 |
| Register | Login | |||||
 |
Main
| Memberlist
| Active users
| ACS
| Commons
| Calendar
| Online users Ranks | FAQ | Color Chart | Photo album | IRC Chat |
|
| | ||
|
| Register | Login | |||||
|
Main
| Memberlist
| Active users
| ACS
| Commons
| Calendar
| Online users Ranks | FAQ | Color Chart | Photo album | IRC Chat |
|
| | ||
2 users currently in General Chat:  Dark Vampriel |
| Acmlm's Board - I2 Archive - General Chat - What do American (public) schools teach? |
 |  |  |
| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 | Add to favorites | "RSS" Feed | Next newer thread | Next older thread |
| User | Post | ||
hhallahh Bob-Omb Level: 38  Posts: 96/607 EXP: 365476 For next: 4971 Since: 03-15-04 From: Portland, OR Since last post: 73 days Last activity: 60 days |
| ||
| It | |||
BookReader Ninji Level: 25  Posts: 84/232 EXP: 86317 For next: 3303 Since: 03-15-04 From: Albuquerque, New Mexico (Land of Disenchantment) Since last post: 22 days Last activity: 2 days |
| ||
| Maybe the schools aren | |||
|
Kefka Indefinitely Unbanned Level: 81 Posts: 913/3392 EXP: 4826208 For next: 166641 Since: 03-15-04 From: Pomona, CALIFORNIA BABY! Since last post: 4 hours Last activity: 4 hours |
| ||
Holy shit, look what this has turned into.  My few short comments: Urban schools usually have less money than other schools. So, urban schools are forced to higher less experienced teachers. And the less experienced teachers are thrown into the bigger classes, and not like say, the honors classes. So everyone loses out. Urban city kids aren't stupider than other kids, it's just that they don't have any motivation to learn because of the environment they are brought up in. They are convinced from day 1 that they are going nowhere in life. There are exceptions, of course. The "other" kids have money... so they have it easier. And their school makes it easier for them to succeed, because the school wants to keep their reputation up as a "good school." I think I can say this because I have been fortunate enough to be a student at both a nice private school and a dirt-poor public school during my high school career. Let's just say that at the private school, the work was so much easier, but it meant more to colleges. Why? Because it's a private school, which, for the most part, only rich people can get into. Private seems to have a connotation of being superior. But, from what I've dealt with, I would say that a public school is much more competitive, especially if it uses the bell curve (which I HATE  ), thus forcing some kids to always fail...That's what I've gathered from high school. |
|||
|
BookReader Ninji Level: 25 Posts: 86/232 EXP: 86317 For next: 3303 Since: 03-15-04 From: Albuquerque, New Mexico (Land of Disenchantment) Since last post: 22 days Last activity: 2 days |
| ||
| At least you gathered something. | |||
|
kitty Come on babe, pet the pussy ;) Level: 70 Posts: 706/2449 EXP: 2962406 For next: 53405 Since: 03-15-04 From: Scranton, PA, USA Since last post: 3 hours Last activity: 3 hours |
| ||
Originally posted by hhallahh This isn't what I'm saying. You're taking the modern, hippie-bred response that "Violence is always wrong" and "Hitting a child is always bad." Discipline has many forms, the most extreme of which is "the paddle" or "the spoon." You don't want or need to be violent. For example, little Johnny is acting like a shit in the grocery store. He's in the checkout aisle with mommy and he won't shut up about wanting a candy bar after mommy said no. He starts a temper tantrum and begins to whine. Solutions that modern parents give? Well, they give him the candy to shut him up. The result? A spoild kid who knows he can get whatever he damn well wants by making a scene in public. The real solution? Give him the evil eye and tell him that if he doesn't behave, he'll be smacked. If he keeps it up, smack him. I'm not saying "Beat the shit out of him." I'm saying slap him in the ass - just enough to sting. He might start crying from "pain" (more mental than physical) if he's still spoiled rotten, otherwise he'll shut up because he knows he won't get anywhere with a tantrum. This is why our society is falling apart, nobody wants to raise kids properly and everyone cites "Studies" where violence leads to bad things. Guess what? There are no real, legitimate, scientific studies like this done. Why? Because real scientific researchers know that: 1) creating false conditions and then giving conditional responses is not how the real world works, 2) they don't want or need to encourage violence or be violent, 3) the studies don't even work on animals, nevermind humans. So don't say "Find some study" to me, YOU find a study that shows that what I'm suggesting, in ANY way, leads to children behaving worse than hippie-parenting results in, or that kids who grow up in these situations turn out any worse than hippie children do. I think you're forgetting that parents need to show love to their children, too. Hippie parents typically don't because they get so sick of the neverending tantrums and they spoil their kids so much, they figure that's "Love." If you are going to smack your kid, you have to show at least an equal, if not greater amount of love and praise for things that he or she does well. If you think I'm suggesting "Savage beatings" you're not sadly mistaken, you're a fucking idiot. (edited by Yiffy Kitten on 04-21-04 04:40 PM) |
|||
Jarukoth  IRRATIONAL EXUBERENCE!!1! Level: 79  Posts: 657/3194 EXP: 4402011 For next: 177456 Since: 03-17-04 From: New Jersey, U.S.A. Shoes: Yes. Since last post: 8 days Last activity: 1 day |
| ||
| *standing ovation* It's about time someone said that, Yiffy Kitten. Bravo. |
|||
|
hhallahh Bob-Omb Level: 38 Posts: 112/607 EXP: 365476 For next: 4971 Since: 03-15-04 From: Portland, OR Since last post: 73 days Last activity: 60 days |
| ||
| Let's see. First of all, you seem to be confusing parents who seek non-violent alternatives with fucking morons. Your bad. This isn't an excluded-middle deal. There are certainly times when hitting your kid would be appropriate... say, if she's about to run into a busy street or something. It's an immediate deterrance, but nothing more. It will not teach the kid any kind of lesson, just that "if I do X when daddy is around, I'll get hit." In the supermarket example, do you have to hit the kid? No. If you don't hit the kid, do you have to give him candy? No. Do you have to do nothing, then? No. See, there are such things as non-violent punishments, where you have privileges based on contingencies of good behaviour. If they're bad, you revoke aforementioned privileges! Brilliant! And just as effective, too. Granted, maybe hitting is warranted anyways, if the kid is drawing too much attention. But this is a much easier case than it is for kids in schools. Is it the right of other people to hit your kid if they find his behavior offensive? I'd certainly hope not. The non-violent alternative always open to teachers is to just send the kid out of the class or something. See? Disruption removed. Is this not "harsh" enough? As if beating / humiliating kids would not only stop disruptive behavior, but encourage them to try harder as well? You have to be kidding me. Do you have any - any - evidence for this except that "I have an opinion and I'm very loud about it"? I mean, Anyways, if you want to get into studies, here's a good source. I'll quote the good parts for you. A longitudinal study of 442 boys born in 1972, found that one out of every three boys -- those who have a specific version of a gene -- who was maltreated during childhood will be almost certain to exhibit anti-social or criminal behavior as an adult. Maltreatment was defined as including physical abuse. If this is true for boys subjected to physical abuse, one wonders if the violence associated with conventional levels of corporal punishment could also trigger violent or aggressive behavior later in life? Unfortunately, the study is recent, and researchers do not yet know what level of violence is needed to trigger the negative adult behavior. It can be argued that, in the absence of precise data, parents should err on the side of caution and avoid spanking at all costs. Corporal punishment studies have linked spanking during childhood to higher levels of adult depression, psychiatric problems, and addictions. Another study shows that children who were spanked have a lower IQ when compared to children whose parents used other methods of discipline and control. Because a spanking works for a while, the parent often repeats the spanking whenever the child misbehaves. Corporal punishment may then become a standard response to any misbehavior. This can lead to increasingly frequent and harsher spanking which can exceed the "reasonable force" threshold and become abuse. According to the Institute for the Prevention of Child Abuse, "85% of all cases of physical abuse result from some form of over-discipline through the use of corporal punishment". Each year about 44 Canadian children are known to have been killed by family members; 35 of them by parents. The figures for the United States are probably about 10 times higher. And yea, since you seem to be lacking, maybe you could start an argument with a non-anecdotal basis from the pro-spanking page of RT. But I think the best they have is "well, spanking doesn't necessarily cause children to become fucked up", which is, of course, a long way from what you're trying to prove. I could also link statements from the National Association of School Psychologists or American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, but hey... they're just a bunch of dirty hippies, right? (edited by hhallahh on 04-21-04 03:37 PM) (edited by hhallahh on 04-21-04 03:45 PM) |
|||
|
kitty Come on babe, pet the pussy ;) Level: 70 Posts: 707/2449 EXP: 2962406 For next: 53405 Since: 03-15-04 From: Scranton, PA, USA Since last post: 3 hours Last activity: 3 hours |
| ||
Two reasons I wouldn't trust that "Study":What gene? And this is called an independent variable and must be controlled for. This experiment did not compare violence between children with this mysterious "gene" who were puhished corporally, and those who have it but were not punished. The fact that this was mentioned sticks out in my mind as proving that this experiment is anything but scientific. Using a scientific calculation known as "Chi-squared" there is less than a 95% chance that this occured from anything other than random sampling error (think about when they poll 1000 people in a city to see a political candidate's popularity, it's always +/- 5% or more error). Although the spanking article cites religious views I do not have a view on, I will highlight some things from it that I agree with: 1) They differentiate between "abusive hitting and nonabusive spanking." (I stated this earlier) 2) Spanking should be reserved for instances where non-compliance persists, and only if non-physical disciplinary methods have failed. "For very compliant children, milder forms of correction will suffice and spanking may never be necessary." 3) The child should receive "at least as much encouragement and praise for good behavior as correction for problem behavior." (I actually stated this earlier as well) 4) Spanking should be restricted to a range of ages. It "is inappropriate before 15 months of age and is usually not necessary until after 18 months. It should be less necessary after 6 years, and rarely, if ever, used after 10 years of age." 5) If spanking does not seem to work, a parent should never increase the severity of hitting. Professional help should be sought, and/or other disciplinary techniques tried. I'm not advocating beating the shit out of kids by any means, let's make sure we're perfectly clear on that. As for arguments against spanking, they range from causing physical pain or damage to mental pain and damage. If you use capital punishment correctly, and only as a means of punishment when needed (when all else fails, when the misdeed was severe, etc). "Time outs" never work, and I can tell you that from firsthand experience, whereas spanking does. But as I said, there is a difference between spanking and abuse, and too many people cross the line, and far too many others think that any spanking is abuse. What would you do if you were a parent and your child was throwing a tantrum which you could not stop or control? Unless you give him what he wants (which is equivalent to spoiling him rotten) or picking him up and looking him right in the eyes and telling him "Now, you're not going to get what you want all the time, and if you don't stop crying, I'll spank you," he'll keep crying. This is when all else has failed, like locking him in his room, or punishing by any other means possible. As for groups dedicated to child psychiatry, I would imagine that they understand that every child is different, and may need different methods of discipline, where many children don't need to be spanked. I think I was spanked a grand total of 3 times in my life. And I can honestly say I deserved each one  Although I hated it at the time, I realize now that had something else been done, it wouldn't have been effective and I wouldn't have turned out to be an independent person capable of independent thought.I don't see how sending the child out of class is punishment. Perhaps if it were like Japan, and we sent them out of the classroom and made them hold buckets of water or other similar punishment, then it'd be effective. But we can't do that in America because that's abuse! This is what I'm talking about. Even something that simple is forbidden because too many people think that all of these are inherently evil and will turn their kids into violent thugs. |
|||
|
hhallahh Bob-Omb Level: 38 Posts: 114/607 EXP: 365476 For next: 4971 Since: 03-15-04 From: Portland, OR Since last post: 73 days Last activity: 60 days |
| ||
| What gene? And this is called an independent variable and must be controlled for. This experiment did not compare violence between children with this mysterious "gene" who were puhished corporally, and those who have it but were not punished. I'd give the researchers more credit to let such an obvious methodological error slip by, so I'd assume it safe to assume that those with this gene have a high rate of anti-social behavior relative to whatever baseline there is. Although I'd admit that this is a strange conclusion, that beatings lead to antisocial behavior largely because of one gene. The fact that this was mentioned sticks out in my mind as proving that this experiment is anything but scientific. Using a scientific calculation known as "Chi-squared" there is less than a 95% chance that this occured from anything other than random sampling error (think about when they poll 1000 people in a city to see a political candidate's popularity, it's always +/- 5% or more error). But I didn't like that study, hence I didn't quote it. Anyways, you water down the conditions under which corporal punishment has failed, and I'm less inclined to argue with you. I don't mind too much if physical punishment is used as a last resort, however I don't think that that's necessary. If you lock the kid up and just tune him out, it shouldn't be a big deal. The only exception I'd really make is if the kid is making a scene, you've exhausted the other options, and you can't just remove him/her from other people somehow. The main worry I have with an accepted norm of corporal punishment is that lazy parents abuse it. With disastrous results. If knocking little Johnny on his ass is easier than trying to "reason" with him, why not do it? And when knocking him on his ass doesn't work as well anymore (which, over time, it won't), then... you can start putting cigarettes out on his arm or something! Or put his hand on the stove for 5-10 seconds! Wonderful. And, of course, the problem with giving teachers this kind of authority is that it'll be easy and tempting for them to abuse in order to make their day easier. The major negative effect of corporal punishment in a classroom setting is that it creates an extrinsic motivation to learn rather than an intrinsic one. That is to say, kids will learn because they're afraid of being beaten, not because they want to learn. And you can say, "beat the kids who don't want to learn", but that's more or less giving up on them. I'd say it'd be better to instill 1 out of every 10 troubled kids with intrinsic motivation than to pass all 10 of them, only to have them all end up rejecting any intellectual virtues and the authority that tried to force them down on them. The socializing aspect of a school is probably more important than the specific facts that get crammed into the heads of students, and corporal punishment definately socializes them in a bad way. I initially assumed that you were advocating corporal punishment through all grade levels, but I guess that's not right. Hitting younger children may be more effective, but what's the point? Eventually they'll be too old to hit, and then they'll just tune you out. Does it maintain order? That's debatable. I don't really have any evidence either way, but I think the long-term negative effects of hitting students would strongly outweight the shorn-term benefits. I'm not an absolutist on these issues. Hell, I think that under certain circumstances, it's okay to beat your girlfriend (or boyfriend.) Problem is that if everyone started believing "oh, it's okay to beat my girlfriend!" you would end up with a lot more harm than good. Kinda like drugs... I'm sure you can smoke crack responsibly, but I wouldn't go around saying that everyone should be allowed to smoke crack. Or something. (edited by hhallahh on 04-21-04 06:27 PM) |
|||
|
kitty Come on babe, pet the pussy ;) Level: 70 Posts: 711/2449 EXP: 2962406 For next: 53405 Since: 03-15-04 From: Scranton, PA, USA Since last post: 3 hours Last activity: 3 hours |
| ||
| I'm not saying that students who don't want to learn should be "Beat." I'm saying that students who are disruptive, disrespectful, who cause trouble and/or fights, etc should be beat. Students who don't want to learn should just be failed until they do learn! And yes, lazy parents do abuse corporal punishment, I have no argument with you there. Other lazy parents give into their kids and spoil them rotten. Both of these lead to kids growing up as shitty adults and causing a lot of problems (Kids who were abused turn out violent, kids who were spoiled wind up crackheads and living on the streets, then being violent for more drugs). Other than the beating your girlfriend part (which I would never advocate), I think you and I, although we seem to be arguing, have the same views, it's just that neither one of us are expressing them in the same way. I think you'd agree with me if I said that modern schools and parents are failing at raising children, and the blame is being placed on video games and the internet, and so forth. Yeah, these are INDIRECTLY responsible for the downfall of youth, but someone has to let it happen, someone has to let kids watch too much TV, or play too many games, or stay on the internet longer than they should. Many parents use them as "Babysitters" to keep their kids occupied and out of their hair, instead of reading, or doing something beneficial, like *GASP* Playing OUTSIDE and getting EXERCISE! (Don't get me started on the "My 6 year old is 600 lbs!" shit!) |
|||
|
hhallahh Bob-Omb Level: 38 Posts: 125/607 EXP: 365476 For next: 4971 Since: 03-15-04 From: Portland, OR Since last post: 73 days Last activity: 60 days |
| ||
| I think you'd agree with me if I said that modern schools and parents are failing at raising children, and the blame is being placed on video games and the internet, and so forth. I'd agree to an extent... I think the internet and video games pose new problems for parents that are legitimate sources of problems, but that yea, if parents really tried, they could get around these things. However, I don't believe that answers like that are really solutions to any problem... "If black people tried harder, I'm sure they wouldn't get rejected for mortgages at a higher rate." "If Susie tried harder, I'm sure she could get over her depression." etc. etc. I can't say deny human agency, but I can say that it's a really disasterous social strategy to rely on people to be able to just overcome their problems via hard work. Or something like that. Normally I wouldn't take a stance on an issue like that... "yea, parents have responsibility, but on the other hand, video games are correlated to anti-social behavior and lots of parents work, etc. etc."... kinda walk the middle, but in the case of beating children in school, I can find no "but..." to defend it, because there's always options that you can exhaust before you beat them. And beating them has really troublesome long-term effects that you want to avoid. |
|||
|
kitty Come on babe, pet the pussy ;) Level: 70 Posts: 712/2449 EXP: 2962406 For next: 53405 Since: 03-15-04 From: Scranton, PA, USA Since last post: 3 hours Last activity: 3 hours |
| ||
| Alright, I'm convinced you're either not reading what I'm saying, you don't understand it, or you're just plain stupid. What you're saying proves that you haven't listened to a word I've said, and your counter-arguments and crude circumstances are very inadequate. You keep insisting that I'm suggesting that children need to have the shit kicked out of them. Just shut up already, I'm not saying beat kids. There's a huge difference between a slap and beating. Either you were/are abused, you're a hippie, or you're stupid. If you were abused, I feel sorry for you, but I am not advocating abuse in the slightest. Reread everything I said. If you say that I'm suggesting beating one more time, I will suggest beating you. |
|||
|
hhallahh Bob-Omb Level: 38 Posts: 127/607 EXP: 365476 For next: 4971 Since: 03-15-04 From: Portland, OR Since last post: 73 days Last activity: 60 days |
| ||
| Yea, you've said that for the past 5 posts. I just find the verb "beat" to be more comprehensive than "slap/rap/whatever". I think you basically have the same outcomes whatever verb you use. Granted, on a smaller scale, but whatever. I could just reword all my posts and say the exact same thing. "I can find no "but..." to defend it, because there's always options that you can exhaust before you slap them." You're the one making overassumptions here. I'm not trying to say "beating" is synonymous to abuse or whatever. (edited by hhallahh on 04-23-04 02:58 AM) |
|||
|
marlboro Permabanned - return of seagram Level: 8 Posts: 6/19 EXP: 1955 For next: 232 Since: 04-23-04 Since last post: 547 days Last activity: 339 days |
| ||
Originally posted by Yiffy Kitten yeah I agree, here is my school schecual 1st period social studies 2nd misenglish 3rd mismath 4th normal math 5th work experience 6ix lunch 7th play computer games 8th adaptive P.E. |
|||
|
Jill In love with a dream.. Level: 36  Posts: 134/528 EXP: 296548 For next: 11562 Since: 03-15-04 From: Teh Sweden Since last post: 6 days Last activity: 14 hours |
| ||
| I always figured it was because you have to shut your brain off all the time to ignore the commercials that pop up every 5 minutes in all shows. In a country where 1 hour TV consists of 20 minutes of commercials, something is wrong. There's a limit to how much money you can make and how much you can sell. | |||
|
kitty Come on babe, pet the pussy ;) Level: 70 Posts: 744/2449 EXP: 2962406 For next: 53405 Since: 03-15-04 From: Scranton, PA, USA Since last post: 3 hours Last activity: 3 hours |
| ||
| Jilkon: The absolute worst is when they have those "World's Funniest Commercials" specials, and then BREAK FOR COMMERCIALS. Is it me or is that incredibly stupid? Anyway, hhallahh, come back when you can post something that might sway me the other way... (edited by Yiffy Kitten on 04-26-04 02:25 PM) |
|||
MathOnNapkins Math n' Hacks Level: 67  Posts: 120/2189 EXP: 2495887 For next: 96985 Since: 03-18-04 From: Base Tourian Since last post: 1 hour Last activity: 32 min. |
| ||
| One problem I've noticed in our school system (US) is that it doesn't accomodate people who, perhaps, don't want anything to do with an academic background. Someone who wants to be a welder or some other skilled laborer may not care to read Shakespeare or know what the hell cos(x) means. Lots of kids actually go to school for one reason - so they can play sports. That's it. They maintain a mininum average for that sole purpose and I'm not making this up I know people who do this. There is a current trend in some districts to move more towards vocational style education at the high school level. Hopefully that will work out, but I guess we'll have to wait and see. posted by Yiffy Kitten Why do online debates always involve flame wars? |
|||
|
kitty Come on babe, pet the pussy ;) Level: 70 Posts: 749/2449 EXP: 2962406 For next: 53405 Since: 03-15-04 From: Scranton, PA, USA Since last post: 3 hours Last activity: 3 hours |
| ||
| Oh, I'm not arguing that the curriculum shouldn't be changed, in fact it should be majorly reformed. That's why I suggested the subject names I did. I mean, I bet over 90% of Americans have no idea who the hell Heinrich Himmler was, or Archduke Ferdinand, or even Winston Churchill! These are things that shaped the way the world is today, it's important and should be taught instead of "Arts" such as Shakesphere, or forcing kids to sing against their will. This also brings up the point that more after-school activities are needed. If your school has a chorus or band or whatever, then you shoudln't need to do this during the school day. School should be more fun, kids should be more involved. If you showed kids some of these History Channel shows about Hitler or Himmler and so on, they'd be more interested about history than reading a book - I know history bored me to death, and yet I love watching about it on the History Channel! sin, cos, and tan are easy and basics which should be taught without question, because many "skilled laborers" need to use them! |
|||
|
hhallahh Bob-Omb Level: 38 Posts: 132/607 EXP: 365476 For next: 4971 Since: 03-15-04 From: Portland, OR Since last post: 73 days Last activity: 60 days |
| ||
| Why is being familiar with Himmler more important than being familiar with Shakespeare? Do you believe that there's nothing to be learned from literature? There are two contradictary functions of school, in an academic sense: To expose children to new opportunities, and also to prepare them for their future careers. Maybe some kids will never get anything out of being in band or whatever, but on the other hand, a lot of kids will, and if you didn't force them or offer it during school hours or whatever, they would have never taken those opportunities. You have to teach a variety.. 0_o; Because the other option is to just basically choose the careers of kids for them. This is probably not a good thing. You could make an argument in its favor, but I doubt you would. But future musicians aren't born with a violin in their hands, future writers aren't born with the drive to achieve their talents, and they need the opportunities that only schools can provide... Anyway, hhallahh, come back when you can post something that might sway me the other way... fyi, it's really not my purpose to convince you of anything. I just want to hear your argument and see if it can change mine. thesis / antithesis / synthesis, you know. (and fyi #2, I think that if any part of the school curriculum should be cut, it should be foreign languages. Latin and German first, then French, and then Spanish.. Spanish is useful because.. people here actually speak it, eh?) (edited by hhallahh on 04-26-04 05:08 PM) (edited by hhallahh on 04-26-04 06:21 PM) |
|||
|
MathOnNapkins Math n' Hacks Level: 67 Posts: 121/2189 EXP: 2495887 For next: 96985 Since: 03-18-04 From: Base Tourian Since last post: 1 hour Last activity: 32 min. |
| ||
Originally posted by Yiffy Kitten Indeed there is a reason they're called elementary functions. But I tutor lots of students in math and I'll be damned if most of them know what they even are. And I'm talking college students not high schoolers. And from what I can tell, most skilled laborers or professionals of a technical sort have tables to lookup the necessary values (as did mathematicians in days of old before calculators). There are shortcuts in most trades in order to make work easier. I'm not saying that knowing that cos(x) and sin(x) are distance projections on a unit circle isn't helpful, it's just that it's not always requisite to do your job. Would they care to know that cos(x) = e^(ix) - e^(-ix) / 2? Probably not. Should we draw a line between course material that is intellectual and that which is practical? |
| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 | Add to favorites | "RSS" Feed | Next newer thread | Next older thread |
| Acmlm's Board - I2 Archive - General Chat - What do American (public) schools teach? |
| | |
