Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It is not a matter of judging the other 99% because of the 1%. You cited percentages, is that the case or you just got those numbers out of nowhere to make your point?
As far as the tactics you mention you have used, I have and I agree with you because it has worked with me also.
I simply state that in the general scheme of things when I compare going to school in my teen years and today it is not the same. Most probably you and many others will not agree but just as you and others do, I simply present my observations based when I lived in the 50s and now what my kids happen today. Also, on what I have seen when I do volunteer work in the schools. It is not statistical I will admit, just what I see around and what I saw around before. Take care.
Well, obviously the statistics for the 99% vs. 1% were made up. The point was to show that there is little value in anecdotal evidence. If the teacher was a middle school teacher, she would see multiple classes each day, multiply that by years of teaching and she may have seen hundreds or even thousands of kids pass through the school. How many of them told her to go eff herself? That one sticks out because it was so egregious, but it proves the point. We as a society focus on the extreme and let it taint our judgement to the whole.
Kid A thinks his teacher is a *****, but won't say it because they don't want to get hit.
Kid B thinks his teacher is a *****, but is willing to say it because they are not afraid of the consequence.
Let's think about that for a minute. We are getting what we want, kid not calling the teacher a *****, by enforcing a harsh punishment, but are we addressing the root of the issue which is that the kid thinks the teacher is a *****?
I'd rather have the word said so we can address the underlying reason for the kid to think that way, then simply be happy that no one is being called a ***** while the same attitude towards the teacher remains.
Good point. But you address the underlying problem, but there is still the aspect of respect, which I think is different. You shouldn't have the option to just say what is on your mind all the times and think things will be alright. You need to know what the problem is, when its a problem, and how to word it the right way and be civilized. So Kid B should voice his/her opinion, but not say the teacher is a ****, but rather, Ms. _______ is being rude/hassling me/etc.
EDIT - I've been in this discussion before with a friend, and he addressed the situation as you did NJGOAT. He said talk about the problem, I said give them a wack, but ultimately, they should still talk about the issue.
Anyone else find it funny that some people refuse to acknowledge the FACT that kids are not really any "worse" today??
I don't really buy it. I think as a society we have a much lower threshold for misbehavior than a generation or 2 ago. My dad (a baby boomer) used to blow up mail boxes for fun. He and a friend once burned down a garage accidentally. His neighbor ran away from home for 3 days and the police were never called. There was never any big punishment for any of this. Now a kid blowing up mail boxes would be labeled a terrorist and sent to jail.
This forum is proof that discipline styles vary and always have. We have posters who admittedly use no type of punishment whatsoever all the way over to parents who've admitted to physically beating up their young teen. There always have been and always will be parents and kids all over the spectrum.
Good point. But you address the underlying problem, but there is still the aspect of respect, which I think is different. You shouldn't have the option to just say what is on your mind all the times and think things will be alright. You need to know what the problem is, when its a problem, and how to word it the right way and be civilized. So Kid B should voice his/her opinion, but not say the teacher is a ****, but rather, Ms. _______ is being rude/hassling me/etc.
That is something that you learn from good parenting and discipline.
Children who cannot speak in a civilized way, without consequences, are probably being raised by parents who don't know how to either.
Good point. But you address the underlying problem, but there is still the aspect of respect, which I think is different. You shouldn't have the option to just say what is on your mind all the times and think things will be alright. You need to know what the problem is, when its a problem, and how to word it the right way and be civilized. So Kid B should voice his/her opinion, but not say the teacher is a ****, but rather, Ms. _______ is being rude/hassling me/etc.
EDIT - I've been in this discussion before with a friend, and he addressed the situation as you did NJGOAT. He said talk about the problem, I said give them a wack, but ultimately, they should still talk about the issue.
I agree with the concept, that there is a way in which we need to handle the problem and that is to get to the root of the issue. Instituting consequence without the learning aspect really serves no purpose. I think this is the root of some the difference in discipline today versus say 50 years ago.
There is an effort today to teach the child WHY things are the way they are in order for them to mature. Teach the kid who calls his teacher a nasty name about how they should appropriately handle the issue and why they shouldn't use nasty names. The older methods were simply concerned with the end result, which was don't call the teacher a nasty name.
The "whack" can be both good and bad, but that is entirely dependent on how it is used within the context of the rest of the conversation. I think in the past, consequence was used without reference simply to enforce a standard. That doesn't require a kid to understand or think, it just requires compliance. I want compliance, but I want my kids to understand why and be able to think. It seems most of the older generation would simply be happier with compliance which absolves the adults from actually having to work through issues and talk about them.
The problem I have with "behave yourself" or get a smack is that the desired behavior is rarely explained or defined. The limitations or rules are sometimes unknown.
I would much rather teach my child that there are rules or limitations that she needs to respect rather than just saying "behave yourself."
I agree with you. It has to be a teaching process. For instance, if little Hunter is standing on a chair in his shoes you say.... "Hunter, furniture is not for standing on". The next time Hunter does it you say... "Hunter, remember that furniture is not for standing on (at which point you REMOVE Hunter bodily from the furniture). *IF* the foolish Hunter does it a third time, then he is testing the boundaries and should get a good smack on the bottom. Hard enough that he doesn't think it's funny.
As far as the transparency I agree and that can distort data. However, as I said, from what I observed as teen on how my peers talked to teachers, parents, even strangers is different.
Also, why not bring up something that would be hard to hide. Murder on school grounds. I do not know how old you are but I do remember when I was a teen, I only heard of ONE and that was some type of news that so unheard of. How much do you hear about that in schools today? So, again, I do agree that data can be misleading because today we have much better data gathering and many areas were not reported as they are today. What to do next? Base it on what I saw around me. After all we teens were no different when we talked amongst ourselves. We knew who had sex, who was abused, what type of crime was commited. When I compare what I heard and what my teenage kids told me is a worse situation. Take care.
You did not have the internet, nor 24 hour news,nor cable news when you grew up either. So your lack of not hearing about it happening would also be normal.
I'm going to go ahead and say its due to lack of consequences. Parents can't discipline them anymore without the threat of some government agency taking the kids. Teachers can't discipline them either, and the kids are acting up due to lack of discipline at home. And other kids can't even put them in place either, even if its throwing a few punches around without worrying about getting charges placed.
Discipline does not equal hitting. There are plenty of threads about this if you want to talk about that aspect. I fear this is another case where people focus on the exception rather than the rule. Some kids are raised without discipline and there are issues. The majority are disciplined, even if the method has changed. This has been a constant for as long as there has been civilization.
Quote:
In addition the lack of respect is also due to technology, and I'll say Jackass the show/movie didn't help, and neither did a lot of the pop culture, whether it be hip hop all about guns hoes and money or the screamo genre which is full of sad kids being outcasts.
IMO, this is the weakest and lamest argument used in these kinds of debates. I don't know how old you are, but my parents are in their late 60's and early 70's. They can fondly remember the outrage of their parents over Elvis' hips or the Beatles music, or kids dancing on TV to American Bandstand. Not to mention my mothers grandfathers outrage over "colored people" being shown on TV dancing alongside white people.
How about for kids being outcasts...Frankie Valli and the Four Seasons with their smash 1964 hit Rag Doll. All about a girl from the wrong side of the tracks that everyone treated like crap, but the singer was in love with her, but his parents said she was bad news.
How about Johnny Cash with his early 70's smash hits Folsom Prison Blues and Sunday Morning Coming Down? Some of the choice lyrics, "I shot a man just to watch him die" and "the beer I had for breakfast wasn't bad so I had one for dessert...Lord, I wish I was stoned".
I agree with you. It has to be a teaching process. For instance, if little Hunter is standing on a chair in his shoes you say.... "Hunter, furniture is not for standing on". The next time Hunter does it you say... "Hunter, remember that furniture is not for standing on (at which point you REMOVE Hunter bodily from the furniture). *IF* the foolish Hunter does it a third time, then he is testing the boundaries and should get a good smack on the bottom. Hard enough that he doesn't think it's funny.
20yrsinBranson
I understand now. It was never a teaching process where I grew up. It was - we had better been born knowing.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
