15
   

We're from the government and we're here to help....

 
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 Jun, 2013 10:52 am
@BillRM,
I don't remember any "stress full teenage years".
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 Jun, 2013 11:24 am
@spendius,
Quote:
I don't remember any "stress full teenage years".


Amazing you have no problems and stresses in starting to deal with male/female relationships and changing peer relationships and of course the normal conflicted of starting to become a more independent person from your parents and on and on?

Either you are one hell of an unique human or there is something wrong with your memory.
firefly
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 Jun, 2013 11:46 am
@BillRM,
Quote:

An the fact that suicides will occur during the stress full teenage years and more so if the stress is increase by needing to deal with a new culture and language have what to do with survey forms or force academic tracking of students?

It has direct relevance to the kind of SEL survey that provoked this thread, which, in part, was done as an attempt to identify significantly "at risk" students--including those students possibly at risk for suicide--because Batavia H.S. had several student suicides in recent years. That survey, the BIMAS assessment, yielded "at risk" scores, and indicated the severity/strength of the risk factors for each student.

Similarly, there were issues about the East Hampton school not recognizing that the Hispanic student who committed suicide was "at risk" for that. Schools are expected to have some awareness of the major social/emotional issues that students are dealing with that can put them "at risk" for things like suicide, and to try to make interventions when possible, to help them in dealing with such stress.

You're the one trying to make an issue of "force academic tracking" in this thread. I posted a link to an article about dynamic grouping within elementary school classrooms, mainly because I thought boomerang might be interested in it. And that sort of dynamic grouping, in a single elementary school classroom, has absolutely nothing to do with "force academic tracking" the way you've been referring to it. It's really a way of providing more individualized teaching and instruction, within a self-contained elementary school classroom, so that different rates of learning among students can be addressed. I would have enjoyed elementary school much more if such a model had been used when I was a student, so I can't really see its major drawbacks, other than it requires much more work and effort on the teacher's part.

And I'm glad that school in the Hamptons is making improved efforts to understand and consider the social/emotional factors, including ethnic and economic factors, that impinge on their students, with their outreach to the Hispanic community. Hopefully, that will contribute to preventing more student suicides in their district in the future.

BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 Jun, 2013 12:09 pm
@firefly,
Quote:
It has direct relevance to the kind of SEL survey that provoked this thread, which, in part, was done as an attempt to identify significantly "at risk" students--including those students possibly at risk for suicide--because Batavia H.S. had several student suicides in recent years.


An what backing is there that such studies are useful in IDing such suicides in the making and by so doing so reducing the numbers of suicides?

Have there been studies to weight the benefits of such studies to the likely harm of labeling a student as an at risk student?

Sorry good intentions is not enough when you are invading the privacy rights of students and their family with special note of not getting an opt in permission to do so from the parents ahead of time and also not explaining to the students in clear terms that they themselves can refused to take part in such a survey.

Hell the shame of being known as an at risk child could even help provoked the very thing you are trying to prevent.

Children should not be experimented on with special note of doing so without clear parents permissions.
firefly
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 Jun, 2013 12:56 pm
@BillRM,
Quote:
Children should not be experimented on with special note of doing so without clear parents permissions.

The children were not being "experimented on" in any way. They were simply handed an SEL assessment survey questionnaire that they were free not to answer--it was not mandatory, and they were not subjects in an experiment.

They had the parents permission--by not choosing to opt their child out, the parent was consenting to the child's participation in the survey.
Quote:
Hell the shame of being known as an at risk child...

What "shame"? You think a child's significantly "at risk" score was announced over the school PA system? Why is there shame in a student needing help, or some sort of intervention, because they are being bullied, or under some other severe social/emotional stress, that has them contemplating or attempting suicide? Schools already deal with such matters, and the information is kept confidential. The Batavia survey was only intended to identify a significantly "at risk" student they were unaware of or might have missed. In most cases, the school likely knows who such students are and they are already addressing the problem--that's what their school support services already deals with.

In other threads, you've carried on and said mental health issues were behind things like school shootings, and better access to mental health treatment was needed. Now you seem to want the school to stay out of such matters, and imply that the school will "stigmatize" the child by identifying those issues and trying to address them. Make up your mind about what you want.

A few weeks ago, a student was arrested for planning to blow up his high school.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/25/grant-acord-bomb_n_3337706.html

And earlier this year, two 5th graders were arrested for planning to kill a classmate.
http://www.cnn.com/2013/02/14/justice/washington-school-murder-plot

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/5th-graders-trial-plan-murder-classmate-article-1.1303381

Fortunately, potential tragedies in both those cases were averted by tips. But there is no indication that either school had any awareness that these students had such serious difficulties with violent thoughts and impulses. If an SEL survey can help to identify such "at risk" students beforehand, and an appropriate intervention can be made before such plots are hatched, I think that's preferable to waiting until a student harms someone else, or themselves, or comes close to doing that.

BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 Jun, 2013 01:01 pm
@firefly,
I was very very lucky to have a family that went out of their ways to supports my interests and maintain my self esteem so the harm that part of the school system try to do to me in labeling me at best an average student and then trying to steer me away from the future I desired as a result of that label just roll off my back.

They purchase a very nice tube VOM meter for an eleven or twelve birthday gift and even got me a second hand oscilloscope later and would take me by train into New York city long before I reach the age where I could do so by myself to visit radio row.

Hell they even could be talk a few times a year to visit a wonderful large second hand tech bookstore a hundred or so miles away from our home.

Wonderful parents and grandparents and it is too bad that not all children facing a school system negative labeling does not have that level of support at home.

We all are also in the debt of Edison mother who when told that her son was stupid and could not learn by his teacher took him out of that school and home school him.


Quote:


http://www-scf.usc.edu/~sgabay/academic%20labeling.htm

Why do labels carry such significance in an academic environment? After all, shouldn’t they just be considered modes of classification within the classroom to better aid the teacher in providing an environment that is most conducive to the student’s learning? While such a means of classification certainly helps teachers of learning-disabled students by specifying the type of aid that these students need, it provides for regular, mainstreamed students an opportunity for much bias within the classroom because every label—“slow,” “bright,” “trouble-maker,” or “difficult”—entails a set of expectations that are associated with it—expectations that, when made known to the student, may become a self-fulfilling prophecy, “an expectation which defines a situation [that] comes to influence the actual behavior within the situation so as to produce what was initially assumed to be there” (Rist, 153).

Ray C. Rist’s study in the 1970s asserted that “the expectations teachers hold for their students can be generated as early as the first few days of the school year and then remain stable over the months to follow” (153). He observed a kindergarten teacher who, after only 8 days of working with her students, had separated her students into three tables, or working groups, based on their socioeconomic status (SES) and on what she assumed would be their academic abilities. Rist observed how, throughout the year, the teacher verbalized her expectations of her students, and how she constantly praised those who were in the middle-class table, as opposed to the table at which poor students who were on welfare were sitting. Rist, after observing this same group of students during their first and second grade years, saw that the original groups that their kindergarten teacher had separated them into were perpetuated as the students advanced into different grade levels, to the extent that their second grade teacher used the same classifications to label her students: the middle-class students were the “Tigers;” the students from working-class families were the “Cardinals;” and the poor students carried the name, “Clowns.” Based on the results of his study, Rist concluded that, “What had begun as a subjective evaluation and labeling by the teacher took on objective dimensions as the school proceeded to process the children on the basis of the distinctions made when they first began” (Rist, 152-153). In a case such as this, it is obvious how a teacher’s own expectations and assumptions about the academic promise that each of her students demonstrated shifted into an “objective” reality because each of the students’ subsequent teachers made the same distinctions.

There are numerous factors that cause a teacher to create a set of expectations for her students. Such expectations can be the results of firsthand information—information that the teacher knows or sees through her interaction with her students. The student’s race, gender, ethnicity, and appearance fall into this category. Teachers who are biased against a specific race, for example, will have lower expectations of students within that race. Similarly, as was seen in the example above, where Rist observed students’ classification into ability groups based on their SES, a student’s socioeconomic status creates a set of expectations from the teacher or administrator based, not on ability, but on other factors that should normally not be determinants of a student’s success. Firsthand information is also that which is obtained by the teacher through the interpersonal interaction that he sees among his students, or between himself and his students. When a teacher sees his or her students interact positively with other classmates, he develops a more positive attitude toward the student, as well—a positive attitude which carries with it high expectations. These expectations, in turn, result in a teacher’s varied behavior in order to allow such expectations to be realized. She “operationalizes her expectations of these different groups of children in terms of her differentials of teaching time, her use of praise and control, and the extent of autonomy within the classroom,” (Rist, 153) demonstrating her effort in allowing her expectations of her students to become a reality.

Such expectations can also be formed on the basis of secondhand information, or information that the teacher obtains through external sources, such as through students’ test results, previous report cards, permanent records, or evaluations from other sources, such as welfare agencies or psychological clinics. Based on secondhand information, the teacher can create expectations of her students without having yet interacted with them. A study conducted by Rosenthal and Jacobson (1968), attempted to “provide empirical justification for a truism considered self-evident by many in education: School achievement is not simply a matter of a child’s native ability, but involves directly and inextricably the teacher as well” (Rist, 151). They researched the effect of teacher expectations on student performance within the classroom by administering a test which, unknown to the students nor to the teachers, was a standardized test, Flanagan’s Test of General Ability (TOGA), which is a test that had been established in 1960. The teachers were told that this test was the Harvard Test of Inflected Acquisition, and that it would give a strong indication of which students were academic “bloomers” or “spurters.” While there was no basis for the “results” of the test, the teachers were given a list with several students’ names on them, (names that had been chosen randomly), and they were told that these students’ test results were among the highest 20% within the school. The students whose names were on these lists were intensely analyzed by the researchers and testers, so that their “general ability” that was tested through the TOGA could be reevaluated at the end of the year. By the end of the year, when the students who were in the “top 20% of the school” were tested, their scores did, in fact, demonstrate their positive performance during the year. This research, along with others conducted by numerous educational researchers, has proven that the expectations that teachers develop of their students based on either firsthand or, as seen in this situation, secondhand information, will drive the teachers’ behaviors in order to allow their expectations to become a reality.

The expectations that teachers form of their students, in addition to being the result of labels given to the students, are also great determinants in what types of labels are given to students. A student about whom the teacher expects little academic progress may have such expectations because she has been given secondhand information that might allow her to assume that the student is “slow.” Given that information, the teacher will treat her student in a manner that is appropriate for a “slow” learner, thereby strengthening the “slow” qualities of the student and allowing the label to perpetuate within the student’s academic life—not only in that one teacher’s class, but in all his subsequent classes, as well. The circularity of the relationship between academic labels and teacher expectations results in a cycle that never ends. And to students who carry a negative label such as “slow” or “difficult,” both the label and the expectations entailed by it provide a learning experience that can be painful and even counter-productive.

While the effects of the labeling theory are powerfully demonstrated within an academic setting, they have also proven to be a reality within social and behavioral settings. In the case of social deviance, Tannenbaum (1938) comments that the offender “now lives in a different world. He has been tagged…The person becomes the thing he is described as being” (Tannenbaum, 21). Once again, the effects of labeling are demonstrated through the expectations that one has of someone else. In this case, the deviant behavior, which may have only been a minor problem initially, develops into a much more serious situation because, whereas the deviant may have initially seen himself as “a habitual norm violator,” (Lemert, 62) or a primary deviant, his need to establish for himself an identity will lead to him becoming a secondary deviant, “a person whose life and identity are organized around the facts of deviance” (Lemert, 62). Such behavior, especially if it permeates into a student’s school, will undoubtedly affect the expectations that his teachers have of him, which will consequently result in his attempt to realize those expectations.

In one’s attempts to realize the expectations that are made of him, either academically or behaviorally, a student attempts to achieve what is known as the self-fulfilling prophecy, in which what is expected of him becomes a reality simply because it has been expected of him. If a student is aware that teachers have low expectations of him because, for example, he carries the label “disruptive” or “difficult,” the student will achieve the standards that have been set for him simply because he knows that such is expected of him. These expectations that he attempts to realize are usually groundless; they may be expectations that have come about by something as trivial as appearance, yet they affect the student’s achievement because he believes that he must reach the standards that have been set for him. When these standards are low, the student does not put any effort into his work or into improving his behavior because he has been labeled “slow” or “deviant:” this label has become part of his identity, and if he would achieve or behave in a way that is beyond that label, he would essentially be losing part of his identity.

Similar to the concept of the self-fulfilling prophecy is that of the Pygmalion effect. Unlike the self-fulfilling prophecy, which usually connotes one’s realization of negative qualities or expectations, the Pygmalion effect achieves the opposite, allowing a student to achieve beyond what he may have thought was possible simply because he has been told that he can. If a student who has been struggling with a certain subject for several years may want to give up, and his teacher tells him, “You will ace the test because I know you can do it!” he will achieve the Pygmalion effect by doing well. The high expectations that his teacher verbalized (or made known to him by any other means) will result in his high achievement, a result that, like the self-fulfilling prophecy, had not factual basis.

While academic and behavioral labeling has been discussed in this essay, it is also important that one understand how clinical or medical labeling can similarly affect students’ performance both academically and socially. The Journal of Learning Disabilities states that “because students with LD (learning disabilities) often experience significant difficulty in school in terms of both academic performance and peer acceptance, they are generally viewed as being at risk for low self-concept” (Elbaum, 2003). This being said, one can see how the ramifications of labeling extend in various disciplines; they are not limited solely to classroom performance, which means that the low self-concept that results from LD labeling has an effect on labeled students’ social and personal aspects, as well. Additionally, gifted students tend to show declines in academic self-concept over time (Marsh, et al; 1995), implying that as they mature, labeled students realize that they are distinguished from their peers for a specific reason, and as a result, their self-concept declines and becomes more negative. The confidence that accompanies students with a high self-concept is a key factor in motivating students to perform well in school (Cauley & Tyler, 1989), and if students do not have high expectations of their own based on their self concept, they cannot perform well in school.

The perpetual label that students carry remains with them even beyond the classroom. As young children in playgroups, they are often isolated, not usually out of their own volition, but because they carry a label that essentially transmits the message that they should be treated differently. While they should be treated according to their needs, these expectations often transpire into expectations that lack any factual basis, providing an unfair disadvantage to a child’s social development. Moreover, a student’s classification in one discipline affects his or her expectations in another discipline, as well. As a result of the distinctions made regarding such students, their academic labels also become their social labels. While a child of six years old may not have the awareness to see himself as different in being labeled “slow,” as he grows older, that label remains with him, and it becomes a means by which adults, as well as his peers, can identify him. Consequently, such a student attains a self concept of being academically, socially, or behaviorally limited, and he therefore reacts by living up to the low expectations entailed by such labels.

The effects of academic labeling display themselves in the extraordinary differences that exist in America’s education system. The labels that students are given, even if the labels are positive, such as “high-achieving” or “intelligent,” encourage labeled students to live up to what is expected of them. Similarly, students labeled as “slow” or “difficult” will work to reach the limited expectations that others have of them, thereby performing at lower levels in both academic and social settings than they would had they not carried such labels. The labeling of students, both within the classroom and outside of it, is unjust in providing such students with the opportunity to pursue higher goals in academic, as well as social, settings. They should not be told that their teachers have low expectations of them because they will attempt to realize the expectations and create a self-fulfilling prophecy. Conversely, if teachers would only realize the effects of their behavior and attitudes toward their students in terms of the way their students develop academically and socially, they would provide a myriad of opportunities for their students to succeed and achieve greater heights, rather than negatively impact their students’ futures by creating limitations for them.



References:

Cauley, K. & Tyler, B. (1989). The relationship of self-concept to prosocial behavior in children. Early Childhood Quarterly, 4, 51-60.



Elbaum, B. & Vaughn, S. (2003). For which students with learning disabilities are self-concept interventions effective? Journal of Learning Disabilities, 101-109



Marsh, H.W., Chessor, D., Craven, R., Roche, L. (1995) The effects of gifted and talented programs on academic self-concept: The big fish strikes again. American Educational Research Journal, 32, 285-321.



Lemert, E. (1972) Human Deviance, Social Problems, and Social Control. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.



Rist, R. C. (1977) “On Understanding the Processes of Schooling: The Contributions of Labeling Theory.” Exploring Education 2nd Ed. Allyn & Bacon, 2001: 149-157.



Rosenthal, R. & Jacobson, L. (1968) Pygmalion in the Classroom. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.



Tannenbaum, F. (1938) Crime and the Community. New York: Columbia University Press.



BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 Jun, 2013 01:12 pm
@firefly,
Quote:
The children were not being "experimented on" in any way. They were simply handed an SEL assessment survey questionnaire that they were free not to answer--it was not mandatory, and they were not subjects in an experiment.


That why the system punish a teacher for telling them that they did not need to take part in the survey!!!!!!!!!!

Quote:
They had the parents permission--by not choosing to opt their child out, the parent was consenting to the child's participation in the survey.


Nonsense as in an opt out plan there is no way to know even if the parents was aware of the survey and if they was if they had a clear understanding of it. The school system have zero moral right to give any child that survey without the clear express informed permissions of the parents.

We do not allow doctors to operated on children or even treated them if the parents does not tell them not to do so for example we require informed consent instead and that should had been the standard here for that survey.
roger
 
  2  
Reply Wed 12 Jun, 2013 01:21 pm
@BillRM,

BillRM wrote:

Quote:
The children were not being "experimented on" in any way. They were simply handed an SEL assessment survey questionnaire that they were free not to answer--it was not mandatory, and they were not subjects in an experiment.


That why the system punish a teacher for telling them that they did not need to take part in the survey!!!!!!!!!!



Darn good question.
0 Replies
 
firefly
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 Jun, 2013 01:28 pm
@BillRM,
Quote:
the harm that part of the school system try to do to me in labeling me at best an average student

You seem to think the school system's motive was to harm you. Maybe they were trying to protect you from setting yourself up for an academic failure experience.

And they based their assessment of you as "at best an average student" on your actual coursework, and the grades you had received. You've said your grades were B's and C's--so what should they have considered you--an outstanding student?

I'm sure that lots of people who were considered "at best an average student" in high school have gone on to do great things, lead productive and satisfying lives, and even follow their chosen career paths--even without having had the benefit of a few advanced classes in high school.

I'm not wholeheartedly in favor of tracking students, I certainly think there can be problems with tracking. I also don't think what you're harping on, with your particular case, is even a good example of the misuses or detriments to students that can result from tracking, particularly because you were allowed into the classes you wanted to take, and particularly because the school based their initial hesitation about allowing that, on your previous level of academic work in high school, as judged by your actual grades.

So, big deal, you had to fight to get into those classes. We have to fight for lots of things we want in life. It was over 50 years ago, get over it. There are worse things in life than being considered "at best an average student"--there is nothing wrong with being average, or even an "overachiever". Get over it.





firefly
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 Jun, 2013 01:31 pm
@BillRM,
Quote:
That why the system punish a teacher for telling them that they did not need to take part in the survey!!!!!!!!!!

That's not why he was reprimanded, that's not what he said to the students. Did you even read the actual reprimand that was sent to him?

Try familiarizing yourself with the facts before you comment.

0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  2  
Reply Wed 12 Jun, 2013 01:54 pm
@firefly,
Quote:
And they based their assessment of you as "at best an average student" on your actual coursework, and the grades you had received. You've said your grades were B's and C's--so what should they have considered you--an outstanding student?


Lol it was no secret that I was reading college level or near college level books in the study halls on the very subjects I was expressing an interest in taking or related to those subjects and of course I was never an average student in areas that interest me so along with the Bs and the Cs there was As already in some subject areas.

So if the jokers had taken a few minutes to talk to me instead of going just by some label that was placed on my records years before I never should have had a problem with them. Hell they could had have a teacher from one of the courses I wish to take talk to me for that matter to judge how prepare I was to take those courses. When I was given the task of talking to a possible new employee for my firm it only took me a few minutes to get an good idea of their abilities.

Then it seems that when I not only proved them wrong but wrong in a very big ways they try to find an excused for being so wrong that would reflect badly on me not them IE I was a not all that bright but an overachiever.

Replacing the one label average student for another one overachiever.

Love those assholes.
firefly
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 Jun, 2013 01:56 pm
@BillRM,
It was over 50 years ago, and the school let you take the classes.
Quote:

Replacing the one label average student for another one overachiever

And you've been labeled a lot worse in your life, including by other posters at A2K. Robert Gentel called you "the village idiot" didn't he?

Get over it. It was 50 years ago.
BillRM
 
  2  
Reply Wed 12 Jun, 2013 02:26 pm
@firefly,
For myself it was fifty years ago but for children now that have narrow interests and as a result got label average or below average years before and locked into a low level track it is now or in the near future when then they will run into a barrier to their futures if tracking become common and it is in all of our self interests not to allow such a system to be put into place thereby endangering our future engineers and technicians and such people.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 Jun, 2013 02:58 pm
@BillRM,
Quote:
Either you are one hell of an unique human or there is something wrong with your memory.


Not at all. Neither. Maybe you took normal stresses and frustrations more seriously than I did. Maybe you did have a stressful period in your teens. Maybe quite justifiably. Something that might have stressed me. Like England sliding into the sea. Or being given out lbw when I was a foot outside the line.

I don't remember any stress so what there was was not worth remembering.
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 Jun, 2013 03:10 pm
@spendius,
Quote:
Something that might have stressed me. Like England sliding into the sea.


You have your stress filter set very high in my opinion if it would take waking up one morning swimming off the French coast......... Drunk
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  4  
Reply Wed 12 Jun, 2013 03:11 pm
@firefly,
Identifying "at risk" students is a business ff. It has got to the point where the business has grown many tentacles and a very large number of people derive a good living out of it and get to look good as well. And it extends beyond students.

If nobody was "at risk" it would be necessary to create them.

Whether the cost would save more lives if spent elsewhere is a moot point.

I presume you are located somewhere in the labyrinth within which the "at risk" student is like iron ore is to a steel worker.
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 Jun, 2013 03:20 pm
@spendius,
Quote:
I presume you are located somewhere in the labyrinth within which the "at risk" student is like iron ore is to a steel worker.


LOL............and likely true.
0 Replies
 
firefly
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 Jun, 2013 03:54 pm
@spendius,
Quote:
Identifying "at risk" students is a business...

If nobody was "at risk" it would be necessary to create them.

Whether the cost would save more lives if spent elsewhere is a moot point.

Trying to evaluate risks, of all sorts, is a major business--in many spheres--particularly in medicine.
I was staggered to learn how colonoscopies--to evaluate risk of colon cancer--contribute to the high medical costs in this country. And your point that, "
whether the cost would save more lives if spent elsewhere," is particularly apt when it comes to colonoscopies because other countries spend much less on those tests than we do in the U.S., and they also use cheaper alternatives. Perhaps we'd save more lives if we didn't do these very expensive colonoscopies and we spent the money elsewhere--on other aspects of health care, or on cheaper tests which could then be available to more people.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/02/health/colonoscopies-explain-why-us-leads-the-world-in-health-expenditures.html?pagewanted=all

We want to try to learn about potential dangers before they become major threats. That's true with the cars we drive, and all sorts of medical tests, and it's true when you use SEL tests to try to identify "at risk" students who might be in danger of committing suicide, or even homicide, the aim is to try to save lives or mitigate damage.

Wherever a need develops, or there is a hint of risk, a business will follow..
Quote:
I presume you are located somewhere in the labyrinth within which the "at risk" student is like iron ore is to a steel worker.

Nope, wrong again. This isn't a personal issue for me.



BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 Jun, 2013 09:15 pm
@firefly,
Quote:
We want to try to learn about potential dangers before they become major threats. That's true with the cars we drive, and all sorts of medical tests, and it's true when you use SEL tests to try to identify "at risk" students who might be in danger of committing suicide, or even homicide, the aim is to try to save lives or mitigate damage.


As far as your analogy any numbers of medical tests had been shown to be counterproductive and results in interventions that are more harmful on average then helpful.

The medical profession had in fact had stop suggesting that many such testing be done for large scale screening of the population as there are far too many false positives resulting in unneeded follow up procedures that can cause harm in and by themselves.

The first principle is do no harm after all in the medical profession.

Now I love the idea of having surveys that are not proven to be able to predict anything at all when it come to any given individual being use on a wide scale as a screening device and labeling children in large numbers as likely to be dangerous to either themselves or even others and as a result turning their lives upside down in order to "treat" them.

Very very likely to end up doing far far far more harm to far more children then the dangers that those surveys are suppose to be addressing in the first place.

Such harmful junk science screening approaches being apply to the nation children need to be stop at once even if some people are becoming wealthy on selling this idea and more are looking forward to enjoying great wealth by offering "treatments" to a large percents of the nation children.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Jun, 2013 04:29 am
@firefly,
Quote:
, the aim is to try to save lives or mitigate damage.


Not only is that aim safe, cannot be criticised, likely to be approved, etc etc but it is pipsqueak compared to the lives saved by engineers, farmers, scientists, etc etc. And it is a great deal easier to do. Just a nice line in hand-wringing when the camera is running is required. No physics to master- no 18 hour days. No risks. And hogs the limelight.

You should see the dogfight going on here over streamlining child heart surgery. The kids don't count to opponents of the streamlining. Keeping their own inefficient little units open is all they care about.

Spokesmen for the two sides almost came to blows on Newsnight yesterday.
 

Related Topics

Kid wouldn't fight, died of injuries - Discussion by gungasnake
Public school zero tolerance policies. - Question by boomerang
Dismantling the DC voucher program - Discussion by gungasnake
Adventures in Special Education - Discussion by littlek
home schooling - Discussion by dancerdoll
Can I get into an Ivy League? - Question by the-lazy-snail
Let's start an education forum - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Educational resources on the cheap - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 06/22/2024 at 09:42:24