Originally posted by Metal Brain
How do you all feel about bullies getting it back in an organized way?

http://theweek.com/article/index/229391/the-texas-teacher-who-made-kindergartners-beat-up-a-bully

It is truly a terrible idea. I cannot imagine that any lesson was learned other that violence is a good way to handle problems. As a former NYC public school teacher, I can tell you simply that teachers should not hit kids or encourage children to hit each other.

It is also interesting to note that just like the initial article there is no description of the intial bullying and we are left to guess whether the response is worse than the initially incident. Here the response is inappropriate regardless of the initial incident.

Originally posted by quackquack
It is truly a terrible idea. I cannot imagine that any lesson was learned other that violence is a good way to handle problems. As a former NYC public school teacher, I can tell you simply that teachers should not hit kids or encourage children to hit each other.

It is also interesting to note that just like the initial article there is no descri ...[text shortened]... the initially incident. Here the response is inappropriate regardless of the initial incident.

When I was in middle school, 1950's, teachers carried a hickory switch, and occasionally after school there was a fist fight.

Now teachers are afraid of the thugs they teach, and kids come back to school with their gang and randomly shoot people.

Tell me about how no discipline helps.

Originally posted by normbenign
When I was in middle school, 1950's, teachers carried a hickory switch, and occasionally after school there was a fist fight.

Now teachers are afraid of the thugs they teach, and kids come back to school with their gang and randomly shoot people.

Tell me about how no discipline helps.

No one is saying no discipline.

You seem to equate beating children with discipline.

Originally posted by PsychoPawn
No one is saying no discipline.

You seem to equate beating children with discipline.

Nobody beat kids at my middle school, however some boys got a hickory switch across the hands a few times, usually once was enough.

Today discipline is absent. Send a kid home? That's a reward. He can go to the mall as he had intended in the first place. What discipline do you think works? And doesn't endanger the teacher?

Originally posted by normbenign
Nobody beat kids at my middle school, however some boys got a hickory switch across the hands a few times, usually once was enough.

Today discipline is absent. Send a kid home? That's a reward. He can go to the mall as he had intended in the first place. What discipline do you think works? And doesn't endanger the teacher?

A hickory switch across the hands is beating, it is just beating a kid's hands.

Part of the problem that I do see is the zero tolerance policies and the removal of judgement from the teacher and principals.

I think you are oversimplifying things by simply saying that there just is no discipline.

Originally posted by PsychoPawn
A hickory switch across the hands is beating, it is just beating a kid's hands.

Part of the problem that I do see is the zero tolerance policies and the removal of judgement from the teacher and principals.

I think you are oversimplifying things by simply saying that there just is no discipline.

I went to one of the toughest middle schools in Boston. Few after having the hickory switch applied by Mr. Murphy wanted the experience again. Quite simply it worked.

You think I'm oversimplifying, but don't articulate any alternative discipline. Yeh the zero tolerance, and removal of judgement from teachers is bad. Kids who want to be in school get sent home for having aspirin or other over the counter meds in their possession, and really dangerous thugs get sent home for two days, when they didn't want to be in school in the first place.

In Boston, from Middle School to High school while I was there, a teacher would send a kid to the principle's office for infractions of conduct. Three times and you were out, off to a disciplinary school, somewhat of a "boot camp" in those days. Nobody wanted that, so the discipline worked. Two years ago, I spoke to a young man who had resigned from teaching at that type of school saying they had no tools to deal with the kids sent there.

It was also common, in the 50s to hold students back, force them to repeat a grade, sometimes for purely disciplinary reasons. Now social promotions are the rule of thumb.

Originally posted by normbenign
I went to one of the toughest middle schools in Boston. Few after having the hickory switch applied by Mr. Murphy wanted the experience again. Quite simply it worked.

You think I'm oversimplifying, but don't articulate any alternative discipline. Yeh the zero tolerance, and removal of judgement from teachers is bad. Kids who want to be in school ...[text shortened]... , sometimes for purely disciplinary reasons. Now social promotions are the rule of thumb.

You think I'm oversimplifying, but don't articulate any alternative discipline.

You say that as if it's a contradiction?

I think you're oversimplifying in more than that you seem to think discipline=physical violence.

You also suggest that sending a kid home automatically means that they can go to the mall or as if that's the only option a teacher has. There is detention, there are other things that they can do also.

The primary source for discipline is the parent, not the school. If the kid has discipline problems than there are things the school can do and then it's their responsibility to communicate to the parents and that's it.

Discipline can be given by simply taking away things that the kid wants. It's as simple as that.

Originally posted by normbenign
I went to one of the toughest middle schools in Boston. Few after having the hickory switch applied by Mr. Murphy wanted the experience again. Quite simply it worked.

And now you are an adult who reserves the right to use physical violence against people who you say "disrespect" you. I suppose this is one of the ways that Mr. Murphy's physical violence against kids "worked" for you, right?

Originally posted by normbenign
When I was in middle school, 1950's, teachers carried a hickory switch, and occasionally after school there was a fist fight.

Now teachers are afraid of the thugs they teach, and kids come back to school with their gang and randomly shoot people.

Tell me about how no discipline helps.

So you want teachers to use so much violence that gangs will be intimidated? Should the police use so much violence that citizens are scared straight and if for someone reason someone ends up in prison (maybe because enough discipline did not exist) should we beat the prisoners too? In a civilized society we use methods of discipline other than simply physical violence.

Originally posted by PsychoPawn
[b]You think I'm oversimplifying, but don't articulate any alternative discipline.

You say that as if it's a contradiction?

I think you're oversimplifying in more than that you seem to think discipline=physical violence.

You also suggest that sending a kid home automatically means that they can go to the mall or as if that's the only optio ...[text shortened]... ne can be given by simply taking away things that the kid wants. It's as simple as that.[/b]

I don't rule out the use of any effective means of discipline. Limiting privileges, and detention are useful and were applied in the 50's, but so was the switch. Now teachers feel helpless, and powerless. Even the nonviolent punishments bring angry parents to school. Expulsion or the threat of it, is effective, if it could be carried out.

Originally posted by FMF
And now you are an adult who reserves the right to use physical violence against people who you say "disrespect" you. I suppose this is one of the ways that Mr. Murphy's physical violence against kids "worked" for you, right?

Your sarcastic misrepresentations of things I've said is getting old and tired. I behaved myself when Mr. Murphy patrolled the halls, and most of the time when he wasn't anyway. His authority was respected, and most chose to avoid punishment.

Do you think violence is ever justified?

Originally posted by quackquack
So you want teachers to use so much violence that gangs will be intimidated? Should the police use so much violence that citizens are scared straight and if for someone reason someone ends up in prison (maybe because enough discipline did not exist) should we beat the prisoners too? In a civilized society we use methods of discipline other than simply physical violence.

Sometimes a little physical punishment early in life, makes it unnecessary later on.

Parents don't discipline, schools don't, and we have a generation of barbarians who have no respect for authority, will fight cops straight up, intimidate teachers, bosses, and others in authority.

Nothing wrong with civilized methods, if they work. If they are new age boondoggles, they need to be discarded.

Originally posted by normbenign
Do you think violence is ever justified?

Of course it is. Preventing a rape for example. The reason your Internet Tough Guy persona is so laughable is because you reserve the right to use physical violence against people who show you "disrespect". I can dig out the quote again if necessary.

Originally posted by normbenign
Sometimes a little physical punishment early in life, makes it unnecessary later on.

Parents don't discipline, schools don't, and we have a generation of barbarians who have no respect for authority, will fight cops straight up, intimidate teachers, bosses, and others in authority.

Nothing wrong with civilized methods, if they work. If they are new age boondoggles, they need to be discarded.

As a former high school teacher and as a parent I try to teach my students and children to resolve differences without using violence. Physical punishment when a person is old enough to respond to non-physical threats sends the wrong message, builds resentment and escalates situations. They are simply better ways for a person who is in charge to resolve a dispute.

Originally posted by quackquack
As a former high school teacher and as a parent I try to teach my students and children to resolve differences without using violence. Physical punishment when a person is old enough to respond to non-physical threats sends the wrong message, builds resentment and escalates situations. They are simply better ways for a person who is in charge to resolve a dispute.

There was a rather excellent series on BBC4 on corporal punishment. There are
advocates who state that its not really punishment at all unless the recipient feels
pain. As for breeding resentment, yes, if the punishment is unjustified, but i cannot
think of a single instance where i was physically punished for a misdemeanor and it
bred to resentment, on the other hand, having a teacher shout abusively in my face,
attempt to ridicule me, write endless punishment exercises has certainly left more of a
stigma and a sense of injustice than if they had just given me six of the best. The
whole system is so old, its based on some Greek model 3000 years ago, for goodness
sake if the taught the kids things they were actually interested in, its half the battle.