Rant: Over indulgent parents strike again

On Wed, 14 Jan 2004 23:31:18 GMT, "0tterbot" wrote:

have you been lurking on the m.k. thread about mathematical shapes? you lot
are uncanny, i swear...
kylie

hey, now.. g


--
Dorothy

There is no sound, no cry in all the world
that can be heard unless someone listens ..

The Outer Limits

In article , toto wrote:
On Thu, 15 Jan 2004 03:48:02 GMT, (Brent P)
wrote:

Oh really? I spent a good portion of my life trying to be *PERFECT*.

It's not a matter of being *perfect.* Victims of bullies do have
some common characteristics though. Nothing that is their fault
and it isn't physical size that matters.

That was in response to someone who
was arguing that the victim should modify his behavior not to be
an "abuse magnet"

The idea was nobody would bother me if I was perfect. If I *NEVER*
made a mistake I could *prevent* being a "participant".

You are human. It's not *mistakes* that cause victimization.

That's what I was arguing against. And lately I take being called a
human an insult

There
are, however, some things that tend to make you a target. I don't
know if you fit the general profile, so you need to think about how
you were at the time and tell me if you fit anywhere below.

If actions can be taken, that's a corrective action. If there is
a corrective action, something is being done incorrectly.

I made sure not to make a mistake in anything.

That's actually the first mistake. People who are perceived as
perfect are annoying to a lot of people and that would include
bullies.

No, that was a *response*. The fewer number of errors, the less
there is to latch on to.

your nose?!

Yes.

Bullies will always find something if they think you *can* be
targeted.

That's the point.

i'm sure you see now with the benefit of hindsight that trying to be perfect
isn't going to work for anyone. i already said these kids are unwilling
participants, you don't have to spell it all out again.

You have stated they should modify their behavior to prevent the
harrassment. I am telling you no amount of modification works.

Not all children are equally likely to be victimized by bullying
behavior.

Didn't say otherwise.

Those, children who are more prone to be picked
upon tend to have the following characteristics:

*low self-esteem *insecure lack of social skills,
* don't pick up on social cues
* cry or become emotionally distraught easily,
? unable to defend or stand up for themselves
*Some children actually seem to provoke their own
victimization. These children will tease bullies, make
themselves a target by egging the person on, not
knowing when to stop and then not being able to
effectively defend themselves when the balance of
power shifts to the bully.
*fewer close friends
*tend to regard themselves as less competent

Children who are not bullied tend to have better social skills
and conflict management skills. They are more willing to
assert themselves about differences without being
aggressive or confronting. They suggest compromises and
alternate solutions. They tend to be more aware of people's
feelings and are the children who can be most belpful in
resolving disputes and assisting other children to get help.

*laugh* how exactly does one use diplomacy with someone who gets
his jollies hurting people? People like that are not moved by
reason. Kicking their ass, speaking their language is quite effective.

One of the more interesting studies of children who are
not bullied that I have seen contends that children who are
socially skillful often defuse bullying by agreeing with the
comments. For example if they say you have a big nose,
the socially skillful child will say *yes, I do, so what?*
They also have other techniques that seem to work.
They usually don't *walk away* but they use their verbal
skills to defuse the situation so the bully does not get
the reaction he is looking for.

And some kids have other strengths but aren't allowed to use them.
But if a 'bully' doesn't get the reaction he is looking for he
will increase the intensity. He doesn't go elsewhere until it's
painful for him not to.

For young children, teachers and parents can empower
their children to speak up against bullies when they
see someone being victimized.

Or they can do the usual and say, ignore them. Which then takes
it up a notch.

Children who are not bullies or victims have a powerful
role to play in shaping the behavior of other children.
Teach your children to speak up on behalf of children
being bullied. "Don't treat her that way, it's not nice."
"Hitting is not a good way to solve problems, let's find a
teacher and talk about what happened.

lol... sorry but that cracks me up. That would turn the neutral
kid into a victim in short order or if not a victim, a social leper.

Teachers should:
Intervene quickly and decidedly in bullying situations
Consistently apply consequences
Provide praise for the diffusion of bullying
Provide adequate supervision at recess, lunch and
passing periods.
Initiate serious talks with victims and parents as wells
bullies and parents
Promote classroom discussions of bullying behavior

In the real world the parents of the 'bullies' don't care and are
not interested. Adequate supervision is not possible unless the
children are confined to a rather small space, although these
days they might be. Classroom discussions will be as usual dominated
by the children jockeying for teacher's favorite. (wether there is
one or not.

It's nice that some people want to make the effort, but really I
don't see any of that having any lasting effect.

Make the message absolutely clear that bullying
behavior is non-acceptable
When time allows, attempt to discover underlying
problems that the aggressor may be experiencing
and provide appropriate support and/or referrals
Provide the bully with a quiet place to calm down

Actively teach social skills to all children beginning
in preschool and kindergarten, but continuing
throughout the school years. These skills can be
integrated into the academic subject areas but this
does take work and planning. Teach assertive
behavior not agressive behavior.

If only.....

x-no-archive:yes


toto wrote:

On Thu, 15 Jan 2004 03:38:11 GMT, DTJ wrote:

And when one of those people have an opportunity to teach, they are
turned down. When I was laid off a couple years ago, I looked into
teaching. You would think that someone who actually has 10 years

When my husband retired after 20 years in the military (with two
engineering degrees), he applied to teach math and physics and was
accepted and was very successful. He did the required 'education'
courses while teaching on a provisional certificate which meant he
could skip student teaching as he would already have 2 years
experience. This was not uncommon.

I did it the other way. I had a degree in zoology, and took the
required courses in one year at the local 4 year state college
including a semester of student teaching, and got my certificate and
started teaching right away as a certified teacher. We both got our
advanced certificates fairly quickly.

You can't just go in and expect them to accept you with open arms -
you have to pay your TEACHING dues first.

experience in software development, project management and other
managerial positions would have some value in teaching high school
kids how to program. Not. Instead, they prefer to have someone with
3 hours of computer science, but who did take courses in 8th grade
education. Wow, that makes sense.

Most public high schools don't teach programming. They teach
computer literacy and they *may* teach one or two programming
classes, but they have no use for someone who can only teach
that.

My kids took college classes while they were in hs. One took
calculus, and one took programming (and she took programming in hs
too), and one took graphic art.

grandma Rosalie

In article , toto wrote:

Most public high schools don't teach programming. They teach
computer literacy and they *may* teach one or two programming
classes, SNIP

Things have gone for the worse then. Back when I was in HS the
the computer classes were computer classes. BASIC and Pascal on
the apple 2E.(obsolete by then,but not by a whole lot) Pascal,
what horrid language, only loved by CS profs and the like. And
a bit of some other now dead programing language... logo or something
like that. Easy classes though.

"Brent P" wrote in message
news:SiqNb.69916$I06.320795@attbi_s01...
In article , toto wrote:

Most public high schools don't teach programming. They teach
computer literacy and they *may* teach one or two programming
classes, SNIP

Things have gone for the worse then. Back when I was in HS the
the computer classes were computer classes. BASIC and Pascal on
the apple 2E.(obsolete by then,but not by a whole lot) Pascal,
what horrid language, only loved by CS profs and the like. And
a bit of some other now dead programing language... logo or something
like that. Easy classes though.

How have things "gone for the worse" when schools are
no longer teaching computer languages that you say are
dead and obsolete?


P. Tierney

"DTJ" wrote in message
...
Educators are bureaucrats more interested in keeping their
jobs than in educating.

And fight any effort to hold them accountable. Tenure? What the ****
is that? Any other job you can get fired from, but not a ****ing
teacher.

This is incorrect. So does your opinion now change?

Teachers lack sufficient talent and training in their subject
areas. There are exceptions - but in most colleges education
has lower requirements than science or engineering.

I doubt there are any exceptions. I have never heard of a teaching
certificate or degree requiring anything near what any other bachelors
degree requires, much less and engineer. Further, the majority of
those who seek to become teachers are the absolute least intelligent
among us.

Then what does that make you if you can't get your
facts straight, like above? Or below...

I have heard future teachers complain when they had to take
a math class or a logic class, claiming that they don't need logic,
they are only going to teach.

Did you take logic? Or proofs? Because if you did, you'd
know full well that the "I have heard future teachers complain"
does nothing to support your assertion that "teachers are the
absolute least intelligent" people.

The talented people who would make the best teachers usually
find more rewarding, and higher paying, work in the private
sector, and outside of education.

And when one of those people have an opportunity to teach, they are
turned down. When I was laid off a couple years ago, I looked into
teaching. You would think that someone who actually has 10 years
experience in software development, project management and other
managerial positions would have some value in teaching high school
kids how to program. Not. Instead, they prefer to have someone with
3 hours of computer science, but who did take courses in 8th grade
education. Wow, that makes sense.

Do you even know what computer courses are taught in
high school? How do they apply to your skills?

A few years ago there was a push to allow people with experience in
industry to teach, as there were "not enough teachers". I guess that
got canned when the NEA realized that intelligent people wouldn't want
to join their union.

As a person who likely considers himself highly intelligent,
you would know that private schools (and many public school
districts now) are not unionized. So if your skills are so valuable,
then how come you couldn't get a job at one of those schools?
You can't blame the NEA for that. So what's the story?


P. Tierney

The Lindbergh Baby wrote in message . ..
Brent P wrote:

As I have learned in chicago blizzards is to go out in the snow as
it's falling and shovel low depths often. The last one we had in 99 (I
think) I went out and shoveled every couple-three hours. Annoying yes,
but I didn't have my cars burried like the neighbors did. It's just
easier to take care of it in small bites.


I just moved to California! :-) Problem solved.



John

I get my kids to shovel the snow

"P. Tierney" wrote in message news:wzrNb.57081$5V2.68891@attbi_s53...
"DTJ" wrote in message
...
Educators are bureaucrats more interested in keeping their
jobs than in educating.

And fight any effort to hold them accountable. Tenure? What the ****
is that? Any other job you can get fired from, but not a ****ing
teacher.

This is incorrect. So does your opinion now change?

Teachers lack sufficient talent and training in their subject
areas. There are exceptions - but in most colleges education
has lower requirements than science or engineering.

I doubt there are any exceptions. I have never heard of a teaching
certificate or degree requiring anything near what any other bachelors
degree requires, much less and engineer. Further, the majority of
those who seek to become teachers are the absolute least intelligent
among us.

Then what does that make you if you can't get your
facts straight, like above? Or below...

I have heard future teachers complain when they had to take
a math class or a logic class, claiming that they don't need logic,
they are only going to teach.

Did you take logic? Or proofs? Because if you did, you'd
know full well that the "I have heard future teachers complain"
does nothing to support your assertion that "teachers are the
absolute least intelligent" people.

The talented people who would make the best teachers usually
find more rewarding, and higher paying, work in the private
sector, and outside of education.

And when one of those people have an opportunity to teach, they are
turned down. When I was laid off a couple years ago, I looked into
teaching. You would think that someone who actually has 10 years
experience in software development, project management and other
managerial positions would have some value in teaching high school
kids how to program. Not. Instead, they prefer to have someone with
3 hours of computer science, but who did take courses in 8th grade
education. Wow, that makes sense.

Do you even know what computer courses are taught in
high school? How do they apply to your skills?

A few years ago there was a push to allow people with experience in
industry to teach, as there were "not enough teachers". I guess that
got canned when the NEA realized that intelligent people wouldn't want
to join their union.

As a person who likely considers himself highly intelligent,
you would know that private schools (and many public school
districts now) are not unionized. So if your skills are so valuable,
then how come you couldn't get a job at one of those schools?
You can't blame the NEA for that. So what's the story?


P. Tierney


My son is just startin Business Management in his 2nd year at the academy

(Roger Dodger) wrote in message . com...
Charles Soto wrote in message ...
(Roger Dodger) wrote:

IMHO, much of this is caused by anti-educational schools that
promote feel-good "self-esteem" and "socialization" over academics.

I should have said academics and justice.

I can suggest the following improvements:

1. Separate sports/jocks from school, just like religion. A good
many bullies (but not the ones who are troublemakers) are jocks.

Probably not with actual jocks. They're too busy schmoozin' on the
hotties to bully. ITYM the jock wannabees.

I agree that the jock wannabees are worse bullies, but real jocks
have more than their share of guilt. The real problems are when
you have jocks so valued for their contribution to winning teams
or "school spirit", that they are above the law. That's what
happened at Columbine.

Also glitzy sports take up money and other resources better used
for education. Let somebody else sponsor sports for teenagers -
but keep them out of school!

2. Re-academize schools.

Academies are for rich kids. Replace substance with "tradition" and you
give the twits something to be proud of.

Academics, not academies.
Schools after all are for academic education.

3. Bring back a certain amount of tracking. Maybe self-tracking.

We already track. Rich white kids go to "gifted and talented," while
the colored kids go to "special ed."

Tracking, when done properly, is color-blind. Which means it's not
being done properly. And there's a shortage of good G&T education,
and funding for such.

4. Have a civil moral code, separate from any religious one.
Force and fraud are wrong, and need to be punished. The only
allowable force is self-defense.

We already do,

We have a civil legal code.

except for some stupid reason, it doesn't apply to anyone
who can't buy liquor legally yet. Apparently, that lone fact entitles
you to any rights.

You mean, no rights, and no justice.

5. Discipline based on the above.

Adults need discipline every bit as much.

But they are more likely to find justice.

6. Eliminate compulsory attendance, if even past a certain age.
Thugs seldom want to be in school, and resent it, and act out
their resentment by picking on real students.

Fine with me. Somebody's gotta make my quarter pounders.

Let's not feed that somebody the delusion that he could become a
brain surgeon, when he can't; and waste time and money teaching
beyond his ability - and desire - to learn.

And beyond school, for society itself:

6. Encourage personal responsibility.

That's too expensive. No way am I gonna pay for that

You already are paying for the lack of it.

7. Revamp civil law, make it harder to sue, allow judges more
discretion re. frivolous lawsuits.

Many lawsuits are frivolous, or yet another form of bullying the
productive people. They cost money, and especially time. Fanatics,
tribalists, social crusaders, and other such busybodies have plenty
of time. Not so productive people.

You elect the idiots who write in mandatory sentencing laws.

Mandatory sentencing (IIRC) is criminal law. I was talking about
civil law, i.e. lawsuits.


Schools should sponsor kids for sports

Charles Soto wrote:
(Brent P) wrote:

I know what I wanted to do with some people, I just had a safety
circuit
that kicked in and stopped me. It appears that at least some kids
lack
that safety circuit. And when they short out, there's nothing to
stop the explosion.

ITYM "parents."
When a personal sense of one's mortality is lacking, it's up to
the parents to provide a suitable "fear of death."

You mean like this?
http://maddox.xmission.com/beat.html
Mag