corporal punishment as a > >form of school discipline. > > I have mixed feelings about corporal punishment. Where it is > permitted, the danger always exist that a teacher with a brutal streak > will terrorize the children. On the other hand, I wonder what sort of > punishment SHOULD be used. > > In New York City, corporal punishment is forbidden. Also, no > child may be expelled for any reason, under the reasoning that ALL > children have a RIGHT to education. The only motivation teachers may > provide is to giving and withholding approval, via grades and praise. > > The only way to stop this trend is to take back control of the schools > from the insubordinate students and return it to the teachers. But how can > we accomplish this with neither the option to expell the hard-line trouble- > makers, nor the permission to beat them into submission? > > Frank Silbermann I think that all children have the right to an education, but if they are at school to raise hell, instead of learning, OUT they go! Expel them! The hellraiser's classmates have a right to education, too, and if they are being tempted to goof off because of the rebels in the class and apparent helplessness of the teacher, then these kids are being "hurt" by not kicking out the "rebel". Mike Clifford
js2j@mhuxt.UUCP (sonntag) (08/30/85)
> >In Pennsylvania, public school teachers including my wife have the > >rights of a parent in disciplining a child. If a parent can spank > >a child, then the teacher can. Any other restrictions are provided > >by the local school board. No one has the right to beat a child in Pa. > > Spanking isn't beating? Why is it considered beating to strike a > person on the back or head, but not on the buttocks (a part of the > body, by the way, which is associated with shame and humiliation)? A spanking is a type of beating which is designed to cause temporary pain and humiliation. The word 'beating' is a more general term, covering spanking, as well as various types of battery which can cause varying degrees of actual physical damage to the recipient. > Some kinds of beating are worse than others, of course, but children > have *died* of spankings. You're using the word incorrectly *again*. If children died of it, then it was not an action designed to cause temporary pain and humiliation, it was *beating*. Do you see the difference now? > I can't stand this kind of mealy-mouth > euphemistic language -- it is a way we hide the truth from ourselves. > If you believe in spanking children, you believe that a certain kind > of child-beating is a good thing in some circumstances -- don't be > afraid to say so in plain English, if you really believe in it. Why should I use a general term like 'beating', which is bound to cause confusion among my audience when a perfectly good *specific* term, like 'spanking' is available? Do you say 'I believe that a certain kind of theft is a good thing in some circumstances.', or do you say 'I believe that taxation is a good thing in some circumstances.'? You euphemistic mealy mouth-er, you. :-) > > I agree that it is desirable for children to respect teachers and > parents, but how does corporal punishment achieve this? A reasonable question. I have two examples of child-rearers whose methods I've had opportunity to observe closely: my dad's and my brother- in-laws. I love and respect my father, whose methods included, when absolutely necessary, spanking. This happened on about three of four occasions when I was quite young, only when I ignored angry warnings that if I didn't discontinue a certain type of behavior that I would get a spanking. Throughout the rest of my childhood, I would generally obey my father without question, though on occasion I'd test the limits of his authority, always 'straightening up' when I received a warning. I suppose that at first, this was motivated by fear, but as I grew up and learned to understand the *reasons* he had for demanding obedience, it just became habit to do what dad said. My brother-in-law, on the other hand, doesn't believe in spanking. He believes that a parent should, instead, attempt to reason with children, or failing that, cajole them into doing what is necessary, or, failing that, issue baseless and meaningless threats. He's raising a couple of little monsters. A sample scene: the monsters are splashing around in the lake, squealing and screaming at each other, etc, generally having a good time. My brother in law, Dave, is standing on shore in a suit. He's come to pick the kids up and is late for a meeting. Dave: Alright, kids. Get out and get dried off, it's time to go. Kid1: No! (a few minutes later) Dave: C'mon, get out of there or I'll be late for my meeting. Kid1&2: (pretend not to hear.) Dave: Am I going to have to come in there after you? Kids: Come on in. The water's fine. Dave: I'm going to count to ten, and you'd better get out of there, or else. (the kids continue playing as Dave starts his 'countdown'. They know from long experience that the threatened 'or else' means 'or else I'll stand here pleading with you some more.' Dave stops counting after five.) You get the idea. They eventually got out, after he stood on the bank pleading with them for five minutes. We all managed to avoid laughing at him, but after numberless scenes like that, he has no more respect from his kids than he has from us. With these two examples of how to raise children to choose from, I know who *I* plan to emulate if I ever have children of my own. -- Jeff Sonntag ihnp4!mhuxt!js2j "Roads? Where we're going, we won't need any roads!"
kurtzman@uscvax.UUCP (Stephen Kurtzman) (08/31/85)
> > As a parent, occasional school district committee person, and ACLU > > member, I've discovered an odd situation here in Pennsylvania. > > Corporal punishment, administered by a paddle, is occasionally used > > in our local district. > > > > -- Tom Benson > > Penn State University > > 227 Sparks Bldg., University Park, PA 16802 > > 814-238-5277 (ATT) > > > > {akgua,allegra,ihnp4,cbosgd}!psuvax1!psuvm.bitnet!t3b (UUCP) > > > > T3B@PSUVM (BITNET) 76044,3701 (COMPUSERVE) > > > > What's so odd about corporal punishment. When I was a kid, I used to get it > in school, and sometimes at home for getting it in school. Every time I > got it, I DESERVED IT. What I find odd is the amount of abuse teachers get > from students. The amount of lack of disipline by students. The disregard > of respect for the instructors. The passionate embraces I'm told occurs > commonly in public hallways. The heavy use of drugs on school grounds. The > total lack of any kind of dress code. > These things bother me a lot more than corporal punishment, and believe me > when I tell you, I know first hand about the paddle (ouch). > P.S. What also bothers me is the ACLU, based on an admittedly small amount > of information from reading the newspapers. Funny, I got the paddle several times in jr. high school and I NEVER DESERVED IT. I won't argue whether or not children may deserve being paddled. But I can very honestly tell you that I was unjustly accused of wrong doing and paddled for it. My parents thought that I deserved it until they came to realize that the Vice Principal guilty of paddling me unjustly had a bit of a screw loose. This man singled out students that he thought were "bad" and persecuted them. I will give you just one of many examples to make the point: After learning about the efficacy of boycotts in American History class, I mentioned jokingly to a school counselor that the service at the student store (where cokes were sold at lunch time) was particularly bad when he was waiting on people and that to get the point across the students should boycott the store when he was working in it. The counselor laughed. I laughed. The counselor walked away. I turned around and was collared by the Principal. I was sent to the Vice Principal (odd eh?) and I was suspended from school for attempting to start a riot. That is what the official transcript says. He admitted, in front of my parents, that the evidence of my transgression was my intent to start a boycott. The man was totally oblivious to the fact that it was said in jest, and to the fact that a boycott is not a riot. At that point my parents started to believe I was being persecuted. As for your other concerns. This vice principal was constantly enforcing the dress code (walked around with a tape measure to measure girls skirt lengths, tugged on boys shirts to make sure they were tucked in appropriately and not "just rolled up", etc.). Schools should concentrate on developing a students mental discipline and forget about petty garbage like hair length or dress code. You are right to be more concerned about drugs and illegal activities on school grounds. Most of these things are caused by deap seated problems with our society and the orientation of our schools. We will not solve these problems by beating our children into submission.
fsks@unc.UUCP (Frank Silbermann) (09/01/85)
In article <1214@teddy.UUCP> lkk@teddy.UUCP (Larry K. Kolodney) writes: > Discipline based on fear is worse than no discipline at all. How did you arrive at this conclusion? School children have been disciplined with fear for generations. It didn't do much for their creativity, but they did learn the basic skills. With no discipline, students learn nothing at all. Would you also apply your assertion to the criminal justice system? Is it better to allow unrestricted crime, rather than threaten potential criminals with retaliation (prison)? > My mother teaches second grade in one of the nastier areas of the > Bronx, in New York City. She maintains order by letting the > students know, in no uncertain terms, that she will be fair with > them, but NOT TAKE ANY CRAP. She has their respect, and > never resorts to corporal punishment (which is illegal). What would she do with a student who INSISTED on "giving her crap", so as to make a reputation with the other kids by being more powerful than the teacher? Bluffing may work with second graders, but it won't work with older students. Furthermore, once the students realize the teacher's stern demeanor is only a bluff, it won't work anymore with anybody. Frank Silbermann
janw@inmet.UUCP (09/01/85)
> A spanking is a type of beating which is designed to cause temporary > pain and humiliation. Aye, there's the rub: *pain* is temporary, but *humiliation* can last and even grow. (Compare with the discussion on rape in net.women.) The way a given child reacts to humiliation is quite unpredictable. Some hate their parents or educators through adulthood. Some later become eager disciplinarians themselves. Others develop sheeplike obedience, their spirit broken. Many grow up perfectly all right, as in the quoted example. But humiliation (not just beating) is simply too dangerous a tool of getting obedience. > With these two examples of how to raise children to choose from, I > know who *I* plan to emulate if I ever have children of my own. > Jeff Sonntag ihnp4!mhuxt!js2j Two examples are not much of a base for induction. I've seen per- fect little monsters who were regularly beaten (and seemed to ask for it) and well-disciplined kids who never were. The other way, too, of course. But I would argue that a teacher, or parent, who is good enough to be trusted with beating children, is good enough to do without it. Can't you *outsmart* a little kid ? Consider two *massive* examples. One is children playing between themselves. One (usually an older kid) is the leader, and *obedi- ence is often perfect*, even though it is not enforced by beat- ings (oh, fights happen, but that's not their function). The in- centive for obedience is *for the game to go on*. Why can't we parents do the same? (And don't tell me life is not a game 'cos it is :-)). The second example is the whole of Japan. I'm afraid I have no first-hand knowledge, but from what I've read the children are never beaten, and are, by Western standards, unbelievably well- behaved. Jan Wasilewsky
nrh@inmet.UUCP (09/01/85)
>/* Written 9:39 pm Aug 29, 1985 by gargoyle!carnes in inmet:net.politics */ > >The basic reason the Orthogenic School can achieve results that >inner-city public schools cannot is that the School has resources >(particularly money and an enlightened philosophy) that the >inner-city public schools do not possess. The bottom line here is >that a good education for our children costs a lot of money, money >that the American taxpayer prefers to spend on video recorders and >Caribbean vacations or to throw into black holes like Star Wars or >the MX missile. In the trite but true phrase, children are our most >precious resource, but America does not care very much about its >children. As long as the government is in the education business, I suspect you'll be unhappy with the educational "product". Those of us who believe in private education would offer a choice for people's money, but those who believe in taxing people to pay for schooling run by the government have no cause to kick. I suggest, though, a compromise, I'm not sure who invented it, but I got it from Milton Friedman. If we absolutely MUST tax people to pay for schooling (I doubt this, but if the votes are there....) then perhaps we should get the government out of the education-delivery system and instead issue vouchers, cashable at schools which graduate students capable of passing some standardized tests. Is there some reason the government has to run the schools? Remember, it typically costs government twice as much as private enterprise to do ANYTHING, so private schools could probably make a profit and lower costs too. As for the hard-to-educate (the folks your original article talked about), if the state can identify them it can offer heftier vouchers for their benefit, payable at a school with the ability to handle them.
ray@rochester.UUCP (Ray Frank) (09/02/85)
> In article <1214@teddy.UUCP> lkk@teddy.UUCP (Larry K. Kolodney) writes: > Discipline based on fear is worse than no discipline at all. > I must pose to you a situation involving a parent child confrontation. Parent : Time for bed. 4yr old: Nope. Parent : Please, time for bed now. 4yr old: Nope. Parent : You must go to bed now. 4yr old: Nope. And so on, what would you do? Remember, you said discipline based on fear is better than no disipline at all. You're not allowed to threaten to take his teddy bear away. You're not allowed to tell him he can't have ice cream if he doesn't listen. Are not these tactics based on threatening the child with fear, i.e. no ice cream, take away your buddy the teddy bear. I really want to know what you would do without some kind of threat. By the way, you are not allowed to bodily carry him to bed, that would be physically taking matters in hand and over powering him with your size. Besides, he would just climb out of bed and come downstairs. What WOULD you do?
js2j@mhuxt.UUCP (sonntag) (09/02/85)
> > The only way to stop this trend is to take back control of the schools > > from the insubordinate students and return it to the teachers. But how can > > we accomplish this with neither the option to expell the hard-line trouble- > > makers, nor the permission to beat them into submission? > > Frank Silbermann > > I think that all children have the right to an education, but if they are > at school to raise hell, instead of learning, OUT they go! Expel them! > The hellraiser's classmates have a right to education, too, and if they are > being tempted to goof off because of the rebels in the class and apparent > helplessness of the teacher, then these kids are being "hurt" by not kicking > out the "rebel". > Mike Clifford I was beginning to wonder just how all of the people who oppose corporal punishment planned to maintain any semblance of discipline in the classroom. Mike has been kind enough to admit his solution: if the kid is rebel, then they don't get an education. Is this guy for real, or what? I can see it now: "Alright, that's it! You've already had your last warning, Billy. I told you, once more with that spitball and you're history. But would you listen to me? Report to the office and tell them that you're expelled.!" "But Mr. Frumpkin - how am I ever going to get a job when I grow up, after having been kicked out of third grade?" "You shouldda thought of that before firing off that last spitball, mister. I don't want to see your face back in school again! Get out of here!" -- Jeff Sonntag ihnp4!mhuxt!js2j "Roads? Where we're going, we won't need any roads!"
prg@mgwess.UUCP (Phil Gunsul) (09/03/85)
If my son ever gets a spanking in school, he'll get another one when he gets home!! Phil Gunsul
mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) (09/03/85)
In article <7800424@inmet.UUCP> nrh@inmet.UUCP writes: > I suggest, though, a compromise, I'm not sure who invented it, but I got > it from Milton Friedman. If we absolutely MUST tax people to pay for > schooling (I doubt this, but if the votes are there....) then perhaps we > should get the government out of the education-delivery system and > instead issue vouchers, cashable at schools which graduate students > capable of passing some standardized tests. This system sounds too good to be true-- and is, once you consider the economics from the school's point of view. To maximize profits, a school that depends solely on vouchers will try to: 1) Select only students who can be taught with the minimum expenditure. 2) Spend as little on subjects that aren't tested as possible. 3) Teach as little about a subject as is necessary to get students to pass the tests. (This would probably also discourage teaching understanding, since it is more difficult to test for understanding rather than rote.) It's debatable how much competition would affect these: children are not a tremendously mobile population, and tend to be sparsely distributed. Many private schools would make the decision not to compete, but to rely solely on the local (essentially captive) population because to improve enough to attract other students would cost more than the increase in income. You see these phenomena in many of commuter colleges, except that since there are no standardized tests, their degrees may be worth less. > Is there some reason the government has to run the schools? Remember, > it typically costs government twice as much as private enterprise to do > ANYTHING, so private schools could probably make a profit and lower > costs too. It costs the government more because the government cannot simply focus on the "profitable" groups: social goals demand that it provide comparable services to all. There is also the danger of forming a powerful industry, which would lobby in its own economic interests, rather than in the interests of the students or the public. You would see the rise of industry giants, as we see in automobiles, fast-food, hospitals, etc. Do you want the only nearby school to be as responsive as a McDonalds? > As for the hard-to-educate (the folks your original article talked > about), if the state can identify them it can offer heftier vouchers for > their benefit, payable at a school with the ability to handle them. Just what we need: social stratification into a caste system. Because the "hard to educate" will vary so widely in expense to educate, how will a voucher system work? The distribution of the hard to educate is even sparser than that of other students-- the cost to segregate them into institutions that consider them profitable will be high, if it is paid at all. The fact is that privitizing education shows one major possible benefit: economy. It has many possible problems: overall decrease in quality of education, social stratification, and neglect of the costly to educate. -- Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh
sophie@mnetor.UUCP (Sophie Quigley) (09/03/85)
In article <11316@rochester.UUCP> ray@rochester.UUCP (Ray Frank) writes: >I must pose to you a situation involving a parent child confrontation. >Parent : Time for bed. >4yr old: Nope. > >Parent : Please, time for bed now. >4yr old: Nope. > >Parent : You must go to bed now. >4yr old: Nope. > >And so on, what would you do? Remember, you said discipline based on fear is >better than no disipline at all. You're not allowed to threaten to take his >teddy bear away. You're not allowed to tell him he can't have ice cream if >he doesn't listen. Are not these tactics based on threatening the child with >fear, i.e. no ice cream, take away your buddy the teddy bear. I really want to >know what you would do without some kind of threat. By the way, you are not >allowed to bodily carry him to bed, that would be physically taking matters in >hand and over powering him with your size. Besides, he would just climb out of >bed and come downstairs. What WOULD you do? I don't know what I would do, but here's what my parents did: whenever they noticed that I wasn't in a mood for going to bed, they played games with me that led me to bed. Here are the two games that worked for a while: 1 - racing to see who would get into bed first. Everybody would start undressing really fast and whoever got into bed first would win. I always won. I can't believe I actually fell for that, but I did, and I got a real kick out of winning against my parents. They probably got a real kick out of being so sneaky. 2 - if I was particularly excited, they would turn going to bed into a really physically exciting event by doing the following: one parent (my father since he was the strongest) would hold me by the wrists, the other (my mother) by the ankles, then they'd swing me in the air back and forth a few times and drop me on the bed the last time. They never forced this on me either. I had to beg for it since it was so much fun. There was also a whole ceremony involved with going to bed. It involved some tucking, some kissing, glasses of water being brought, being allowed to get up *ONCE* to go to the bathroom (the second time, they became really unpleasant!); when I was under 4, they would read to me in bed and when I was older allowed to read one more chapter of a book I was reading, or being allowed to finish the chapter. I could also sing myself to sleep for a while. -- Sophie Quigley {allegra|decvax|ihnp4|linus|watmath}!utzoo!mnetor!sophie
lkk@teddy.UUCP (09/03/85)
In article <14@unc.unc.UUCP> fsks@unc.UUCP (Frank Silbermann) writes: >In article <1214@teddy.UUCP> lkk@teddy.UUCP (Larry K. Kolodney) writes: >> Discipline based on fear is worse than no discipline at all. > >How did you arrive at this conclusion? School children have been >disciplined with fear for generations. It didn't do much for their >creativity, but they did learn the basic skills. With no discipline, >students learn nothing at all. > And for generations, schoolchildren have been violent, and repressed, and have developed moral codes based on avoidance of punishment. Our entire screwed up world/society reflects these influences. I do not advocate no discipline. As a previous poster mentioned, the best discipline requires no threats. An excellent teacher commands the respect of students merely by showing that he/she is of high quality and thus is worthy of respect. The best form of discipline is self-discipline. The good teacher should be able to instill this in students by teaching them WHY discipline is good, not only THAT it is good. An analogy can be made between a good teacher and a good government. In governments that command that respect of their citizenry, heavy handed tactics are usually uneccesary to enforce the law. Thus, in western democracies, the state tends to be relatively liberal with respect to human rights. In governments which have not earned the respect of their citizenry (USSR, Nigeria), the government must use "corporal punishment". And in those countries, people become cynical and opportunistic, seeing avoidance of punishment as the only impediment to crime. >Would you also apply your assertion to the criminal justice system? >Is it better to allow unrestricted crime, rather than threaten potential >criminals with retaliation (prison)? > I oppose Corporal Punishment or Capital Punishment in the prison system. I favor seeking ways to eliminate the need for detention as well, but unfortunately, detention is the only short term solution to violent crime probelems. The need for detention will go down when the level of respect goes up. that respect has not been earned in certain sectors of our society. >> My mother teaches second grade in one of the nastier areas of the >> Bronx, in New York City. She maintains order by letting the >> students know, in no uncertain terms, that she will be fair with >> them, but NOT TAKE ANY CRAP. She has their respect, and >> never resorts to corporal punishment (which is illegal). > >What would she do with a student who INSISTED on "giving her crap", >so as to make a reputation with the other kids by being more powerful >than the teacher? Bluffing may work with second graders, but it won't >work with older students. Furthermore, once the students realize >the teacher's stern demeanor is only a bluff, it won't work anymore >with anybody. > Students are still subject to disciplinary action other than corporal punishment. In the worst case, expulsion is a remedy. The key to my mother's discipline system is not a stern demeanor. Its essence lies in her ability to level with students. Letting them know that they are there to learn, and being honest with them as to the results of their behavior, cause them to respect her as a person. They respect her because she respects them. -- Sport Death, Larry Kolodney (USENET) ...decvax!genrad!teddy!lkk (INTERNET) lkk@mit-mc.arpa
lkk@teddy.UUCP (09/04/85)
In article <11316@rochester.UUCP> ray@rochester.UUCP (Ray Frank) writes: >> In article <1214@teddy.UUCP> lkk@teddy.UUCP (Larry K. Kolodney) writes: >> Discipline based on fear is worse than no discipline at all. >> >I must pose to you a situation involving a parent child confrontation. >Parent : Time for bed. >4yr old: Nope. > >Parent : Please, time for bed now. >4yr old: Nope. > >Parent : You must go to bed now. >4yr old: Nope. > >And so on, what would you do? Remember, you said discipline based on fear is >better than no disipline at all. You're not allowed to threaten to take his >teddy bear away. You're not allowed to tell him he can't have ice cream if >he doesn't listen. Are not these tactics based on threatening the child with >fear, i.e. no ice cream, take away your buddy the teddy bear. I really want to >know what you would do without some kind of threat. By the way, you are not >allowed to bodily carry him to bed, that would be physically taking matters in >hand and over powering him with your size. Besides, he would just climb out of >bed and come downstairs. What WOULD you do? Clearly there ARE situations where taking matters into your own hands is the only appropriate action. For instance, a newborn baby must be treated in such a way, since you can't communicate with it at all, really. BUT, there comes a time in a child's emotional development when she does become open to reason (i.e. starts to develop a superego). At that point, there are two paths you can choose in guiding the childs behavior. You can simply decide that you know what is best for the child, and she WILL obey, or else. OR, you can decide that you have some ideas that you would like to convey to the child, and you can attempt to develop in the child a deep understanding of those ideas, so that eventually the child actually beleives in them herself. BETTER YET, you can attempt develop in the child a strong sense of self so that she might develop her own set of moral beliefs. TO RETURN TO YOUR IMMEDDIATE QUESTION: Well, clearly the answer is to hang the child upside down while sticking pointy sticks under her skin, until she begs to go to bed.. :-; Seriously, you have a number of options, depending on the emotional maturity of the child. You might try explaining why it is important to go to bed at a reasonable hour. You might try to understand exactly what is motivating her to want to stay up late (such as the TV being on, or guests being around), and remove that impetus (at least untill she falls asleep). Or you could, lovingly, carry her into bed, tell her a bedtime story, or what have you. Carrying her to bed does not HAVE to entail fear. Its all a matter of intent. If you use coercion as a last resort, and do it in a way that will not leave emotional scars on the child, than I have no beef with you. But if you use violence and arbitrary terror to keep the child "in line", you simply creating an emotionally crippled individual for the next generation to deal with. -- Sport Death, Larry Kolodney (USENET) ...decvax!genrad!teddy!lkk (INTERNET) lkk@mit-mc.arpa
rdp@teddy.UUCP (09/04/85)
>>> In article <1214@teddy.UUCP> lkk@teddy.UUCP (Larry K. Kolodney) writes: >>> Discipline based on fear is worse than no discipline at all. >>> >>I must pose to you a situation involving a parent child confrontation. >>Parent : Time for bed. >>4yr old: Nope. >> >>Parent : Please, time for bed now. >>4yr old: Nope. >> >>Parent : You must go to bed now. >>4yr old: Nope. >> This all brings up a somewhat tangential subject, the issue of what to do about bedtime. It turns out to be related to discipline. My oldest brother has 4 children. When his oldest was in the 3-6 year range, he was punished by being sent to his room. Very quickly, he learned to hate his room. As a result, it was impossible to put him to bed. He viewed bedtime as yet more punishment. I had to baby sit for a while, and I punished him by making him sit in a convenient (for me) corner until he seemed to cool down, and then we would attempt to talk out the problem. (It is simply amazing how articulate a very young child can be about things!) At night, when I had to put him to bed, I would start playing with him in the living room, then take him and whatever he was playing with up to his bedroom, and allow him to play for a few minutes before putting him in bed. As a result, it became very simple to make him go to bed. Now that I have my own children (Nathaniel is now 18 months and has been out of the crib since he was 15 months), I and my wife have tried to make him feel as if the bedroom is his for his rest and enjoyment. We have even found this great fitted sheet that has a small tent attached. Consequently there has been absolutely no problems putting him to bed. Discipline is as much (if not more) positive reinforcement as it is negative. Dick Pierce
tan@ihlpg.UUCP (Bill Tanenbaum) (09/04/85)
[Ray Frank] > In article <1214@teddy.UUCP> lkk@teddy.UUCP (Larry K. Kolodney) writes: > > Discipline based on fear is worse than no discipline at all. > > > I must pose to you a situation involving a parent child confrontation. > Parent : Time for bed. > 4yr old: Nope. > > Parent : Please, time for bed now. > 4yr old: Nope. > > Parent : You must go to bed now. > 4yr old: Nope. > > And so on, what would you do? Remember, you said discipline based on fear is > better than no disipline at all. You're not allowed to threaten to take his > teddy bear away. You're not allowed to tell him he can't have ice cream if > he doesn't listen. Are not these tactics based on threatening the child with > fear, i.e. no ice cream, take away your buddy the teddy bear. I really want to > know what you would do without some kind of threat. By the way, you are not > allowed to bodily carry him to bed, that would be physically taking matters in > hand and over powering him with your size. Besides, he would just climb out of > bed and come downstairs. What WOULD you do? ----- Oh, come on, Ray. Talk about setting up a straw man. The restricting of privileges (e.g. ice cream, teddy bears, etc.) is not the same thing as hitting the kid. We are allowed to do such things! Something is greatly askew in your value system if you think that these actions are equivalent to physical violence. I pity your kids (and you) if you would hit them for not wanting to go to bed. Oh, by the way, I have two children, both well past the age of four. The above situation never occurred with either of them. I wonder if it's heredity or environment! -- Bill Tanenbaum - AT&T Bell Labs - Naperville IL ihnp4!ihlpg!tan
sed408@ihlpg.UUCP (s. dugan) (09/04/85)
> > In article <1214@teddy.UUCP> lkk@teddy.UUCP (Larry K. Kolodney) writes: > > Discipline based on fear is worse than no discipline at all. > > > I must pose to you a situation involving a parent child confrontation. > Parent : Time for bed. > 4yr old: Nope. > > Parent : Please, time for bed now. > 4yr old: Nope. > > Parent : You must go to bed now. > 4yr old: Nope. > > And so on, what would you do? Remember, you said discipline based on fear is > better than no disipline at all. You're not allowed to threaten to take his > teddy bear away. You're not allowed to tell him he can't have ice cream if > he doesn't listen. Are not these tactics based on threatening the child with > fear, i.e. no ice cream, take away your buddy the teddy bear. I really want to > know what you would do without some kind of threat. By the way, you are not > allowed to bodily carry him to bed, that would be physically taking matters in > hand and over powering him with your size. Besides, he would just climb out of > bed and come downstairs. What WOULD you do? Why can't I bodily carry him to bed? "Physically taking matters in hand and over powering" is a much different situation than physical abuse which is what this discussion is all about. I don't think there's a parent around who would balk at physically restraining an unruly child. I make liberal use of "THE TIMER". This is a version of the old "sit in the corner" routine which involves sitting (or in Anne's case standing) in the corner until the timer rings. The developmental psych people say that the optimal amount of time is about equivalent to their age. Therefore, 2-year olds get two minutes, 3-year olds get 3 minutes, etc. Misbehaviour while in the corner simply adds time to the timer. It seems pretty effective at home and Anne's Day Care uses it there, too. I've never seen a better behaved bunch of kids! -- Sarah E. Dugan "You have to kiss a lot of frogs before you find a prince." ########################################################################### # AT&T Bell Labs IH 1D-408 The Forest (home) # # Naperville-Wheaton Rd. 1353 Crab Apple Court Apt. 101 # # Naperville, Illinois 60566 Naperville, Illinois 60540 # # (312) 979 - 5545 (312) 355 - 0445 # ###########################################################################
mbr@aoa.UUCP (Mark Rosenthal) (09/05/85)
In article <1249@teddy.UUCP> rdp@teddy.UUCP (Richard D. Pierce) writes: > >Discipline is as much (if not more) positive reinforcement as it is negative. I think this is the crux of the matter. To most people, discipline means negative reinforcement. It shouldn't! -- Mark of the Valley of Roses ...!{decvax,linus,ima,ihnp4}!bbncca!aoa!mbr
whitehur@tymix.UUCP (Pamela K. Whitehurst) (09/05/85)
In article <14946@mgwess.UUCP> prg@mgwess.UUCP (Phil Gunsul) writes: > >If my son ever gets a spanking in school, he'll get another one >when he gets home!! > >Phil Gunsul What! Unconditionally? There are a lot of reasons children have received spankings at school. One reason is because the child was testing the limits and in this case the parents should reinforce the teachers authority, or find another teacher if they disagree. Spanking is not the only way to do this. Other reasons include: desperately seeking attention and getting it the only way possible, a strong personality conflict with the teacher, being completely lost (or bored) for too many hours and too many days. I'll agree that children should learn to handle small amounts of the above problems. They also need to learn what to do about them. How much of this would you put up with at your job? If my daughter ever gets a spanking in school, someone better have a damn good reason, because she hasn't needed one at home for years!! -- PKW hplabs!oliveb!tymix!whitehur
joel@peora.UUCP (Joel Upchurch) (09/05/85)
>From: janw@inmet.UUCP (Jan Wasilewsky) >Two examples are not much of a base for induction. I've seen per- >fect little monsters who were regularly beaten (and seemed to ask >for it) and well-disciplined kids who never were. The other way, >too, of course. The reason they seemed to be asking for it, was that they probably were. I've seen many parents who pay no attention to their children, except to punish them. These children quickly learn that the only way to get their parents attention is to misbehave. The child wants attention and will endure the punishment to get it. So the parent is in effect rewarding their misbehavior. And they wonder why their kids are little monsters! I believe that it just as important to reward good behavior as to punish bad, but that omitting either one will have a unsatisfactory result and that punishments and rewards must be swiftly and consistently applied. If this is done skillfully, the parent may rarely have to punish the child, because the child will quickly learn that punishment is swift and sure. This is all very time consuming and many parents today don't seem willing to spend the time and effort to raise their children properly. They are too 'busy'. I think they forget that raising their children is probably the most important thing they will ever do. This causes me some serious reservations about day care centers. Even if they have the skill and the inclination to do the job properly, where will they get the time? I also think that it is foolish to try and reason with a small child. They are not miniature adults and to try and treat them as such is a big mistake. You might as well try to reason with a puppy to housebreak it. With a older child it may be useful to explain why they should or shouldn't do something, but only after they have developed the intelligence and acquired the experience to understand the explanation. I also believe that schools should be able to spank children that misbehave, but that if the child hasn't been reared correctly to begin with, and that if that discipline is not reinforced in the home, the likelyhood of it being effective is not great. The school can, at best, reinforce parental discipline. It is not a substitute for it.
laura@l5.uucp (Laura Creighton) (09/06/85)
In article <14946@mgwess.UUCP> prg@mgwess.UUCP (Phil Gunsul) writes: > >If my son ever gets a spanking in school, he'll get another one >when he gets home!! > >Phil Gunsul Please don't. Your son may not have deserved it in the first place. Also, this attitude presents another problem for teachers. At a school where my mother worked, all teachers had to send glowing report cards home -- because comments like ``Mario could work a little harder in spelling'' resulting in Mario getting a beating that might put him in hospital. Note that I am not saying that this is what you will do to your son -- but it is one of the things that teachers worry about. -- Laura Creighton (note new address!) sun!l5!laura (that is ell-five, not fifteen) l5!laura@lll-crg.arpa
esco@ssc-vax.UUCP (Michael Esco) (09/06/85)
> In article <7800424@inmet.UUCP> nrh@inmet.UUCP writes: > > I suggest, though, a compromise, I'm not sure who invented it, but I got > > it from Milton Friedman. If we absolutely MUST tax people to pay for > > schooling (I doubt this, but if the votes are there....) then perhaps we > > should get the government out of the education-delivery system and > > instead issue vouchers, cashable at schools which graduate students > > capable of passing some standardized tests. > > This system sounds too good to be true-- and is, once you consider the > economics from the school's point of view. To maximize profits, a school > that depends solely on vouchers will try to: > 1) Select only students who can be taught with the minimum expenditure. > 2) Spend as little on subjects that aren't tested as possible. > 3) Teach as little about a subject as is necessary to get students to pass > the tests. (This would probably also discourage teaching understanding, > since it is more difficult to test for understanding rather than rote.) > > The fact is that privitizing education shows one major possible benefit: > economy. It has many possible problems: overall decrease in quality of > education, social stratification, and neglect of the costly to educate. > > Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh A couple of years back, Reason magazine did a story on the one state currently using the voucher system (Vermont or New Hampshire, I believe). For decades the state had been giving out vouchers allowing parents to send their children to the public or private school of their choice, in or out of the state. Not only did that state have one of the cheapest educational systems in the country, but one of the highest scoring on national achievement tests. As far as I'm concerned, the arguments that the voucher system won't fly, won't fly themselves. Michael Esco
ray@rochester.UUCP (Ray Frank) (09/06/85)
> > > In article <1214@teddy.UUCP> lkk@teddy.UUCP (Larry K. Kolodney) writes: > > > Discipline based on fear is worse than no discipline at all. > > > > > I must pose to you a situation involving a parent child confrontation. > > Parent : Time for bed. > > 4yr old: Nope. > > > > Parent : Please, time for bed now. > > 4yr old: Nope. > > > > Parent : You must go to bed now. > > 4yr old: Nope. > > > > And so on, what would you do? Remember, you said discipline based on fear is > > worse than no disipline at all. You're not allowed to threaten to take his > > teddy bear away. You're not allowed to tell him he can't have ice cream if > > he doesn't listen. Are not these tactics based on threatening the child with > > fear, i.e. no ice cream, take away your buddy the teddy bear. I really want to > > know what you would do without some kind of threat. By the way, you are not > > allowed to bodily carry him to bed, that would be physically taking matters in > > hand and over powering him with your size. Besides, he would just climb out of > > bed and come downstairs. What WOULD you do? > > Why can't I bodily carry him to bed? "Physically taking matters in hand and > over powering" is a much different situation than physical abuse which is what > this discussion is all about. I don't think there's a parent around who would > balk at physically restraining an unruly child. I make liberal use of "THE > TIMER". This is a version of the old "sit in the corner" routine which > involves sitting (or in Anne's case standing) in the corner until the timer > rings. The developmental psych people say that the optimal amount of time is > about equivalent to their age. Therefore, 2-year olds get two minutes, 3-year > olds get 3 minutes, etc. Misbehaviour while in the corner simply adds time to > the timer. It seems pretty effective at home and Anne's Day Care uses it > there, too. I've never seen a better behaved bunch of kids! > Carry him to bed, but what happens if he decides to get up and back into the living room? Tie him to bed!!!? Two minutes, three minutes? Sounds like your making soft or hard boiled eggs. What if the kid doesn't stay in the corner? When will she accumulate so much time that it becomes unrealistic to expect her to carry out the sentence? > -- > > Sarah E. Dugan > "You have to kiss a lot of frogs > before you find a prince." You have to mess with a lot of sleepers before you find the beauty!
cooper@steinmetz.UUCP (Clark Cooper) (09/06/85)
In article <1214@teddy.UUCP> from lkk@teddy.UUCP (L.K.Kolodney) writes: > My mother teaches second grade in one of the nastier areas of the > Bronx, in New York City. She maintains order by letting the > students know, in no uncertain terms, that she will be fair with > them, but NOT TAKE ANY CRAP. She has their respect, and > never resorts to corporal punishment (which is illegal). You left out the punch line - what exactly does she do if someone tests the policy. In other words, "I WON'T TAKE ANY CRAP or else ..."; I'm asking, "or else what?". With second graders, it may be that she can get away with just saying something to that effect. In the experience of her pupils, it may be that any adult that has talked like that beats (or spanks or does something else unpleasant to) them when crossed. In this case, your mother may be winning by protective coloration, (i.e. she looks like a poisonous butterfly, so the kids treat her like a poisonous butterfly). How much respect would she maintain though if someone broke her rules and she did nothing? I'm not saying that corporal punishment should be the "or else". I'm asking you, what is your mother's "or else". I would bet that whatever it is, it is immediately perceived by the kids as something unpleasant. -- Clark Cooper |UUCP: seismo!rpics!steinmetz!cooper |ARPA: coopercc@ge-crd
long@oliveb.UUCP (Dave Long) (09/08/85)
In article <11316@rochester.UUCP> ray@rochester.UUCP (Ray Frank) writes: > I must pose to you a situation involving a parent child confrontation. > Parent : Time for bed. > 4yr old: Nope. > > Parent : Please, time for bed now. > 4yr old: Nope. > > Parent : You must go to bed now. > 4yr old: Nope. > What WOULD you do? I would just let him stay up until he wanted to go to sleep. I have never had a specific "bedtime". My parents usually went to sleep at about 9:00 or so, and they would tell me that it was time to go to sleep, but I was free to stay up until I felt it was time to go to sleep. One question: What are the reasons people have for setting specific bedtimes for their children? How about curfews? (I never had one either) -- {hplabs,fortune,idi,ihnp4,tolerant,allegra,tymix}!oliveb!long
linda@amdcad.UUCP (Linda Seltzer) (09/09/85)
In Sweden corporal punishment is illegal in the *home* as well as the school, and the child abuse rates there are very low.
ray@rochester.UUCP (Ray Frank) (09/09/85)
> In article <11316@rochester.UUCP> ray@rochester.UUCP (Ray Frank) writes: > > I must pose to you a situation involving a parent child confrontation. > > Parent : Time for bed. > > 4yr old: Nope. > > > > Parent : Please, time for bed now. > > 4yr old: Nope. > > > > Parent : You must go to bed now. > > 4yr old: Nope. > > What WOULD you do? > > I would just let him stay up until he wanted to go to sleep. I have never > had a specific "bedtime". My parents usually went to sleep at about 9:00 or > so, and they would tell me that it was time to go to sleep, but I was free to > stay up until I felt it was time to go to sleep. > One question: What are the reasons people have for setting specific > bedtimes for their children? How about curfews? (I never had one either) > -- > {hplabs,fortune,idi,ihnp4,tolerant,allegra,tymix}!oliveb!long People who don't discipline their kids seem also to not want to be bothered with them in general. You really have to love your kids to discipline them. You cannot let a 6 year old make all his own decisions for himself knowing that the 6 year old does not have any idea what the best decision is for him- self. Put a gallon of ice cream and a plate of food in front of him and tell him to eat what he wants and watch what he does, do this everyday for a year and chances are he will be hopelessly brain damaged through malnutrition. If he cannot get up for school due to lack of sleep will you then let him stay home? You've got to be kidding. ps. you better catch up on your sleep.
jacobson@fluke.UUCP (David Jacobson) (09/09/85)
> I make liberal use of "THE > TIMER". This is a version of the old "sit in the corner" routine which > involves sitting (or in Anne's case standing) in the corner until the timer > rings. The developmental psych people say that the optimal amount of time is > about equivalent to their age. Therefore, 2-year olds get two minutes, 3-year > olds get 3 minutes, etc. Misbehaviour while in the corner simply adds time to > the timer. It seems pretty effective at home and Anne's Day Care uses it > there, too. I've never seen a better behaved bunch of kids! > > Sarah E. Dugan I've never liked the timer approach, even though our pediatrician really promotes it. It is strictly punishement, having nothing to do with the problem. The kids get the message that adults are able to make me miserable because they are bigger. I prefer solutions that are directly related to problems as possible. If the kid disobeys (I hate that word) and the result is some kind of mess, they may be required to help clean it up (even if the adult could in fact do it faster themselves). If they misuse something, then it is taken away. I'm not sure what to do about things like hitting neighborhood kids. Our 2.75 year old has a little problem with this. We keep talking to her about it. ("People are not for hitting.") We always try to treat her will all the respect we would treat an adult, as far as possible, given her age and experience. -- David Jacobson ihnp4!uw-beaver!fluke!jacobson
todd@scirtp.UUCP (Todd Jones) (09/10/85)
> One question: What are the reasons people have for setting specific > bedtimes for their children? How about curfews? (I never had one either) > -- > {hplabs,fortune,idi,ihnp4,tolerant,allegra,tymix}!oliveb!long My wife and I love our children (1 &4) dearly and cherish the time spent with them throughout the day. However, after 8:30 or so, My wife and I have our time together. We have interests outside the home and aren't always home at night at the same time. When we are, we enjoy the brief hiatus of peace and quiet to be alone and pay attention to each other for a change. Once our kids reach teenagehood, I think curfews, bedtimes, etc... will become difficult, if not impossible, to impose. When the time comes, we will relent. After all, sneaking out at night in clear violation of a curfew provided me with the biggest thrills of my youth. -todd jones
king@kestrel.ARPA (09/10/85)
In article <413@scirtp.UUCP>, todd@scirtp.UUCP (Todd Jones) writes: > > One question: What are the reasons people have for setting specific > > bedtimes for their children? How about curfews? (I never had one either) > My wife and I love our children (1 &4) dearly and cherish the time > spent with them throughout the day. > > However, after 8:30 or so, My wife and I have our time together. I think that that reason for sending kids together is a loser, first because they can sense that they're being gotten rid of, and second because you can't do it with a slightly older kid. A better solution, in our household, is to get some adult time together by getting up earlier.
lkk@teddy.UUCP (09/11/85)
In article <261@steinmetz.UUCP> cooper@steinmetz.UUCP (Clark Cooper) writes: >In article <1214@teddy.UUCP> from lkk@teddy.UUCP (L.K.Kolodney) writes: >> My mother teaches second grade in one of the nastier areas of the >> Bronx, in New York City. She maintains order by letting the >> students know, in no uncertain terms, that she will be fair with >> them, but NOT TAKE ANY CRAP. She has their respect, and >> never resorts to corporal punishment (which is illegal). > >You left out the punch line - what exactly does she do if someone >tests the policy. In other words, "I WON'T TAKE ANY CRAP or else ..."; >I'm asking, "or else what?". I don't know the exact methods she uses "or else", but they are not violent. THings like making the student stay after class, or what have you, sound about right. More importantly, however, is that students who behave well are rewarded (ideally with the natural rewards of such behavior, thus teaching why such behavior is good.) The point I was trying to make, though, was that she rarely has to resort to even these methods. Her students actually repect her. This is not based on fear (although initially it might be). It is based on the same sort of feeling that one might have for a great hero. You see someone of true quality, and you come to respect them. I think this is frequently a subconcious sort of thing. The kids just get an intuitve feeling that "here is someone who is 'serious'". I guess that there are two separate issues here. How to discipline in the abstract, and how to implement implement discipline. Corporal punishment is a practical implementation of the need to use some coercive force. But it is an extreme method. Extreme methods are only needed when the situation gets extremely out of control. My claim is that by using certain paradigm for discipline, which emphasizes positive feedback, and understanding, such extremes need never be reached. To summarize: Corporal punishment is bad because (1) it can be physically dangerous, and (2) it causes uneccesary trauma for the child. Negative, reactive discipline is bad, because it serves to create an ethical system based on avoidance of punishment, rather than of reference to values. When a positive reinforcing discipline is used, corporal punishment does not have to be resorted to. -- Sport Death, Larry Kolodney (USENET) ...decvax!genrad!teddy!lkk (INTERNET) lkk@mit-mc.arpa
helmsoid@scirtp.UUCP (the helmsoid) (09/11/85)
> In Sweden corporal punishment is illegal in the *home* as well > as the school, and the child abuse rates there are very low. Cain't no kid get a real edgecation unless the daylights is whipped outta him evry week ! My parents beat me evry night, and I'm a better man fer it ! Them Swedes got a big problem wif their edgecational system: the kids who ain't whipped don't grow up t' be red-blooded 'mericans ! (but at least they ain't darkies !) -- -Jeshee These are the views held by all right-thinking 'mericans. If these views ain't held by an individual or organization, they must be Godless commernist agitators and will be dealt with appropriately. Amen. {decvax,akgua}!mcnc!rti-sel!scirtp!helmsoid
dmcanzi@watdcsu.UUCP (David Canzi) (09/12/85)
In article <413@scirtp.UUCP> todd@scirtp.UUCP (Todd Jones) writes: >Once our kids reach teenagehood, I think curfews, bedtimes, etc... >will become difficult, if not impossible, to impose. When the >time comes, we will relent. After all, sneaking out at night in >clear violation of a curfew provided me with the biggest thrills >of my youth. What!? You'd relent? And deprive *them* of the thrill *you* had? :-) -- David Canzi ACCUSE, v. t. To affirm another's guilt or unworth; most commonly as a justification of ourselves for having wronged him. (Ambrose Bierce)
debbiem@rruxe.UUCP (D. McBurnett) (09/12/85)
>I have never had a specific "bedtime". My parents usually went to sleep >at about 9:00 or so, and they would tell me that it was time to go to >sleep, but I was free to stay up until I felt it was time to go to sleep. > One question: What are the reasons people have for setting specific >bedtimes for their children? How about curfews? (I never had one either) I can answer this one. If we let my four-year-old son stay up until he wanted to go to sleep, we would wake up in the morning to total wreckage in the living room. He would also be very likely to come wake us up at 11:00 to say that he wanted something to eat and couldn't reach it, or that he wanted to sing us a song, or he wanted us to tell him a story before he went to sleep....ad nauseum. I know, because this is what he does at 6:00 in the morning, even though we have repeatedly told him NOT to come wake us up at such an ungodly hour for such reasons (and yes, he does know how to tell time, so he knows what he's doing when he's doing it). I had a curfew until I was in highschool, for safety's sake. Our rule was, head for home when the street lights came on. When I got to be in high school, my folks figured I was bright enough to watch out for myself and lifted the curfew. Basically the story was the same with bedtime (except obiously bedtime was later than curfew). I always thought this arrangement was pretty sensible. Still do. I can't see why anybody would be willing to let their kids run the show and arrange their lives completely around the children's decisions on bedtimes (which is the way it would end up in our house), and I can't see how a parent could be indifferent to their children's safety on the issue of a curfew. Debbie McBurnett rruxe!debbiem
linda@amdcad.UUCP (Linda Seltzer) (09/12/85)
In article <378@scirtp.UUCP>, ned@scirtp.UUCP (Ned Robie) writes: > Anyone that spanks or paddles my kid in school or anywhere without > my permission is going to incur my wrath, I don't care what the reason. > > One of my most difficult responsibilities as a parent is knowing when to > inflict physical punishment upon my children. It is certainly a > responsibility that I would never entrust to strangers or even our closest > friends. > > -- Ned Robie I agree with you completely. Perhaps it may be effective to spank a very young infant for doing something which might be physically dangerous, like trying to chew on wires or touch a hot vent from a heater. But when the children are older - I don't think spanking is the most effective approach, and it is unnecessarily and gratuitously violent. Some of my friends have been quite effective in raising their children using explanations: if you behave in such and such manner, then nobody will want to associate with you, nobody will listen to you or take you seriously, etc. Unless there is a serious problem, one has to assume that children *want* to learn the best way to relate to the people around them, and they are certainly not equipped to know how to handle situations by themselves. If there is a serious problem, then professional help, and not spanking, is in order.
linda@amdcad.UUCP (Linda Seltzer) (09/12/85)
In article <11316@rochester.UUCP>, ray@rochester.UUCP (Ray Frank) writes: > > In article <1214@teddy.UUCP> lkk@teddy.UUCP (Larry K. Kolodney) writes: > > Discipline based on fear is worse than no discipline at all. > > > I must pose to you a situation involving a parent child confrontation. > Parent : Time for bed. > 4yr old: Nope. > > Parent : Please, time for bed now. > 4yr old: Nope. > > Parent : You must go to bed now. > 4yr old: Nope. > > And so on, what would you do? Remember, you said discipline based on fear is Why make the kid go to bed if he's not tired. When he's tired he'll fall asleep anyway. Plenty of parents are frustrated little dictators and the only way they can exercise power is to impose all kinds of arbitrary rules on their kids. May parents used to make me go to bed early, I just turned on the lights after they fell asleep, and stayed up most of the night reading. It never hurt me that I didn't sleep 10 hours a night - good training for engineering school, actually.
mcal@ihuxb.UUCP (Mike Clifford) (09/12/85)
> In article <378@scirtp.UUCP>, ned@scirtp.UUCP (Ned Robie) writes: > > Anyone that spanks or paddles my kid in school or anywhere without > > my permission is going to incur my wrath, I don't care what the reason. > > One of my most difficult responsibilities as a parent is knowing when to > > inflict physical punishment upon my children. It is certainly a > > responsibility that I would never entrust to strangers or even our closest > > friends. > > -- Ned Robie > > I agree with you completely. Perhaps it may be effective to spank a > very young infant for doing something which might be physically dangerous, > like trying to chew on wires or touch a hot vent from a heater. > But when the children are older - I don't think spanking is the > most effective approach, and it is unnecessarily and gratuitously > violent. I am wondering what everyone means when they say "spank" or "spanking". There is the spanking where you hit your child (sounds terrible) a number of times to physically (and mentally, I suppose) hurt them and (I hope) the "spanker" means to communicate to the "spankee" that rules are to be obeyed and so on. I think alot of times the parent has blown his/her top and is taking it out on the child. There is also the spank where, after repeated (you decide on the number of repitions) attempts to tell/warn the child to NOT do something, the child receives one swat on the seat accompanied by a firm "NO!". That was ONE swat, on the seat (which is assumed to be covered by underwear and pants/shorts/dress... and in alot of cases a diaper), followed by a short talk to assure the child of your love for her/him. I think this is the only effective means of a spanking (the one swat). It is all that is necessary to inform the child that he/she blew it by not listening the first time, and the little talk afterward is essential, too. This is my opinion, what's yours? Mike Clifford
sed408@ihlpg.UUCP (s. dugan) (09/12/85)
> > [Sarah E. Dugan discussing THE TIMER method of discipline.] > > > I've never liked the timer approach, even though our pediatrician really > promotes it. It is strictly punishement, having nothing to do with the > problem. The kids get the message that adults are able to make me > miserable because they are bigger. I prefer solutions that are directly > related to problems as possible. If the kid disobeys (I hate that word) > and the result is some kind of mess, they may be required to help clean it > up (even if the adult could in fact do it faster themselves). If they > misuse something, then it is taken away. I'm not sure what to do about > things like hitting neighborhood kids. Our 2.75 year old has a little > problem with this. We keep talking to her about it. ("People are not for > hitting.") We always try to treat her will all the respect we would treat > an adult, as far as possible, given her age and experience. > > -- David Jacobson > ihnp4!uw-beaver!fluke!jacobson I guess I didn't go into enough detail about the use of the timer. The timer isn't just used in a vaccuum (I'm never sure how to spell that word!) I usually use it for behaviour which falls under ther general category of "disturbing the peace" or stuburn refusal to do what I've asked her to do. I try to stay calm when I send her to "the corner." I tell her directly what behaviour of hers has made me angry/disappointed. I tell her how I feel when she does those things. I tell her that this is the consequence of her actions. After the timer is done, and before she can go back to playing, I ask her if she knows why she was in the timer. If she seems vague on that point, I help clear it up. I then hug her and tell her I may not always like her actions, but that I love HER. Then we're usually friends again. I agree with what you said about using solutions that are directly related to problems. I make liberal use of that approach too. If Anne gets in a destructive mode and starts to tear her books, they are taken away for a day. If she has been told to clean up her room and doesn't do it, I get to have whatever is on the floor when I go to clean up. She then gets it back the next day by doing something she has been asked to do without any arguments or stalling. The item I took away then doubles as a reward for appropriate behaviour. I hope that clears things up a little. -- Sarah E. Dugan "Home is the place where, when you have to go there They have to take you in. -Robert Frost The Death of the Hired Man ########################################################################### # AT&T Bell Labs IH 1D-408 The Forest (home) # # Naperville-Wheaton Rd. 1353 Crab Apple Court Apt. 101 # # Naperville, Illinois 60566 Naperville, Illinois 60540 # # (312) 979 - 5545 (312) 355 - 0445 # ###########################################################################
charli@cylixd.UUCP (Charli Phillips) (09/12/85)
>I prefer solutions that are directly >related to problems as possible. > . . . . >I'm not sure what to do about >things like hitting neighborhood kids. Our 2.75 year old has a little >problem with this. We keep talking to her about it. ("People are not for >hitting.") > > -- David Jacobson There is one solution, directly related to the problem. If it hasn't happened yet, it will. One of the kids she hits is going to hit her back. She'll then learn *why* people are not for hitting :-). charli
smuga@mtuxo.UUCP (j.smuga) (09/12/85)
> > I've never liked the timer approach, even though our pediatrician really > promotes it. It is strictly punishement, having nothing to do with the > problem. > > -- David Jacobson > ihnp4!uw-beaver!fluke!jacobson Not true. The timer provides a cooling down period. Very often when children behave badly, it is due to the fact that they are tired or over-excited. A few minutes of quiet time sometimes solves the problem. -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Janet Smuga I've had a great many troubles in my time, ihnp4!mtuxo!smuga and most of them never happened. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
pickle@nmtvax.UUCP (09/13/85)
In article <> joel@peora.UUCP (Joel Upchurch) writes: > I also think that it is foolish to try and reason with a small > child. They are not miniature adults and to try and treat > them as such is a big mistake. You might as well try to > reason with a puppy to housebreak it. I'm afraid I have to disagree on this: while kids are not as "mature" (and I use the term loosely) as (some) adults, they tend to be smarter than they get credit for. Treating kids like pets (i. e. puppies) can turn them into animals. Of the kids I know (I'll include myself), behavior seems to be directly related to the level of conversation they have with their parents. I can discuss anything at anytime with my parents, and it has helped me a lot. Many times my parents kept me from making big mistakes. Kids who can't talk to their parents have no one to turn to when they have problems. When someone with little experience is facing a problem, the wrong decision is not unlikely. (PROOF, PROOF, I hear them cry!) To illistrate my point, I'll bring up the story of a kid I know. Fritz (not his real name) was a friend of a friend of mine in High School. I was going to a movie with this friend, and Fritz was invited too. We stopped at his house to pick him up, and on the way out, Fritz said to his father "Dad--I'm going to a movie, I'll be back around 9:30". His father didn't acknowledge him. Fritz is a really nice guy. He is funny, intellegent, and a pretty good person all around. That's why it surprised me when he stole a truck and a bunch of guns and headed up towards Canada. He was stopped by border guard who thought that automatic weapons in the back of a pickup was suspicious. My point is that Fritz might not have done this if his parents talked to him. His home situation was, and still is, "oh yeah--you live here too. Are we related or something?". I think it's never too early to show someone you care about them or let them know that you are willing to help if they need it. Out of this springs love, respect, and (to get back to the main point) good behavior. Have I rambled on enough? I guess so.... Flames welcome, but don't expect to change my mind on this. Patrick H. Madden | "Talking out of turn, New Mexico Tech | Shot to pieces, Box 2244 | When will I learn?" Socorro, NM 87801 | {Reality}!cmcl2!lanl!unm-cvax!nmtvax!pickle !ucbvax!unmvax!nmtvax!pickle
mmar@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP (Mitchell Marks) (09/13/85)
I'm echoing Dave Long's question: what IS the point of bedtimes for
children, anyway? I've never really seen a good reason for them, apart
from the convenience of the parents. Actually that's not a bad reason -
the folks deserve a little rest and privacy - but why not be forthright
about it instead of concocting explanations in terms of the child's
best interests?
Yes, sure, the kid who stays up late Monday night will be tired Tuesday;
but then will go right to sleep Tuesday early. As for some abstract
kind of `learning good habits', lemme tellya: I had strict bedtimes almost
until I was out of high school, with the result that now I compulsively
stay up, and feel cheated if I fall asleep before 2:00 or 3:00.
--
-- Mitch Marks @ UChicago
...ihnp4!gargoyle!sphinx!mmarpeter@graffiti.UUCP (Peter da Silva) (09/13/85)
> As for your other concerns. This vice principal was constantly enforcing the > dress code (walked around with a tape measure to measure girls skirt lengths, > tugged on boys shirts to make sure they were tucked in appropriately and not > "just rolled up", etc.). Schools should concentrate on developing a students > mental discipline and forget about petty garbage like hair length or dress > code. My wife & I were talking about this recently. I, of course, went to a school with an official uniform (this was in Australia). One of her schools had this as their dress code: "Shoes must be worn". That included sandals & thongs. Anyone know about dress codes in schools in the San Francisco Bay area? That's where we'll probably be living when we have kids in school.
charli@cylixd.UUCP (Charli Phillips) (09/13/85)
>I'm echoing Dave Long's question: what IS the point of bedtimes for >children, anyway? > >Yes, sure, the kid who stays up late Monday night will be tired Tuesday; >but then will go right to sleep Tuesday early. > > -- Mitch Marks @ UChicago Maybe it depends on the age of the child. If my 1.75 year-old stays up late on Monday night, not only is he tired Tuesday, he is cranky, crabby, and a real pain in the neck. And he doesn't necessarily go to sleep Tuesday early! As a matter of fact, he may decide that, since he didn't have to go to bed Monday night, he doesn't have to go to bed again, and bedtime turns into some kind of "battle of wills". Yes, I know, eventually the need for sleep will win out. But in the mean time, we've all been miserable for a few days. On the other hand, since I know he has to get up at 7 in the morning (and he *does* have to get up then, since we have to take him to the sitters and get me to work by 8), and I know how much sleep he usually needs, I can matter-of-factly put him to bed at 8:30. The next day, he's cheerful and well-rested, and we get to enjoy the time we have together. charli
charli@cylixd.UUCP (Charli Phillips) (09/13/85)
I forgot to check the newsgroup line on my response. I don't imagine anyone in net.legal or net.politics cares about bedtimes. Sorry. charli
tan@ihlpg.UUCP (Bill Tanenbaum) (09/13/85)
> [Mitch Marks] > I'm echoing Dave Long's question: what IS the point of bedtimes for > children, anyway? I've never really seen a good reason for them, apart > from the convenience of the parents. Actually that's not a bad reason - > the folks deserve a little rest and privacy - but why not be forthright > about it instead of concocting explanations in terms of the child's > best interests? > > Yes, sure, the kid who stays up late Monday night will be tired Tuesday; > but then will go right to sleep Tuesday early. As for some abstract > kind of `learning good habits', lemme tellya: I had strict bedtimes almost > until I was out of high school, with the result that now I compulsively > stay up, and feel cheated if I fall asleep before 2:00 or 3:00. > -- We always have set bedtimes for our children on those nights when they have school the next day. Without them, my older daughter tended to stay up too late and be too tired to concentrate in school the next day. It's no big deal. We don't demand lights out, merely that she get in bed. She can read or do someting else in bed if she is not yet tired enough to fall asleep. On Fridays and Saturdays, and during school vacations, a formal bedtime has not been necessary, so none has been set. The bedtimes themselves were discussed with the kids, and set to what they consider reasonable. It's all working fine. Much of what you say about bedtimes is true, but they still have a point other than parental convenience. -- Bill Tanenbaum - AT&T Bell Labs - Naperville IL ihnp4!ihlpg!tan
berman@psuvax1.UUCP (Piotr Berman) (09/15/85)
> >I prefer solutions that are directly > >related to problems as possible. > > . . . . > >I'm not sure what to do about > >things like hitting neighborhood kids. Our 2.75 year old has a little > >problem with this. We keep talking to her about it. ("People are not for > >hitting.") > > > > -- David Jacobson > > There is one solution, directly related to the problem. If it hasn't > happened yet, it will. One of the kids she hits is going to hit her > back. She'll then learn *why* people are not for hitting :-). > > charli Corporal punishment (like spanking) has the following setback: it seems to be effective. In fact, is not more effective than a regular admonition, or yelling or other more subtle negative reinforcement. What is more important is to react promptly to situations which require correction. Another important principle is not to expect that you may correct some behavior "once for all". The biggest setback in using excessive penalties is lowering the level of sensitivity of a child. I got my share of spanking and I speak with some experience. Pain and humilation is relative. A minor bicycle accident is more painful than spanking. However do you want to enter a path of escalating punishments toward children? Or you would prefer to get their attention even when you merely express your displeasure (an ideal situation). The original question concerned teachers. As I remember, my highschool class behaved best with an older teacher who would merely raised her eyebrows at the first little noise made by a student (in a very rare situations, she would ask somebody to leave the room). Besides, we new that she was teaching well. The art of mantaining authority with minimal the means is not some magic, but it requires competience. Piotr Berman
mazina@pur-ee.UUCP (Der Kaiser) (09/15/85)
In article <273@cylixd.UUCP> charli@cylixd.UUCP (Charli Phillips) writes: >>I'm not sure what to do about >>things like hitting neighborhood kids. Our 2.75 year old has a little >>problem with this. We keep talking to her about it. ("People are not for >>hitting.") >> >> -- David Jacobson > >There is one solution, directly related to the problem. If it hasn't >happened yet, it will. One of the kids she hits is going to hit her >back. She'll then learn *why* people are not for hitting :-). > > charli Hmmm... I always thought that the principle was that hitting others was not a `good` thing to do. (define `good`? naahhh :-) Should the principle read: "Hitting those with the power to hit you back might not be a good thing???????????????????" Thomas Ruschak pur-ee!mazina "By the pricking of my thumbs, Something wicked this way comes... " --- W. Shakespeare
smuga@mtuxo.UUCP (j.smuga) (09/16/85)
> I'm echoing Dave Long's question: what IS the point of bedtimes for > children, anyway? I've never really seen a good reason for them, apart > from the convenience of the parents. Actually that's not a bad reason - > the folks deserve a little rest and privacy - but why not be forthright > about it instead of concocting explanations in terms of the child's > best interests? > > > -- Mitch Marks @ UChicago Do we need to "concoct explanations"? Bedtime is bedtime, my kids haven't asked me to justify it. In fact, they like it. They receive some special attention at that time (a story, a snack, some kisses and hugs) and they have a chance to review the events of the day with us or plan for the next. My eight-year-old likes to get out her clothes at that time. It gives the day a sense of completion. I think my kids would feel neglected if they were left to wander off to bed any old time. -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Janet Smuga I've had a great many troubles in my time, ihnp4!mtuxo!smuga and most of them never happened. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
franka@mmintl.UUCP (Frank Adams) (09/17/85)
[Not food] Most of this discussion belongs only in net.kids, not net.legal or net.politics. Please edit the newsgroups line, people. Frank Adams ihpn4!philabs!pwa-b!mmintl!franka Multimate International 52 Oakland Ave North E. Hartford, CT 06108
michaelm@3comvax.UUCP (Michael McNeil) (09/17/85)
[Help! I'm being gobbled up by a Line Eater Monst...] Ray Frank writes about the ACLU: > Here in Rochester the ACLU prevented the police dept. from issuing good > driving tickets to motorists deserving them. It was only a good will drive > by the police dept., but the ACLU said it was unconstitutional. Maybe some people didn't *want* to be stopped on the road, to have their licenses and the interiors of their cars inspected by police, merely so the department could, as a ``good will drive,'' issue ``good driving tickets to motorists deserving [sic] them.'' It seems to me to be a quite elementary Constitutional protection that persons be stopped and questioned by police only when they are doing something *wrong*, not when they are doing everything *right*! > When that 15 yr. old Russian boy wanted to stay in America and not leave the > country with his parents several years ago, the ACLU said he must go back. I don't agree that the boy should've been forced to go back to Russia. (What's the whole story of the ACLU's involvement in this case, anyway?) *However*, Frank, aren't *you* the person who's always claiming that parents should have *complete control* over the minds and bodies of their children, particularly in cases where (*shudder*) the child might learn to think *differently* from his parents' beliefs? Isn't enforcing their ``parental rights,'' as you describe them, over the will and mind of their child *precisely* what the boy's parents were attempting to do? ________________ Michael McNeil 3Com Corporation ``All disclaimers including this one apply'' (415) 960-9367 ..!ucbvax!hplabs!oliveb!3comvax!michaelm
elric@proper.UUCP (elric) (09/19/85)
In article <> fsks@unc.UUCP (Frank Silbermann) writes: >> Discipline based on fear is worse than no discipline at all. > >How did you arrive at this conclusion? School children have been >disciplined with fear for generations. It didn't do much for their >creativity, but they did learn the basic skills. With no discipline, >students learn nothing at all. > > Frank Silbermann The main problem with discipline by fear is that once a child is removed from such an atomosphere and he has nothing to fear he will see no reason to follow the rules. I spent 4 years in a catholic school which used corporal punishment (for everything from not having having a perfectly made bed, to singing off key in music class). Once I got into a high school which did not use corporal punishment I just goofed off. In this country police can not legally beat a criminal unless the crook is trying to beat them. The crimes of kids in school rarely wrose then that of a real crimenal. Fear is a double edged sword, you can only push someone so far, before he strikes back. Elric of Imrryr Disclamer-- The above veiws are of no concern to Lunatic Labs
elric@proper.UUCP (elric) (09/19/85)
> One question: What are the reasons people have for setting specific >bedtimes for their children? How about curfews? (I never had one either) >-- The reasons why parents set bedtimes might be these: 1: To have some peace and to relax (I can agree with the reasoning, but why not just tell the kid to play quietly in his/her room) 2: Because their parent made them go to at 9pm therefore I must be good for them. (What was good enuff for my forefathers is good enuff for me). 3: He/she is having trouble getting for school/whatever. (Good reasoning) There are proably a million others. Curfew (parently, not legal) is mostly just protectiveness or overprotectiveness. I once had an 18 year old girlfriend who's parent would not allow her out after dark. Elric
ray@rochester.UUCP (Ray Frank) (09/24/85)
> [Help! I'm being gobbled up by a Line Eater Monst...] > > Ray Frank writes about the ACLU: > > > Here in Rochester the ACLU prevented the police dept. from issuing good > > driving tickets to motorists deserving them. It was only a good will drive > > by the police dept., but the ACLU said it was unconstitutional. > > Maybe some people didn't *want* to be stopped on the road, to > have their licenses and the interiors of their cars inspected by > police, merely so the department could, as a ``good will drive,'' > issue ``good driving tickets to motorists deserving [sic] them.'' > It seems to me to be a quite elementary Constitutional protection > that persons be stopped and questioned by police only when they are > doing something *wrong*, not when they are doing everything *right*! > The police were not going to look into cars or inspect drivers licenses. But if there was contraband in clear view inside the car, I don't think the police could do anything about it anyway due the laws governing unwaranted stopping of vehicles by a police department. > > When that 15 yr. old Russian boy wanted to stay in America and not leave the > > country with his parents several years ago, the ACLU said he must go back. > > I don't agree that the boy should've been forced to go back to Russia. > (What's the whole story of the ACLU's involvement in this case, anyway?) I don't know anything more than that the ACLU said it was unconstitutional for the immigration department to give permission to the boy to stay here against his parent's wishes. > *However*, Frank, aren't *you* the person who's always claiming that > parents should have *complete control* over the minds and bodies of > their children, particularly in cases where (*shudder*) the child might > learn to think *differently* from his parents' beliefs? Isn't enforcing > their ``parental rights,'' as you describe them, over the will and mind > of their child *precisely* what the boy's parents were attempting to do? > You are right, there is a conflict here. If it weren't for the fact that the parents were from Russia, I would agree that the parents should have authority over the immigration department concerning their son's remaining behind in a foreign country. But because they are from a country where oppression by that government causes undue hardships on it's citizens, I must admit that my views on the authority of parents as final becomes somewhat colored. Call it a double standard or whatever you want, but unusual circumstances do necesitate exceptions to rules. I see it as a child not wanting to go back to an abusing environment. Be it abuse by a country or abuse by parents, the child recognized his plight and wished to endure it no more, and was granted the right to not to have to endure it any further. No, I have never claimed that parents or anyone else should have 'complete control' over the minds and bodies of their children. I don't know how you came to that conclusion. Perhaps from reading my views concerning the role of Planned Parenthood as an interferring organization? But in any case, if parents are deemed not worthy of the title, then appropriate measures must be taken, just being parents does not right them make. > ________________ > > Michael McNeil > 3Com Corporation ``All disclaimers including this one apply'' > (415) 960-9367 > ..!ucbvax!hplabs!oliveb!3comvax!michaelm *** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MESSAGE ***