Student violence against teachers

Thoughts?

http://www.cbc.ca/news/opinion/violence-against-teachers-1.4468577

Thoughts?

Its the logical result of stopping corporal punishment. And its coming to Korea.


You see when you give up your adult authority and power over hormonally driven juveniles, then they not only do not respect you, they hate your weakness.


Stupid liberal ideologies have wrecked western education systems, and then forced the chaos on the rest of the world via its UN structures.

Thoughts?

Its the logical result of stopping corporal punishment. And its coming to Korea.


You see when you give up your adult authority and power over hormonally driven juveniles, then they not only do not respect you, they hate your weakness.


Stupid liberal ideologies have wrecked western education systems, and then forced the chaos on the rest of the world via its UN structures.

You sound a bit like you're promoting sharia law.

The problem, according to the article:

That is: way too many teachers show an endemic reluctance to report and follow up on incidents of violence and harassment that they are made to endure. Compounding the problem is that many principals end up encouraging teachers who do come forward to "let it go" or "forgive." According to the aforementioned survey, nearly 25 per cent of teachers who experienced violence were told not to report the incident to police. Even worse, teachers are sometimes made to feel that they might have brought it on themselves.

Do you really thing that someone who would go so far as attacking a teacher is going to be deterred by a few swats from the dean of boys? Maybe in kindergarten or elementary schoo, but after that I doubt it.

Thoughts?

http://www.cbc.ca/news/opinion/violence-against-teachers-1.4468577

The fatal flaw in leftism is the belief that people are inherently good and an emotional fear of doing "the stern thing" that has in large part been conditioned by popular media (though this has recently changed). Leftists tend to believe at a higher rate than conservatives in "magic bullet" solutions.

But hey, sometimes you have to break that egg to get an omelette. That kid needs to be spanked. That person needs to be shot and no, you can't shoot the gun out of his hand. No, if you give the poor a bunch of money they ARE NOT going to substantially improve their lives with it because they will just lose it again within a span of months.

Thoughts?

http://www.cbc.ca/news/opinion/violence-against-teachers-1.4468577

The fatal flaw in leftism is the belief that people are inherently good and an emotional fear of doing "the stern thing" that has in large part been conditioned by popular media (though this has recently changed). Leftists tend to believe at a higher rate than conservatives in "magic bullet" solutions.

But hey, sometimes you have to break that egg to get an omelette. That kid needs to be spanked. That person needs to be shot and no, you can't shoot the gun out of his hand. No, if you give the poor a bunch of money they ARE NOT going to substantially improve their lives with it because they will just lose it again within a span of months.

Conservatives are just as prone to black and white thinking.

Thoughts?

http://www.cbc.ca/news/opinion/violence-against-teachers-1.4468577

The fatal flaw in leftism is the belief that people are inherently good and an emotional fear of doing "the stern thing" that has in large part been conditioned by popular media (though this has recently changed). Leftists tend to believe at a higher rate than conservatives in "magic bullet" solutions.

But hey, sometimes you have to break that egg to get an omelette. That kid needs to be spanked. That person needs to be shot and no, you can't shoot the gun out of his hand. No, if you give the poor a bunch of money they ARE NOT going to substantially improve their lives with it because they will just lose it again within a span of months.

The fatal flaw in conservative thinking is to fall back on cliches and stereotypes with little basis in fact.

Conservatives believe in magic bullets--stopping immigration is going to bring back high-paying blue collar jobs, giving everyone a gun is going to curtail violence, giving the rich tax breaks is going to create more high-paying jobs, making education more expensive is going to make better students, the market polices itself and on and on.

964 people killed by police in 2017, 66 unarmed. Did they all "need to be shot"? Did Kameron Prescott and Justine Damond "need to be shot"?

Conservative are hypocritical. You, for example, have consistently defended the laxness of Korean police by favorably comparing them to police in the US. Now you've gone all law and order.

Conservatives claim they are helping others when they are helping themselves. One of the biggest beneficiaries of the new tax cuts will be trumpy and his family.

Thoughts?

Its the logical result of stopping corporal punishment. And its coming to Korea.


You see when you give up your adult authority and power over hormonally driven juveniles, then they not only do not respect you, they hate your weakness.


Stupid liberal ideologies have wrecked western education systems, and then forced the chaos on the rest of the world via its UN structures.

I'm wondering which stupid liberal ideologies have wrecked western education systems.  I think you may be right, but I suspect you have entirely the wrong ideologies in mind.

If I had to guess, I think you'd put it down to touchie-feelie, no-beatings-allowed, build-respect-and-self-confidence ideologies, amiright?

But I disagree.  If we have to put it down to stupid liberal ideologies, I would put it down to the one that says everyone has to go to school.  The one where we strive in our educational systems to increase the high school graduation rate.

In 1900, when a high school diploma in the US was roughly equivalent to what you get with a BA today, less than 10% of children got one, almost all of them boys.  Education was a teacher's dream.  HS students were mostly highly motivated, and 100% of school violence was directed from teachers to students.

Even in the 1950s (the good old days when America was "great") about 50% of kids dropped out by the first legal age to drop out (varied by state). They went to work on the farm, down the mine, in the mill, or just pitching pennies and being hooligans, like, say, the Fonz.

But during the post-war period, it came to be deemed necessary to get a high school diploma, so the kids that were, ahem, your natural hooligans, or who really best fit down the mine, so to speak, had to try to stick it out.  Sufficient beatings might have gotten the troublemakers to quieten down, but it didn't make them intellectually equal to the work.  Eventually, the level of the curricula degraded to increase the success rate of these kids.

At the same time, research was going on that found that corporal punishment doesn't actually work, whatever the level, anyway, that there are more effective classroom techniques to maintain discipline, help problem/special needs students achieve, and improve overall educational outcomes.

More recent research has focused on identifying not just what works in a classroom, but finding successful schools and school districts, and seeing what they are doing right.  Significantly, corporal punishment is not a contributing factor to running successful schools.

Today, there is no excuse for school systems allowing students to opt out of learning, and no excuse for teachers to use fundamentally flawed strategies like corporal punishment.  But teachers and administrators, and especially politicans and parents, need to be educated about what works, and then get on with it.

Thoughts?

Its the logical result of stopping corporal punishment. And its coming to Korea.


You see when you give up your adult authority and power over hormonally driven juveniles, then they not only do not respect you, they hate your weakness.


Stupid liberal ideologies have wrecked western education systems, and then forced the chaos on the rest of the world via its UN structures.

I'm wondering which stupid liberal ideologies have wrecked western education systems.  I think you may be right, but I suspect you have entirely the wrong ideologies in mind.

If I had to guess, I think you'd put it down to touchie-feelie, no-beatings-allowed, build-respect-and-self-confidence ideologies, amiright?

But I disagree.  If we have to put it down to stupid liberal ideologies, I would put it down to the one that says everyone has to go to school.  The one where we strive in our educational systems to increase the high school graduation rate.

In 1900, when a high school diploma in the US was roughly equivalent to what you get with a BA today, less than 10% of children got one, almost all of them boys.  Education was a teacher's dream.  HS students were mostly highly motivated, and 100% of school violence was directed from teachers to students.

Even in the 1950s (the good old days when America was "great") about 50% of kids dropped out by the first legal age to drop out (varied by state). They went to work on the farm, down the mine, in the mill, or just pitching pennies and being hooligans, like, say, the Fonz.

But during the post-war period, it came to be deemed necessary to get a high school diploma, so the kids that were, ahem, your natural hooligans, or who really best fit down the mine, so to speak, had to try to stick it out.  Sufficient beatings might have gotten the troublemakers to quieten down, but it didn't make them intellectually equal to the work.  Eventually, the level of the curricula degraded to increase the success rate of these kids.

At the same time, research was going on that found that corporal punishment doesn't actually work, whatever the level, anyway, that there are more effective classroom techniques to maintain discipline, help problem/special needs students achieve, and improve overall educational outcomes.

More recent research has focused on identifying not just what works in a classroom, but finding successful schools and school districts, and seeing what they are doing right.  Significantly, corporal punishment is not a contributing factor to running successful schools.

Today, there is no excuse for school systems allowing students to opt out of learning, and no excuse for teachers to use fundamentally flawed strategies like corporal punishment.  But teachers and administrators, and especially politicans and parents, need to be educated about what works, and then get on with it.

The last three paragraphs make damned good sense and thankfully some education departments are including that type of training in their curricula, with more to follow.

But your earlier reasoning is more than likely flawed. Businesses needed/wanted more educated employees, creating the emphasis on first a high school and then a university diploma rather than any liberal agenda, unless education itself is considered such.

Why many high school students do so poorly is a very complicated question but the remedy for many such students is better teachers with better support.

Thoughts?

Its the logical result of stopping corporal punishment. And its coming to Korea.


You see when you give up your adult authority and power over hormonally driven juveniles, then they not only do not respect you, they hate your weakness.


Stupid liberal ideologies have wrecked western education systems, and then forced the chaos on the rest of the world via its UN structures.

I'm wondering which stupid liberal ideologies have wrecked western education systems.  I think you may be right, but I suspect you have entirely the wrong ideologies in mind.

If I had to guess, I think you'd put it down to touchie-feelie, no-beatings-allowed, build-respect-and-self-confidence ideologies, amiright?

But I disagree.  If we have to put it down to stupid liberal ideologies, I would put it down to the one that says everyone has to go to school.  The one where we strive in our educational systems to increase the high school graduation rate.

In 1900, when a high school diploma in the US was roughly equivalent to what you get with a BA today, less than 10% of children got one, almost all of them boys.  Education was a teacher's dream.  HS students were mostly highly motivated, and 100% of school violence was directed from teachers to students.

Even in the 1950s (the good old days when America was "great") about 50% of kids dropped out by the first legal age to drop out (varied by state). They went to work on the farm, down the mine, in the mill, or just pitching pennies and being hooligans, like, say, the Fonz.

But during the post-war period, it came to be deemed necessary to get a high school diploma, so the kids that were, ahem, your natural hooligans, or who really best fit down the mine, so to speak, had to try to stick it out.  Sufficient beatings might have gotten the troublemakers to quieten down, but it didn't make them intellectually equal to the work.  Eventually, the level of the curricula degraded to increase the success rate of these kids.

At the same time, research was going on that found that corporal punishment doesn't actually work, whatever the level, anyway, that there are more effective classroom techniques to maintain discipline, help problem/special needs students achieve, and improve overall educational outcomes.

More recent research has focused on identifying not just what works in a classroom, but finding successful schools and school districts, and seeing what they are doing right.  Significantly, corporal punishment is not a contributing factor to running successful schools.

Today, there is no excuse for school systems allowing students to opt out of learning, and no excuse for teachers to use fundamentally flawed strategies like corporal punishment.  But teachers and administrators, and especially politicans and parents, need to be educated about what works, and then get on with it.

The last three paragraphs make damned good sense and thankfully some education departments are including that type of training in their curricula, with more to follow.

But your earlier reasoning is more than likely flawed. Businesses needed/wanted more educated employees, creating the emphasis on first a high school and then a university diploma rather than any liberal agenda, unless education itself is considered such.

Why many high school students do so poorly is a very complicated question but the remedy for many such students is better teachers with better support.

Of course it's flawed.  I had taken on the task of explaining how "stupid liberal ideologies" had wrecked education systems. And I think the primary task of mandatory public education should be to prepare students to become engaged, responsible citizens.  There is some truth, though, in the argument, in that I think that job can be pretty well accomplished by age 14 or 15, so that those with no use for Oedipus Rex and trigonometry can go off and do whatever they're going to do.

Thoughts?

Its the logical result of stopping corporal punishment. And its coming to Korea.


You see when you give up your adult authority and power over hormonally driven juveniles, then they not only do not respect you, they hate your weakness.


Stupid liberal ideologies have wrecked western education systems, and then forced the chaos on the rest of the world via its UN structures.

I'm wondering which stupid liberal ideologies have wrecked western education systems.  I think you may be right, but I suspect you have entirely the wrong ideologies in mind.

If I had to guess, I think you'd put it down to touchie-feelie, no-beatings-allowed, build-respect-and-self-confidence ideologies, amiright?

But I disagree.  If we have to put it down to stupid liberal ideologies, I would put it down to the one that says everyone has to go to school.  The one where we strive in our educational systems to increase the high school graduation rate.

In 1900, when a high school diploma in the US was roughly equivalent to what you get with a BA today, less than 10% of children got one, almost all of them boys.  Education was a teacher's dream.  HS students were mostly highly motivated, and 100% of school violence was directed from teachers to students.

Even in the 1950s (the good old days when America was "great") about 50% of kids dropped out by the first legal age to drop out (varied by state). They went to work on the farm, down the mine, in the mill, or just pitching pennies and being hooligans, like, say, the Fonz.

But during the post-war period, it came to be deemed necessary to get a high school diploma, so the kids that were, ahem, your natural hooligans, or who really best fit down the mine, so to speak, had to try to stick it out.  Sufficient beatings might have gotten the troublemakers to quieten down, but it didn't make them intellectually equal to the work.  Eventually, the level of the curricula degraded to increase the success rate of these kids.

At the same time, research was going on that found that corporal punishment doesn't actually work, whatever the level, anyway, that there are more effective classroom techniques to maintain discipline, help problem/special needs students achieve, and improve overall educational outcomes.

More recent research has focused on identifying not just what works in a classroom, but finding successful schools and school districts, and seeing what they are doing right.  Significantly, corporal punishment is not a contributing factor to running successful schools.

Today, there is no excuse for school systems allowing students to opt out of learning, and no excuse for teachers to use fundamentally flawed strategies like corporal punishment.  But teachers and administrators, and especially politicans and parents, need to be educated about what works, and then get on with it.

The last three paragraphs make damned good sense and thankfully some education departments are including that type of training in their curricula, with more to follow.

But your earlier reasoning is more than likely flawed. Businesses needed/wanted more educated employees, creating the emphasis on first a high school and then a university diploma rather than any liberal agenda, unless education itself is considered such.

Why many high school students do so poorly is a very complicated question but the remedy for many such students is better teachers with better support.

Of course it's flawed.  I had taken on the task of explaining how "stupid liberal ideologies" had wrecked education systems. And I think the primary task of mandatory public education should be to prepare students to become engaged, responsible citizens.  There is some truth, though, in the argument, in that I think that job can be pretty well accomplished by age 14 or 15, so that those with no use for Oedipus Rex and trigonometry can go off and do whatever they're going to do.

Western hidden curriculum = be responsible law abiding citizens who adhere to the social norms and conventions that benefit all in society.

Korea hidden curriculum = Dokdo is Korean!

Thoughts?

Its the logical result of stopping corporal punishment. And its coming to Korea.


You see when you give up your adult authority and power over hormonally driven juveniles, then they not only do not respect you, they hate your weakness.


Stupid liberal ideologies have wrecked western education systems, and then forced the chaos on the rest of the world via its UN structures.

I'm wondering which stupid liberal ideologies have wrecked western education systems.  I think you may be right, but I suspect you have entirely the wrong ideologies in mind.

If I had to guess, I think you'd put it down to touchie-feelie, no-beatings-allowed, build-respect-and-self-confidence ideologies, amiright?

But I disagree.  If we have to put it down to stupid liberal ideologies, I would put it down to the one that says everyone has to go to school.  The one where we strive in our educational systems to increase the high school graduation rate.

In 1900, when a high school diploma in the US was roughly equivalent to what you get with a BA today, less than 10% of children got one, almost all of them boys.  Education was a teacher's dream.  HS students were mostly highly motivated, and 100% of school violence was directed from teachers to students.

Even in the 1950s (the good old days when America was "great") about 50% of kids dropped out by the first legal age to drop out (varied by state). They went to work on the farm, down the mine, in the mill, or just pitching pennies and being hooligans, like, say, the Fonz.

But during the post-war period, it came to be deemed necessary to get a high school diploma, so the kids that were, ahem, your natural hooligans, or who really best fit down the mine, so to speak, had to try to stick it out.  Sufficient beatings might have gotten the troublemakers to quieten down, but it didn't make them intellectually equal to the work.  Eventually, the level of the curricula degraded to increase the success rate of these kids.

At the same time, research was going on that found that corporal punishment doesn't actually work, whatever the level, anyway, that there are more effective classroom techniques to maintain discipline, help problem/special needs students achieve, and improve overall educational outcomes.

More recent research has focused on identifying not just what works in a classroom, but finding successful schools and school districts, and seeing what they are doing right.  Significantly, corporal punishment is not a contributing factor to running successful schools.

Today, there is no excuse for school systems allowing students to opt out of learning, and no excuse for teachers to use fundamentally flawed strategies like corporal punishment.  But teachers and administrators, and especially politicans and parents, need to be educated about what works, and then get on with it.

The last three paragraphs make damned good sense and thankfully some education departments are including that type of training in their curricula, with more to follow.

But your earlier reasoning is more than likely flawed. Businesses needed/wanted more educated employees, creating the emphasis on first a high school and then a university diploma rather than any liberal agenda, unless education itself is considered such.

Why many high school students do so poorly is a very complicated question but the remedy for many such students is better teachers with better support.

Of course it's flawed.  I had taken on the task of explaining how "stupid liberal ideologies" had wrecked education systems. And I think the primary task of mandatory public education should be to prepare students to become engaged, responsible citizens.  There is some truth, though, in the argument, in that I think that job can be pretty well accomplished by age 14 or 15, so that those with no use for Oedipus Rex and trigonometry can go off and do whatever they're going to do.

They're not going to do much without a high school diploma. Besides, how many at age 15 know what they do and don't have a use for?

They're not going to do much without a high school diploma. Besides, how many at age 15 know what they do and don't have a use for?

This is also part of the issue. There's the idea that high school students can't be trusted with anything, so adults have to make every decision for them. But then those same adults turn around and complain that "this generation can't make decisions and function as productive adults in society". In school, you have to ask permission to go to the bathroom. You have to be in a certain place at a certain time doing a certain thing. And then you magically have to be completely able to function on your own as an adult in college. But they just spent the past 13 years having to ask permission to use the bathroom for 7+ hours a day. High school students can be really perceptive and creative and knowledgeable. But they aren't really given the chance to show that. Yeah, they make stupid decisions too, but so did we when we were their age, and we lived and learned.

They're not going to do much without a high school diploma. Besides, how many at age 15 know what they do and don't have a use for?

This is also part of the issue. There's the idea that high school students can't be trusted with anything, so adults have to make every decision for them. But then those same adults turn around and complain that "this generation can't make decisions and function as productive adults in society". In school, you have to ask permission to go to the bathroom. You have to be in a certain place at a certain time doing a certain thing. And then you magically have to be completely able to function on your own as an adult in college. But they just spent the past 13 years having to ask permission to use the bathroom for 7+ hours a day. High school students can be really perceptive and creative and knowledgeable. But they aren't really given the chance to show that. Yeah, they make stupid decisions too, but so did we when we were their age, and we lived and learned.

IMO that's a (great) overstatement. High school students have a world of choices.

"Having to be at a certain place at a certain time doing a certain thing"--that't life for the great majority. You seem to be assuming that if someone doesn't go to high school they're going to be free as a bird. I doubt that would be the case for most.