DaveinElma Posted December 11, 2010 Posted December 11, 2010 http://www.buffalonews.com/editorial-page/from-our-readers/my-view/article281262.ece Just maintaining order and keeping mayhem from breaking out on daily basis was my first priority. Try to conjugate a verb on the board, and you’ll get hit with something. Ask a student to stop a disruptive behavior, and you’ll get sworn at. The list goes on and on. Never in my life have I quit a job because I just could not do it. This time I did. My sadness remains despite the vindication that I received after reading the article about the violent and threatening behavior that is common there. I had a few great students who were doing well with me and trying to learn despite the barrage of F-bombs and other items flying about the classroom every day.
boyst Posted December 11, 2010 Posted December 11, 2010 As is always the case, bad parenting. It is so sad that the only people who care about these kids are the teachers who sacrafice so much to only give them so little. They burden our schools while they are young then continue to burden us in courtrooms and jailhouses.
Peace Posted December 12, 2010 Posted December 12, 2010 Why is there mandatory schooling? If the parents don't see fit to get them prepared for school, why should they drag the other kids and teachers down. Kick them out and be done with them. Sorry. That's a consequence. I know we can't have that.
GG Posted December 12, 2010 Posted December 12, 2010 It's borrowed from the "progressive" movements at the turn of the last century. Unfortunately in many of those places stupidity is also a societal sin and parents are legally responsible for the kids' school attendance. No one should be surprised that we're raising generations of stupid when there are no repercussions to the parents.
Nanker Posted December 12, 2010 Posted December 12, 2010 It's borrowed from the "progressive" movements at the turn of the last century. Unfortunately in many of those places stupidity is also a societal sin and parents are legally responsible for the kids' school attendance. No one should be surprised that we're raising generations of stupid when there are no repercussions to the parents. And increasingly kids are being born to single parent families. The only people that seems interested in getting married these days are the gays and lesbians.
X. Benedict Posted December 13, 2010 Posted December 13, 2010 http://www.buffalonews.com/editorial-page/from-our-readers/my-view/article281262.ece I think the key word she mentioned is Charter. There are a lot of good Charters. But chances are with an entirely new or young teaching staff (like many charters), and most likely an inexperienced principal, a pretty lady that lives in Amherst doesn't stand much of a chance in a Charter filled with high-risk kids.
IDBillzFan Posted December 13, 2010 Posted December 13, 2010 Why is there mandatory schooling? If the parents don't see fit to get them prepared for school, why should they drag the other kids and teachers down. Kick them out and be done with them. Sorry. That's a consequence. I know we can't have that. I would really love to see a voucher system in my state. Make the schools compete. Let the children of the parents who don't care stay together, and give more opportunity to children of parents who do care to get away from the crap and have a better chance.
Gene Frenkle Posted December 13, 2010 Posted December 13, 2010 I would really love to see a voucher system in my state. Make the schools compete. Let the children of the parents who don't care stay together, and give more opportunity to children of parents who do care to get away from the crap and have a better chance. Yes, classify and segregate the children based on how ****ty their parents happen to be.
IDBillzFan Posted December 13, 2010 Posted December 13, 2010 Yes, classify and segregate the children based on how ****ty their parents happen to be. Why would a progressive like yourself have trouble with this plan? All we hear from folks like yourself is how the odds are stacked against the middle class. One problem concerns parents who DO care about their child's schooling but CAN'T afford anything but the piece of crap educational building run by tenured educators too scared for their lives to even stay in their job. Vouchers is a real chance for them to significantly reduce the cost for private schooling so their child can get the education they prefer in an environment that will help them thrive. But no, let's cheat the middle class while stunting the development of many kids because heaven forbid we "classify" someone as anything other than just "another student at another school."
GG Posted December 13, 2010 Posted December 13, 2010 (edited) I think the key word she mentioned is Charter. There are a lot of good Charters. But chances are with an entirely new or young teaching staff (like many charters), and most likely an inexperienced principal, a pretty lady that lives in Amherst doesn't stand much of a chance in a Charter filled with high-risk kids. It is odd though, as most of the inner-city charters that I'm familiar with that kind of behavior is not tolerated and the problem kids are tossed out very quickly given the high demand for slots in those schools. Very rare to see a full classroom of troublemakers in a charter, especially when she's comparing that school to inner city public schools. I'd like to hear the rest of the story. Edited December 13, 2010 by GG
DC Tom Posted December 13, 2010 Posted December 13, 2010 Forced? Looks to me like they chose to quit, not were forced to. Not that I blame them, under those working conditions. Still a choice...
Rob's House Posted December 13, 2010 Posted December 13, 2010 Ok, I'll bite. What is the criteria for when a school does not have to teach a child anymore. Just for starters, a pattern of insubordination, threats of violence against teachers and students, repeated truency. I'm sure you could put together a panel of liberal social workers that have the final say to make sure kids aren't being tossed unfairly.
Peace Posted December 13, 2010 Posted December 13, 2010 (edited) Just for starters, a pattern of insubordination, threats of violence against teachers and students, repeated truency. I'm sure you could put together a panel of liberal social workers that have the final say to make sure kids aren't being tossed unfairly. I see his question is directed at me because you quoted it. Still, your answer is perfect by me. We force kids to go to school when it should be regarded at least a tiny bit as a privilege that you can lose by making school unlivable for the kids and teachers who are trying. Putting teens on the street is a harsh school consequence for bad bahavior but the benefit to those left behind who actually want to learn would be inestimable. And who are we kidding? The "worst" of those kids are going to end up on the streets anyways. Why let them toxify schools for the kids who have potential? Edited December 13, 2010 by Peace
pBills Posted December 13, 2010 Posted December 13, 2010 I see his question is directed at me because you quoted it. Still, your answer is perfect by me. We force kids to go to school when it should be regarded at least a tiny bit as a privilege that you can lose by making school unlivable for the kids and teachers who are trying. Putting teens on the street is a harsh school consequence for bad bahavior but the benefit to those left behind who actually want to learn would be inestimable. And who are we kidding? The "worst" of those kids are going to end up on the streets anyways. Why let them toxify schools for the kids who have potential? Should we also just give up on those students?
DC Tom Posted December 13, 2010 Posted December 13, 2010 Should we also just give up on those students? They gave up first.
Peace Posted December 13, 2010 Posted December 13, 2010 They gave up first. They can get their GEDs whenever they have the desire and seriousness to do it. How much can the entirety of society do for the people giving it the finger?
Rob's House Posted December 13, 2010 Posted December 13, 2010 (edited) I see his question is directed at me because you quoted it. Still, your answer is perfect by me. We force kids to go to school when it should be regarded at least a tiny bit as a privilege that you can lose by making school unlivable for the kids and teachers who are trying. Putting teens on the street is a harsh school consequence for bad bahavior but the benefit to those left behind who actually want to learn would be inestimable. And who are we kidding? The "worst" of those kids are going to end up on the streets anyways. Why let them toxify schools for the kids who have potential? I was responding to Conner. Is there something you want to tell us? Edited December 13, 2010 by Rob's House
Peace Posted December 13, 2010 Posted December 13, 2010 I was responding to Conner. Is there something you want to tell us? No. I have him on ignore and because you responded to him, I saw his question in your quoted text. It was that rare moment where conner didn't have his troll hat on so I responded.
Rob's House Posted December 13, 2010 Posted December 13, 2010 No. I have him on ignore and because you responded to him, I saw his question in your quoted text. It was that rare moment where conner didn't have his troll hat on so I responded. Damn!!! I thought I had finally proved that Conner was just a trolling profile some one created to !@#$ with people.
bartshan-83 Posted December 13, 2010 Posted December 13, 2010 Stoop Kids and Corner Kids. If you're familiar with The Wire you know what I'm talking about. If not, it was a plot-line of the 4th season in which a retired police officer worked with some academia types to create a system of classroom segregation. Not a novel concept of course, but they attempted to identify the worst disruptors who simply could not exist in a normal classroom. The idea was that the other 90% of the class would greatly benefit without their presence. They removed 2-3 "corner kids" from every class and isolated them together. This new class didn't have a traditional teaching agenda and was monitored by multiple adults. It obviously had a lot of drama, but the idea was to focus on ways to reach kids who, for an abundance of reasons, cannot function in a normal classroom environment. In the show, the kids spent time talking about the dynamics of being in gangs and basically surviving in their environments. There was a even a "Dangerous Minds" moment where 3 kids won a group activity and got to go out to dinner with the teacher and sure enough, could not deal with the culture shock of a nice restaurant. In the end, the program was scrapped because standardized testing was forced upon them and they reverted to their behavior problems when they were forced to be taught that way. Like I said, not a novel concept and I'm certainly not equating a TV show with reality (although The Wire surely hit the bulls-eye far better than most). But it's an interesting idea that kept me thinking for awhile after watching it. The tug of war between not wanting to pigeonhole or write-off young children by segregating them vs. making hard choices that may be more in line with reality than we are comfortable with is very difficult. The problems with education seem to come from all sides and I think sometimes its easy to pick a culprit and focus the blame too narrowly. It's just so overwhelming, whenever I start thinking about it, I end up with more questions than answers. I do know that I have tons of respect for the teachers who work in those awful environments. Dealing with the day-to-day abuse is bad enough, but the underlying fear that you are fighting a losing battle in a broken game where the stakes are so high (educating our youth) has to be infinitely worse. It's depressing enough to talk with friends (or on a message board) about how bad the education system is. It has got to be soul-crushing when you are actually on the front lines.
Recommended Posts