Once you designate gang members beating a serious student unconsicious as victims, the rest of the viewpoint falls into place, but how can you do this? In au's example, you are not dealing with misbehavior. A fairly high level felony, actually, and racially motivated to boot, which would enhance the attack to 'hate crime' in some states.
cobalt wrote: It seems a shame that blaming the victim is considered a viable point of view. quote]
My own child's experience in school was quite positive, so I'm at a disadvantage in this topic. If, as you say, the problem is not with the 5 and 6 year-olds, at what age does the problem seem to emerge? Perhaps that might help us link the problem back to the sources. I'm still guessing that the problem emerges with puberty and the extra demands that makes on the body, leading to a need for better nutrition which is obviously not happening. Think about it. Really think about it. If you haven't known hunger, it's hard to understand its effects. Also, it might be interesting to consider at what age the problem is NOT happening, for example colleges (past puberty), elementary school (before puberty). Not really a problem with girls, is it? Is the problem just with puberty-aged boys? Where are the stats? The facts and figures? And, what year did the problem seem to escalate more significantly? These answers would provide more insight.
I seriously doubt that these gang members are going home to complete meals that satisfy their nutritional needs. The results? Agitation--undefined to the sufferer; a racing mind searching for someone, something to blame; an unclear mind that cannot focus on lectures or text; paranoia. Even if, let's say for my detractors, nutrition is not the problem, what's the harm in seeing that basic, easy to satisfy, need is fulfilled? It could be something that simple. I'm thinking that if we looked back a few years or decades when this wasn't a prevalent problem, we would indeed be in a decade before the TV dinner, which probably isn't even being served in the homes of the gang members.
"We are talking about 15 to 18 years olds in high school."
These maladjusted or aggressive adolescents are not suddenly there- right out of the blue. They have a history.
To follow their history to the roots doesn't make them victims in a sense they should be treated "with kid's gloves".
But it could help to see where to start preventing.
To punish now wouldn't help to prevent future incidents, I fear.
You have to start earlier.
ul, You've said a mouth full. These kids just don't become hoodlums at 16. There's a problem much earlier in their lives, and that's where the solution lies. c.i.
cicerone imposter
No doubt the problem is not one that began when the individual reached 15. It results from the lack of parental supervision, environment and peer pressure and our permissive society. How could schools or teachers contend with those problems? Should they have to? The mission of a teacher is to teach not to be parents. Schools should be houses of learning not cafeterias, day care centers and above all they should not be war zones
Here's another link to an article claiming that nutrition and excercise increases self-esteem which discourages using drugs and being involved with gangs:
www.eatright.org/pr/press0296b.html
au: Just think what those first teachers to reach the South and educate freed slaves had to contend with: basic hygiene issues! As a teacher, you work within the times you are teaching in. That is reality.
au, There's no question that our schools and teachers are over-burdened with more than teaching our children the three r's. Another big problem is the underfunding of our schools. We expect our schools and teachers to be miracle workers; to take the place of teacher, parent, supervisor, psychologist, and provide school supplies the district will not or unable to. Who's fault is that? Much of the fault belongs to the parents, the administrators of our schools, and how our government funds our schools. That means we are the cause of most of the problems that exists today. I'm not sure when it happened, but this country does not know how to take responsibility for themselves and their own children. Pointing the finger at teachers will never resolve this problem. It begins with the home, our/their environment, respect for our educators and learning, and identifying problems early to find early solutions for them. I'm sure dupre's idea to this forum about nutrition has a bearing on identifying some of the problems associated with juvenile misconduct. If we can send a man to the moon, I'm sure we can spend the money to find solutions for our children, and their future. c.i.
Critics Attack Suspension of 33 Philadelphia Kindergartners
By SARA RIMER
PHILADELPHIA, Dec. 14 ; A report this week that 33 kindergartners had been suspended from Philadelphia schools this year under a tough new discipline policy has brought strong reactions from parent groups and advocates for children, who say such suspensions could traumatize young students.
"It's almost like they've given up on the children," said Wendell A. Harris, chairman of safety and discipline for the school district's parents' council.
The discipline policy was imposed this fall by Paul G. Vallas, the new leader of the schools. It calls for principals to report all "serious incidents" and to apply appropriate remedies. The policy is intended to bring safety and order to schools that have been beset for years by chaos and violence
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/12/16/education/16KIND.html?ex=1040101200&en=86d7b16211832883&ei=5059&partner=AOL
Is this appropriate?
Suggest you read the entire article before you decide.
au, Before I even skimmed through your link, I already knew my answer. When teachers are able to identify inappropriate behavior in kindergartners, that's exactly the time to find the solutions. It's the most effective time in their lives to change behavior by helping them through their problems. What worries me most is how the so-called professionals in our educational system are so short-sighted, they can't see the forest for the trees. I'm not a professional educator, but I see what they did to those 33 younsters is criminal. They are not doing their jobs. They might as welll toss their PhD's into the garbage can. c.i.
‘HOOKY' MOM: I'D DO JAIL
By CARL CAMPANILE UNEXCUSED ABSENCE:
Alexandra Hidalgo, 14, studies at home because her mom won't send her to Lafayette HS in Brooklyn, which the schools chancellor calls child abuse.
- NYP: Michael Norcia
December 16, 2002 -- EXCLUSIVE
A defiant Brooklyn mom has kept her 14-year-old daughter out of her high school the entire year because she considers it too dangerous - and she's willing to go to jail over the matter. Alexandra Hidalgo was expected to register as a freshman at troubled Lafayette HS in September, her zoned school.
http://www.nypost.com/news/regionalnews/64735.htm
From your link: "Under a new federal law, students could request transfers out of unsafe schools. But the state has yet to define what constitutes "dangerous." Sounds like more government gobligook. Have laws that cannot be enforced, because they forgot all about the definition of "dangerous." c.i.
cicerone imposter
Someone must explain to me how a law allowing the transfer out of unsafe or for that matter failing schools solves the problem. The school is still unsafe and failing for those students still attending.
I relate this to a work situation that I ran into more than once. A supervisor who had a trouble employee in his department rather than going through the exercise and trouble of having the employee fired would at the first opportunity transfer the said employee to another department. Did that solve the problem? It did for this supervisor. But, you fill in the but.
au, It doesn't. There are many variables to consider for each parent when it concerns their children's health and safety. If faced with the same dilemma of sending my teenage daughter to an unsafe school, I may choose to keep her at home too, or send her to another school. It seems many of the parents who allows their children to attend unsafe schools would have done something to change the school system before it got so dangerous. We all know that unsafe schools do not change into safe schools over night. I would seriously consider moving to another school district if that was necessary to safeguard my children's health and education. c.i.
