should we focus on vandalism more than other crimes and why

Vic, I'll look back but I'm lazy.Will report.

@ossobuco,

Yes, by my parents.

I recognise the benefits of it, and I understand the argument 'well if the parents don't then the govt should'.

The issue is that if the govt goes about trying to fix everything, then people have no motivation to fix it themselves, and they become (self made in their own minds) 'victims' of the govt's inability to fix problems...have you ever noticed that the more the govt tries to fix things, the more problems the govt has to fix?...and the more they try to fix, the more people to stop trying to solve their own problems, and the more they start blaming the govt?...and in trying to fix the problems...the govt actually teaches people to abandon self responsibility?

This is why I think, in terms of education... life skills teaching should be there for those who wish to learn (eg. after hours or before school tuition, or lunch time library tuition)...but the core of school is for teaching the foundations required for advanced education. (it's this paragraph Osso)

Help people who want to be helped...but trying to fix problems of people who don't want to be helped, or don't admit to a problem...works against itself.

2 Replies

@ossobuco,

Self responsibility is learnable, many do it on their own.

1 Reply

@ossobuco,

Yep...though I credit my parents with the foundation...it wasn't until later in life that I found the 'meaning / results' of it in society at large and as an individual.

0 Replies

@vikorr,

I think we're reaching taffy.

0 Replies

@vikorr,

On that post, sorry, I can hardly verbalize my distaste for your view.

I'll work up to it, but not this evening.

0 Replies

@dalehileman,

i do agree with that good point

0 Replies

@josh1414,

I don’t think we should focus on vandalism, because there are many other serious things that the police and other such services could focus on, such as murder, manslaughter, kidnaping and many other things that come before vandalism. Vandalism is not that serious a crime in my opinion.
But I can see the point of Vandalism being important as it can bring the wrong views to the society you live in and show the younger people the wrong things to be doing for fun and as a bit of fun. The destruction it could bring to a society and the community could separate the people who have paid their good well eared money to get the things they want to see and make their lives easier.
Vandalism could bring a change to the future in a bad way as it destroys the monuments that have been around for a long time, which the children of the future should be learning about so they know about their heritage and how the world as they know it now happened and how their lives are folding around them. They need to know about things such as the bill of rights, if that was destroyed I’m sure many people would be outraged.

0 Replies

@vikorr,

Quote:

School also should be for giving an education (one that enables higher learning)...not teaching them about life (which is what parents should be there for)

Possibly Vik you misinterpret. I wouldn't have the school advocate any sort of behavior but merely to discuss it

Maybe given today's negative connotation with the term "government", implying some sort of arbitrary, pervasive tyranny, we ought instead label such as "public"

The implications of philosophy, religion, politics, etc, upon life are treated in college, even a "public" institution such as the University of Illinois which I attended. Yet I remember no turmoil to the effect that us teenagers might thus be misled. I merely propose such ideas be introduced to the kids much earlier; in a simplified form to be sure; and to relieve their weight any participation wouldn't be graded

1 Reply

@dalehileman,

Hi Dale,

Discussing things is well and fine...it's how people learn. The current issue with schools though is that there is sooo much that parents aren't teaching their children anymore, and that everyone is saying 'well they can be taught that at school'.

If you talk to any teacher - they all feel like they don't have time to teach children about education (your basics that lead to higher education) because of the amount of 'non-core' things they have to teach children.

It's an idea that sounds good that, when combined with all the other 'sounds good' ideas...leaves little time for what schools were formed for in the first place.

Talk to teachers some time, or listen to them in blogs. It's a very common theme.

Teaching about life simply isn't something that should be the responsibility of the State...it's unfairly detrimental to those who want to learn, to those who have problems learning who could do with the extra teacher time (taken up by teaching about life), and to the bright who soak everything up....Usually these categories encompass the majority of students (likely not in all schools of course).

----------------------------------------------------

Hi Osso,

I'm not sure what you find distasteful, for I've expressed many views here :
- we should balance community rights against individual rights
- we shouldn't blame, but rather see personal responsibility & contributing circumstances
- we should take personal responsibility for our own lives
- helping people who don't want to be helped, or who don't admit a problem isn't going to work
- we should have help available for those who want help
- we should have our schools focus on core subjects...and then we'll get better educational results
- we shouldn't shift the responsibility for parenting from parents to the govt

That's off the top of my head. Is it one of these you find distasteful? Or something else?

2 Replies

@vikorr,

This is really a simple concept. Unless of course there are no fish or streams or jobs. Simple concepts are not so simple when one tries to put them into practice.

0 Replies

@vikorr,

I'm having a sloth day, will be back.

0 Replies

@vikorr,

Quote:

...everyone is saying 'well they can be taught that at school'.

Don't know about that Vik. I think most parents aren't aware there's anything wrong

Quote:

If you talk to any teacher - they all feel like they don't have time to teach children about education (your basics that lead to higher education) because of the amount of 'non-core' things they have to teach children.

You might have to reword this Vic for the benefit of the old (me) and the uninformed (me). I see no reason why kids should have to be xtaught about education; while I'm not sure what you mean by "non-core"

IO'd agree however that if my plan were to be put in effect we'd probably have to have more teachers. Neva hachi

Quote:

Teaching about life simply isn't something that should be the responsibility of the State...it's unfairly detrimental to those who want to learn,

Forgive me Vik but this sounds contradictory. Why should the eager student not want or need to know about life

Quote:

to those who have problems learning who could do with the extra teacher time (taken up by teaching about life),

I presume what you mean Vik, is that because teaching time is presently so limited that a course also about life would detract from essentials like the 3 R's. Of course that's true but as I said we might need more teachers

Quote:

and to the bright who soak everything up….

To the contrary some of the brightest kids just don't catch onto life til they're grown up when it 's often too late

1 Reply

@dalehileman,

There's nothing to forgive...those were really good questions.

The eager student wants to know lots about everything (in a school though, we could limit that to 'academic interests' as they may not be interested in the breadth of life outside of it). Generally, you'll find the eager student:
- has some aptitude for academic learning; and/or
- comes from parents who support, encourage, and talk to their child about life...and as they learn they find it interesting and rewarding to learn. Ie. in this latter part, their parents will in most cases be already teaching them about life.

Does, let's say 'citizenship education' (from the title, obviously a life subject) help you with a doctorate? or a bachelor of arts, or engineering...is it in fact useful to any higher education? Now if you add in a few more 'life' subject like that...what happens to the time allocated to subjects that lead to higher education?...the time must be diminished.

Core subjects used to take up the full allocation of teaching time...so by definition, teachers must spend less time teaching them in order to teach life subjects...that's detrimental to those wishing to advance to higher education.

Quote:

Don't know about that Vik. I think most parents aren't aware there's anything wrong

This could be both true & false...I think it would depend on which part of society you come from.

Quote:

while I'm not sure what you mean by "non-core"

When govt talks about the nations grades being down...what subjects do they compare with other nations?

Quote:

presume what you mean Vik, is that because teaching time is presently so limited that a course also about life would detract from essentials like the 3 R's. Of course that's true but as I said we might need more teachers

More teachers would reduce the class size...but reducing the class size has no meaning if the teachers must cram so much into that class time that they don't have time to talk one on one with students.

Quote:

To the contrary some of the brightest kids just don't catch onto life til they're grown up when it 's often too late

This one though - isn't talking about life knowledge (eg it's bad to do graffiti), but rather social skills. This line of thought is rather argumentative when compared to your previous line of thought.

2 Replies

@josh1414,

josh1414 wrote:

do you bealive we should pay more atention to vandalism rather than gun crime

No

0 Replies

@vikorr,

Quote:

There's nothing to forgive...those were really good questions.

Thanks Vik, I'm never sure

Quote:

The eager student wants to know lots about everything…….they find it interesting and rewarding to learn. Ie. in this latter part, their parents will in most cases be already teaching them about life.

Eagerness might accompany raw intelligence but however eager as a child there's no reason whatever to suppose them better parents

Quote:

Does, let's say 'citizenship education' (from the title, obviously a life subject) help you with a doctorate?

No but it might help you just live, especially if had been boiled down and presented to you as grade schooler

Quote:

or a bachelor of arts, or engineering...is it in fact useful to any higher education?

No but it might make you a better parent

Quote:

Now if you add in a few more 'life' subject like that...what happens to the time allocated to subjects that lead to higher education?...the time must be diminished.

As I said above, we'd probably need more teachers

Quote:
Don't know about that Vik. I think most parents aren't aware there's anything wrong

Quote:

This could be both true & false...I think it would depend on which part of society you come from.

My own parents came from polite, college-educated society but were almost complete failure as parents

Quote:
presume what you mean Vik, is that because teaching time is presently so limited that a course also about life would detract from essentials like the 3 R's. Of course that's true but as I said we might need more teachers

Quote:

More teachers would reduce the class size

I don't propose to reduce class size. Additional teachers might specialize in life issues

Quote:

...but reducing the class size has no meaning if the teachers must cram so much into that class time that they don't have time to talk one on one with students.

Again I'll concede that my proposal might lengthen the school day but these specialists might also introduce the other "regular" teachers into advanced techniques of teaching that would significantly contribute to their kids' life's capabilities without significantly increasing classtime

Quote:
To the contrary some of the brightest kids just don't catch onto life til they're grown up when it 's often too late

Quote:

This one though - isn't talking about life knowledge (eg it's bad to do graffiti), but rather social skills.

Here we're getting into semantics. According to the general rule that nothing is entirely anything while everything is partly something else, I can't separate the two. I'm not even sure how and what life issues would be best chosen

Quote:

This line of thought is rather argumentative when compared to your previous line of thought.

Its detail is still entirely a gray blur

1 Reply

@vikorr,

Quote:

There's nothing to forgive...those were really good questions.

Thanks Vik, I'm never sure

Quote:

The eager student wants to know lots about everything…….they find it interesting and rewarding to learn. Ie. in this latter part, their parents will in most cases be already teaching them about life.

Eagerness might accompany raw intelligence but however eager as a child there's no reason whatever to suppose them better parents

Quote:

Does, let's say 'citizenship education' (from the title, obviously a life subject) help you with a doctorate?

No but it might help you just live, especially if had been boiled down and presented to you as grade schooler

Quote:

or a bachelor of arts, or engineering...is it in fact useful to any higher education?

No but it might make you a better parent

Quote:

Now if you add in a few more 'life' subject like that...what happens to the time allocated to subjects that lead to higher education?...the time must be diminished.

As I said above, we'd probably need more teachers

Quote:
Don't know about that Vik. I think most parents aren't aware there's anything wrong

Quote:

This could be both true & false...I think it would depend on which part of society you come from.

My own came from polite, college-educated society but were almost complete failure as parents

Quote:
presume what you mean Vik, is that because teaching time is presently so limited that a course also about life would detract from essentials like the 3 R's. Of course that's true but as I said we might need more teachers

Quote:

More teachers would reduce the class size

I don't propose to reduce class size. Additional teachers might specialize in life issues

Quote:

...but reducing the class size has no meaning if the teachers must cram so much into that class time that they don't have time to talk one on one with students.

Again I'll concede that my proposal might lengthen the school day but these specialists might also introduce the other "regular" teachers into advanced techniques of teaching that would significantly contribute to their kids' life's capabilities without significantly increasing classtime

Quote:
To the contrary some of the brightest kids just don't catch onto life til they're grown up when it 's often too late

Quote:

This one though - isn't talking about life knowledge (eg it's bad to do graffiti), but rather social skills.

Here we're getting into semantics. According to the general rule that nothing is entirely anything while everything is partly something else, I can't separate the two. I'm not even sure how and what life issues would be best chosen

Quote:

This line of thought is rather argumentative when compared to your previous line of thought.

Its detail is still entirely a gray blur

0 Replies

@dalehileman,

Quote:

Eagerness might accompany raw intelligence but however eager as a child there's no reason whatever to suppose them better parents

Research also shows that those that engage in sport tend to do better in school. It also shows that those who's parents encourage or reward them for doing well, also have a greater desire to do well as adults.

Quote:

My own parents came from polite, college-educated society but were almost complete failure as parents

Yes, there will always be exceptions...generalisations is all one can talk about here...for if we went by the exception, we would never choose a 'path that works best'. The path that works best, is by the very way it's said...a generalisation.

Quote:

Again I'll concede that my proposal might lengthen the school day but these specialists might also introduce the other "regular" teachers into advanced techniques of teaching that would significantly contribute to their kids' life's capabilities without significantly increasing classtime

Ah...if you concede that it should lengthen the school day...why then do we have a disagreement?

My major statement throughout this is that school time be for core subjects (because adding other subjects means less time for core subjects)...but that's traditional school time.

If you want other subjects taught outside of traditional school times, then my concern ceases...My only difference is the 'longer' part of the school day would be voluntary. I'll qualify that by saying - there may be research conducted on extended school times, I'm not sure.

Quote:

Here we're getting into semantics. According to the general rule that nothing is entirely anything while everything is partly something else, I can't separate the two. I'm not even sure how and what life issues would be best chosen

If I may - teaching social skills that academic minded children don't get (going by your criteria)...would probably involve a great deal of one on one, and probably by psychologists rather than teachers. The length of time required would vary, which would make it impossible to operate to a set curriculum...which would then create all sorts of other problems.

That's why I differentiated between social and life skills (eg law, business / careers / jobs etc)

2 Replies

@vikorr,

P.S. The reason I would have it as voluntary still remains for the same reasons I mentioned in previous posts.

0 Replies

@vikorr,

Code:those who's parents encourage or reward them for doing well, also have a greater desire to do well as adults.

Lot more to successful life, Vik, than the mere desire. Every so often we read of a famous, successful, highly regarded individual making a fool of himself or involved in a murder, etc

Quote:

The path that works best, is by the very way it's said...a generalisation

Indubitable Vik. My generalization entails public education where yours depends upon upgrading the parent, seemingly contradictory in view of his abject failure so far. So how do you propose to go about it

Quote:

If you want other subjects taught outside of traditional school times, then my concern ceases...

As I might have said somewhere above, voluntary participation might generate all sorts of resentment. However as I also said, those trained in the art might teach the regulars techniques that stress living situations without significantly increasing class time

Quote:

a great deal of one on one, and probably by psychologists rather than teachers.

Dunno Vik, you're well ahead of me addressing such detail. Some special sort of teach might be needed, one trained especially in the minors' psycho

Quote:

The length of time required would vary, which would make it impossible to operate to a set curriculum...which would then create all sorts of other problems

My ap;loogies Vik but that sounds like some sort of foregone conclusion. I am supposing "my system" might require years to perfect

1 Reply

should we focus on vandalism more than other crimes and why

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know