More kids being alternatively schooled

348 posts / 0 new
Last post
Mike Harman
Offline
Joined: 7-02-06
Feb 25 2008 06:26
Choccy wrote:
As for "learning by doing", it is of course a great way of learning, but in order to facilitate a process like that, especially beyond primary school level, certainly requires some structure and instruction - indeed it's a balance that must be struck - it's not either/or.
The principles can be applied to learning anything, not just maths or biology. Ok so I train muaythai and BJJ, now, sparring (i.e. doing) is vital - any training you do is useless unless you train it in situations that replicate those conditions under which you put your training to use. However - you don't just walk into a class and spar - you don't just DO - that would be crazy, a fucking mess. Someone, an "expert" for want of a better word, show you some shit, some technique, cos they've been training a helluva lot longer, understand the basic principles, know what works and can communicate those ideas because they've gone through it a hundred times before - they INSTRUCT you. Then you practice a technique. So only once you been instructed, and then drilled/practiced something, can you then "learn by doing".

Well all of that sounds like "learning by doing" to me. When I worked at a sixth form college, they had a lot of hairdressing students - in the entire first year the students aren't supposed to go in the salon at all - it's all "type a price list for a hair salon" - essentially a basic numeracy and literacy course dressed up as a hairdressing course (which is pretty much what a lot of courses are like recently). Similarly in child care they seemed to spend nearly all their time making A4 folding leaflets about baby hygiene etc. - if you went into your Muay Thai training and they sat you down for 12 months watching videos and writing 500 words about your favourite Muay Thai boxers you wouldn't last a week right?

Khawaga's picture
Khawaga
Offline
Joined: 7-08-06
Feb 25 2008 09:00
Quote:
I don't know much about Montessori schools, except that they follow the idea that kids will just "teach themselves."

Yeah, you don't know much obviously. Montessori is just as structured as other pedagogical techniques, it's just that kids are taught what they are interested in and that they are supposed to explore that independently. However, there is always a teacher (or several) there to aid them, answer questions etc. You know you have to go to school to learn montessori pedagogy, and you have to practice it before you are a montessori qualified teacher (my wife is doing this now).

De-schooling is not necessarily a synonym to home schooling or an individualized solution to a collective problem, which a lot of people seem to believe. De-schooling, as far as I know, can be just as collective and just as structured as mainstream schooling, and can have teachers that are not the kids parents as well.

Choccy's picture
Choccy
Offline
Joined: 9-12-04
Feb 25 2008 10:32
Mike Harman wrote:
Well all of that sounds like "learning by doing" to me. When I worked at a sixth form college, they had a lot of hairdressing students - in the entire first year the students aren't supposed to go in the salon at all - it's all "type a price list for a hair salon" - essentially a basic numeracy and literacy course dressed up as a hairdressing course (which is pretty much what a lot of courses are like recently). Similarly in child care they seemed to spend nearly all their time making A4 folding leaflets about baby hygiene etc. - if you went into your Muay Thai training and they sat you down for 12 months watching videos and writing 500 words about your favourite Muay Thai boxers you wouldn't last a week right?

Well that's not entirely correct because by it's nature muaythai is a practical skill set, whereas maths and english simply aren't however much you want them to be - I mean they're practical in as much as they involve physically doing sums or reading poetry, but I can't see a meaningful comparison. I was merely illustrating the principle that instruction and doing are both necessary.

Actually you do realise professional football/rugby/whatever teams do spend hours watching videos, writing tactics, examining stuff? They DO go to class, they do sit and listen - as do boxers. But like I said, the skillsets have a different quality.
Nonetheless a proportion of training time involves just sitting, watching an "expert", a teacher, show you stuff. Of course there's an important fact that people I train with are adults and class doesn't involve all the shite that school does (say, creche function MartinH mentioned).

Jason Cortez
Offline
Joined: 14-11-04
Feb 25 2008 14:26
Quote:
home schooling will never be viable to the vast vast mjaority of working class folk and will remain mostly in the realm of weirdo hippies, christian fundamentalists and others who should have their kids taken off them.

Revol where is your arguement here? This is a no flaming forum, suggesting all home educators need their children in care, is clearly an imflamatory statement. Also it shows a profound lack of awareness of the actual experiences of children in care. If you wish to reply to this post, please start one in libcommunity and post a link.

Mike Harman
Offline
Joined: 7-02-06
Feb 25 2008 14:35
Choccy wrote:
Well that's not entirely correct because by it's nature muaythai is a practical skill set, whereas maths and english simply aren't however much you want them to be - I mean they're practical in as much as they involve physically doing sums or reading poetry, but I can't see a meaningful comparison.

Well the point was that practical skills are being taught at a purely theoretical (or actually sub-theoretical) level at schools, as in the example I gave. Music classes are much the same - actually playing an instrument is reserved for a fairly small number kids, music GNVQ doesn't require learning an instrument (or composition, or much applicable music skills at al) - it's something like 30% accountancy and event management.

It's a bit similar to 'embedded literacy and numeracy', where they turn whatever subject into a remedial english/maths class for a percentage of the time. This probably has some basis in ideas about holistic teaching, integrated subjects etc. but it's fucked up doing that to 16-19 year olds and wherever I've seen it, it's been both patronising and forced on teachers in a very unnatural way.

Quote:
Actually you do realise professional football/rugby/whatever teams do spend hours watching videos, writing tactics, examining stuff? They DO go to class, they do sit and listen - as do boxers.

Yes I do realise that, but as you said a lot of this is tactical and at a very advanced level- it's unlikely to be introduced into year 7 PE classes any time soon. To me you were counterposing training to sparring which I thought was a false comparison, obviously there are some subjects which are 90% theoretical and should be taught as such. Although having said that, I was able to read books before I got to primary school, and fucking hated English classes all the way up to Year 11 (and again when I had to do two English 'general ed' classes for me degree).

Most of that deep hatred of English instruction was down to:
1. reading stuff out loud in class - listening to bored 12 year olds reading a chapter isn't fun.
2. reading chapters/excerpts of books instead of the whole thing
3. Anything which started "write about something" and usually ended with "weekend" or "holiday" - which ironically I was made to do up to 7/8 and the again once when I was 18.

Quote:
Nonetheless a proportion of training time involves just sitting, watching an "expert", a teacher, show you stuff.

Yeah I did Aikido for about six weeks once - and some of it is sitting and watching - although you're often watching one of the most experienced students sparring with the teacher - which to me again counts as learning by doing, since it immediately precedes practicing some aspect of what you just watched - or sometimes is essentially taking things in turns.

zarathustra
Offline
Joined: 8-12-07
Feb 25 2008 21:26
madashell wrote:
zarathustra wrote:
Well, you're lucky. For many kids with so-called "learning disabilities" and pseudo-conditions like ADD and all that crap, school means forced Ritalin drugging, and all kinds of bizzare BS.
Quote:
We hear reports of people leaving the US to keep the witch doctors from frying their kid's brains - particularly given the fact that parents are now being arrested and having children taken from them for resisting compulsory drugging.

http://www.geocities.com/northstarzone/RITALIN.html

While ritalin is hugely overused, for some kids it's necessary. I can think of a few kids I've been on a one to one with who go absolutely fucking mental if they're not on the stuff, they can actually be a bit scary. It's far from ideal but I don't see what else you can do if otherwise the kid's going to be shouting stuff all the time or standing on their desk without it.

But conditions such as ADD do not actually exist. They are pseudo-science. Lack of sleep, over stimulation, sensory overload from television, etc., bad school environment, a sugar-based diet, naturally result in kids that are messed up. It's incredible how little time the modern school-child has for playing. If the playground time of schools were increased by an hour, just an hour, I'm sure there'd be a massive upswing in good behavior.

zarathustra
Offline
Joined: 8-12-07
Feb 25 2008 21:33
martinh wrote:
Ah well, I'm almost tempted to start home schooling, after all this. If only we had the time roll eyes

Yeah. wink I don't know what your situation is, but nowadays, with women expected to work out of the home, this is a major issue. That's what was so beautiful about feminism. Get the wife out of her home and into the workplace, get the kid into daycare, and everybody lives happily ever after. The ruling class live happily ever after anyway... Women get added to the workforce and children grow up neurotic and without the moral compass instilled by family life. The attack on family life is directly responsible for the growth of nihilism, despondency, suicide, hard drug-use, etc. in the modern world and the decline of working class/social consciousness.

arf
Offline
Joined: 25-11-06
Feb 25 2008 22:40

i dont think the traditional family unit was something so great in the first place, not for women and kids anyway.

Choccy - the main difference between the training you do and schooling, as i see it, is one of freedom. you arent being coerced or forced into your training, you do it because you have a genuine interest in it, youve chosen to commit yourself to it. i have absolutely no problems whatsoever with people (kids included) who have an interest in something deliberately going out to find a person experienced in that subject to guide them and train them, and i have no problems with the person who chooses to be their guide making certain demands of commitment and behaviour from the student. that seems fair enough to me, its a fair and mutual exchange that both people get something out of, both people are increasing their experience and helping each other to learn new skills.

schooling is not however a fair and mutual exchange. kids do not on the whole have a choice about being there. they are not treated respectfully as equals but as subordinates and in some cases as criminals. there is no mutuality or freedom in schooling.

arf
Offline
Joined: 25-11-06
Feb 25 2008 22:44

ps i really do think you would enjoy reading a bit of john holt, try "Instead Of Education". you might not agree with him but youd have a better understanding of what all this unschooling is about and you might find some of his ideas inspiring.

arf
Offline
Joined: 25-11-06
Feb 25 2008 23:14
Quote:
Just a couple of questions arf, what do you do about things that are necessary, such as reading and writing? (if you think there is such a thing) do you encourage your kids to take an interest or do you just wait until they want to?

I have a lot of enthusiasm for reading and writing anyway so i think that they have caught the bug to some extent. They see me enjoying it and devoting my full attention to it and it makes them curious. I read a lot to them, and i dont dumb stuff down for them, although i do stop sometimes to explain what words mean. Mostly i dont though, i hope theyll guess from the context as i have usually done, and if they stop me then i try and explain. I put on voices for different characters and all that when im reading aloud and i think that makes it fun for them. I also remind them of stuff we've read, we'll draw pictures of characters or whatever.

I dont force them to listen to me read or force books on them, i make stuff available and offer to read and they mostly take me up on it. When i asked the girl if she wanted to learn to write her own name she was really excited by it, and really proud everytime she did it, adding curls and all that to the letters. We pin all that stuff up to the walls and show pride in it and that gives the kids confidence and pride in themselves. I grew up with the hand smacking stuff about holding pens properly and all that so im really funny about not shaming my own kids. After learning to write her own name she would copy words off dvd boxes or wherever, which is how she learned to read a lot of things too. Then she wanted to write letters to people and so she'd ask for help spelling certain words. I really have found that if you encourage them without pressure, show pride in their stuff and are positive about books and writing yourself, then they show natural interest. I think a lot of kids natural interest in reading and writing is killed in school.

So that was my long way round of saying, i havent forced them to do any lessons, but i have not found them to be lazy or uninterested in writing and reading, in fact ive found the opposite. I do have a friend who was unschooled and didnt read till she was nine, she just wasnt interested before then. But once she became interested she learned to read very quickly, because she had an enthusiasm for it and was not coerced.

Quote:
I see your point about socialisation but I have found that this can end up with children who are socialised to relations with adults and not so well with their peers (I've sen this happen with schooled kids too), do you find this a problem?

My kids are five and two so i dont really know yet. The home schooled and unschooled adults ive known and met dont seem to have any problems socialising, no more than anyone else does anyway. They tend to be less likely to bully or be in cliques, and more confident, but thats anecdotal. I dont think you could spot the home edded adults by their lack of socialisation skills, and i really dont think that school is a good place to socialise. I do think if you look at schooled kids the socialisation going on is just as likely to be negative as positive. I do worry sometimes with my daughter because she is really friendly and she doesnt care about how old someone is or what theyre into before she'll talk to or play with them, and ive seen her be snubbed a few times in parks and playgrounds, mostly by older girls who dont want to hang out with a five year old. But her kickboxing has given her a lot of confidence and she will either persist with being friendly until they accept her or go do something else, she shrugs off those snubs much easier than I do. Im really impulsive and defensive of her and i swear theres a couple of times ive been close to giving these kids a smack before i remember that im not their age and cant really do that.. embarrassed

Kids who dont go to school dont live in a bubble though, they still leave the house and meet other kids. They just dont spend all day sat in a classroom with them.

Quote:
One more thing, do you find that there are any negative effects for the child of spending so much time with a parent? (In the sense that the majority of their socialisation is based around a relationship that is basically unique)

Not yet! We spend all day round each other but we dont spend all day in each others faces. We spend a lot of time doing our own things, coexisting in our home. We're here when they need us but we dont force ourselves into their space. I dont have expectations of them beyond being honest and treating each other with respect, and we give them the same in return. I dont think this is a negative thing. But my own experience of parents and families is a really negative one and so im obviously trying hard for something better.

Hope that sort of helps answer those questions.

Choccy's picture
Choccy
Offline
Joined: 9-12-04
Feb 25 2008 23:59
Mike Harman wrote:
Well the point was that practical skills are being taught at a purely theoretical (or actually sub-theoretical) level at schools, as in the example I gave. Music classes are much the same - actually playing an instrument is reserved for a fairly small number kids, music GNVQ doesn't require learning an instrument (or composition, or much applicable music skills at al) - it's something like 30% accountancy and event management.

It's a bit similar to 'embedded literacy and numeracy', where they turn whatever subject into a remedial english/maths class for a percentage of the time. This probably has some basis in ideas about holistic teaching, integrated subjects etc. but it's fucked up doing that to 16-19 year olds and wherever I've seen it, it's been both patronising and forced on teachers in a very unnatural way.

And of course this is somewhere I found schools to be really shit - the structure/activity in lessons. But again I found that reliance on rote-learning, teaching from textbooks and lack of practical/hands-on activity was related to the huge pressures teacher were under to complete units due to a rigid curriculum, frequent testing, Ofsted inspections, league table, underfunding etc. Problems that should be the site of our critical approach to schooling.

arf
Offline
Joined: 25-11-06
Feb 26 2008 13:17

I think probably if youre gonna talk about schooling, that coercion, freedom, and what kids want should all be part of the discussion.

If school is so brilliant for kids, if its what is best for them and what they need to feel happy and socialised and all that, then how come we need so many laws making it impossible for them to do anything else? How come so many kids are resistant to schooling?

Kids who take time off school, or who come in late to school, are treated like criminals. They can be stopped by police and questioned or taken home if they are seen outside, and harassed if they are at home. Their parents can also be harassed, legally, even to the point of being taken to court, being fined, even being given prison time. Its not even as if a child can choose for themselves to study alone in a library, nothing they do outside of school within school hours will be seen as legitimate, unless they have permission from the school.

So heres a bunch of cut n pastes from the devon county council website on the laws around children, schooling, and work. I think you have to really think about what schooling is for, and why there has to be all these laws about it, and how come children who really dont want to go to school for whatever reason are automatically assumed to be lazy, or up to no good, rather than assumed to be making autonomous decisions about their own life. I mean they go to school every day, surely they know better than anyone else whether its doing them any good?

Look at the language on all of this, look at how arbitrary the rules are. Why should kids not work in cinemas?:

Quote:
Absence from School

Penalty Notice Code of Conduct

Rationale

Regular and punctual attendance of pupils at school is both a legal requirement, and essential in order for students to maximise the opportunities available to them. The Devon Education Welfare Service will continue to investigate cases of regular non-attendance from school and, following appropriate casework, instigate legal action if applicable. Penalty Notices offer a means for swift intervention which the County Council will use to combat truancy problems before they become entrenched. This Code provides that the power to use Penalty Notices is applied consistently and fairly and that suitable administrative arrangements are in place.

Following the implementation of the Anti Social Behaviour Act 2003 it is possible that certain cases of unauthorised absence can be dealt with by way of a Penalty Notice. Penalty Notices will require the parent of a child of compulsory school age, whose attendance has been unsatisfactory, to pay a fine, currently £50.00 if paid within 28 days or £100.00 if paid within 42 days.

...

The issuing of Penalty Notices is appropriate:

* In cases of absence from school/college when the pupil has been taken on a holiday during term time and the absence has not been authorised by the school,
* When pupils are identified as truants in the course of a truancy patrol; enquiries will be undertaken with the school/college of any pupil stopped.
* In the early stages of casework, an Education Welfare Officer might form an opinion that the issuing of a Penalty Notice is appropriate e.g. in cases where a parent continually fails to provide an explanation for a pupil’s absence in accordance with the school’s procedures.
* Following notification from a school to the LEA that a pupil has had a record of unauthorised absence from school and the circumstances appear to have been avoidable. (e.g. too tired after a late night, a birthday treat, family friends/relatives visiting).
* When a pupil on the ‘Fastrack to Prosecution’ scheme fails to achieve the required improvement in attendance.
* Following a referral from the Devon and Cornwall Constabulary, or a neighbouring LEA.

From the FAQs on children working:

Quote:
Can my child work during school hours?
No. Employment should not impede the education of a child.

Note how employment is automatically assumed to not be educational. Also how children are only assumed to be recieving any education during school hours.

Quote:
No child may start work before 7.00 a.m. or finish later than 7.00 p.m at any time until they have reached their official school leaving date. When aged between 13 years and their school leaving date a child may work:

* On School Days:
One hour before school and up to two hours after school. They must not work more than a total of two hours on any school day.
* On Sundays:
A maximum of two hours.
* Other days when the school is not open:
o Children aged 13 or 14 years old can work for a total of five hours. They must, however, have a break of one hour after three hours continuous working.
o Young people aged 15 years and over can work for a total of eight hours. They must, however, have a break of one hour after four hours continuous working.

Total Weekly working hours:

* Term Time
13 - 16 years (until official school leaving date) 12 hours total including Saturdays and Sundays
* School Holidays
Children aged 13 or 14 years cannot work more than 25 hours in any one week (including Saturday and Sunday). Young people 15 years or over cannot work more than 35 hours in any one week including Saturday and Sunday.

...

No child of any age may be employed:

* In a cinema, theatre or club.
* To sell or deliver alcohol except in sealed containers
* To deliver milk or fuel oils
* In a commercial kitchen
* To collect or sort refuse
* In any work more than three metres above ground or in the case of internal work, three metres above floor level.
* In employment involving harmful exposure to physical, biological or chemical agents
* To collect money or to sell/canvass door to door
* In telephone sales
* In a slaughter house or in a butcher’s shop or other place connected with the killing/butcher of livestock or the preparation of meat for sale.
* As an attendant or assistant in a fairground or amusement arcade or in any place used for the purpose of public amusement by automatic machines, games of chance or skill etc.
* In the personal care of residents of any residential home or nursing home.

Khawaga's picture
Khawaga
Offline
Joined: 7-08-06
Feb 26 2008 13:29

Hey arf, as a parent and homeshcooler how do you view homework? I am asking coz I think it was Save the Children (Norway I think) that said basically homework is a violation of the convention of the rights of the child. It basically had to do with it being forced work, and that the pedagogical value of it being slim.

arf
Offline
Joined: 25-11-06
Feb 26 2008 13:36

I hated homework as a kid, we used to have a little blue book and three lessons a day were allowed to set us half hours work, but it always worked out to more.

Ive not really thought about homework as a violation of childrens rights, rather than an inconvenience. But on a short minutes thinking about it - i reckon it probably is. I dont know what the point of homework is supposed to be. You wouldve thought that having trapped the kids into a full day at school that they could be let alone in the evenings to pursue their own interests.

Do you have an opinion on homework, khawaga?

Choccy's picture
Choccy
Offline
Joined: 9-12-04
Feb 26 2008 13:41

I think homework's a load of shite - though I think projects and coursework can potentially have value.
I personally liked homework though when I was in school cos I was just like that - only really started resenting homework when i did a-levels.

madashell's picture
madashell
Offline
Joined: 19-06-06
Feb 26 2008 14:05
zarathustra wrote:
But conditions such as ADD do not actually exist.

Don't talk daft.

Are you going to tell me it's normal for a 15 year old kid to be jumping up on tables and throwing tantrums because they've had too much sugar?

arf
Offline
Joined: 25-11-06
Feb 26 2008 14:08

Its not just the sugar, its all sorts of other factors too.

madashell's picture
madashell
Offline
Joined: 19-06-06
Feb 26 2008 14:20
arf wrote:
Its not just the sugar, its all sorts of other factors too.

While there are a number of factors at play that can exacerbate ADD and other learning difficulties, there's also reams of evidence that they are at least partially caused by genetics. And even if that weren't the case, it is still useful to create categories and names for conditions that people suffer from.

The point is that the behaviour exhibited by children (and adults) with ADD, ADHD, ASD and all the rest is not normal, you can't just put it down to diet and environment.

arf
Offline
Joined: 25-11-06
Feb 26 2008 14:36

The point is that not all people diagnosed with ADD actually have it. There is widespread failure in the US at least to examine all the relevant factors in favour of giving an easy diagnosis and prescribing medication.

madashell's picture
madashell
Offline
Joined: 19-06-06
Feb 26 2008 15:00
arf wrote:
The point is that not all people diagnosed with ADD actually have it. There is widespread failure in the US at least to examine all the relevant factors in favour of giving an easy diagnosis and prescribing medication.

I agree with you there, I was more arguing against zarathustra saying that ADD does not exist.

jef costello's picture
jef costello
Offline
Joined: 9-02-06
Feb 26 2008 18:23

Thanks for your answers arf.

To be honest I'm not sure your vision of education is that far from my own. I'm just not sure most parents would have the skills to do that for their children, I also think children would probably benefit from more time with their peers.

I would agree that work can be educational but the majority of work we do is not educational, I'd certainly have learnt more if I'd not had to work. The employment laws are there to protect children and I'm not going to see them as a bad thing, they may seem arbitrary but I think they represent non-skilled work that children had been employed in (or obvous bad ideas like leting them have access to alcohol.)

Caiman del Barrio
Offline
Joined: 28-09-04
Feb 26 2008 19:50
madashell wrote:
arf wrote:
Its not just the sugar, its all sorts of other factors too.

While there are a number of factors at play that can exacerbate ADD and other learning difficulties, there's also reams of evidence that they are at least partially caused by genetics. And even if that weren't the case, it is still useful to create categories and names for conditions that people suffer from.

The point is that the behaviour exhibited by children (and adults) with ADD, ADHD, ASD and all the rest is not normal, you can't just put it down to diet and environment.

I'd like to see what percentage of children are considered "not normal" then? I'd generally agree with the sentiment that ADD is merely the modern liberal alternative to corporal punishment for "difficult", badly behaved children. i can't comment on the science behind it - maybe it does exist - but if so, it's hugely over-diagnosed. The fact that ADD didn't exist a generation ago should emphasise the importance of diet, lifestyle etc over genetics...

zarathustra
Offline
Joined: 8-12-07
Feb 26 2008 20:44
madashell wrote:
arf wrote:
Its not just the sugar, its all sorts of other factors too.

While there are a number of factors at play that can exacerbate ADD and other learning difficulties, there's also reams of evidence that they are at least partially caused by genetics.

Hohoha. Come on, give me a break. I don't recall that kids of yonder year had any such problems. Yes, kids are flamboyant, sometimes loud and aggressive, and full of energy. If cramped up in a class-room 24/7 they will react badly. But thats the adults fault, no defect in the kid. It's called CHILDHOOD - a word dreaded by the PC thought-police of todays institutions.

This pish about ADD/ADHD etc is thinly veiled thought control that is deeply, deeply troubling -- Orwellian.

Simon Sobo, MD wrote:
A case is made that the symptoms of ADHD represent the behavior of children who have great difficulty connecting to expectations. In the classroom, they don’t feel part of the group. Unlike the other students, they aren’t doing what the teacher is directing them to do--they are out of the flow. Trapped, lost, helplessly anonymous, even if they began the morning with good intentions, once boredom and restlessness take hold, all bets are off. Those who fear the consequences of making a disturbance drift off into daydreams, or look around the classroom for almost anything that might entertain them. This is ADD. Those with more spark, can’t sit still and make a lot of noise. This is ADHD. Depending on how well, or not well, they have been brought up, boys, more often than girls, can be particularly disruptive.

ADHD and Other Sins of Our Children

zarathustra
Offline
Joined: 8-12-07
Feb 26 2008 20:50
Caiman del Barrio wrote:
I'd generally agree with the sentiment that ADD is merely the modern liberal alternative to corporal punishment for "difficult", badly behaved children. i can't comment on the science behind it - maybe it does exist - but if so, it's hugely over-diagnosed. The fact that ADD didn't exist a generation ago should emphasise the importance of diet, lifestyle etc over genetics...

Exactly, Alan, dead on. In the age of forced-drugging, thought control, etc. -- parents aren't allowed to spank their kids! Smack your kid and tell him or her to shut up and Social Service comes a-knocking. Prescribe a narcotic drug to an adolescent and you're called a doctor/teacher/psychiatrist.

This bullshit against allowing adults to discipline their kids is mind-blowing.

Thora
Offline
Joined: 17-06-04
Feb 26 2008 22:04
zarathustra wrote:
Caiman del Barrio wrote:
I'd generally agree with the sentiment that ADD is merely the modern liberal alternative to corporal punishment for "difficult", badly behaved children. i can't comment on the science behind it - maybe it does exist - but if so, it's hugely over-diagnosed. The fact that ADD didn't exist a generation ago should emphasise the importance of diet, lifestyle etc over genetics...

Exactly, Alan, dead on. In the age of forced-drugging, thought control, etc. -- parents aren't allowed to spank their kids! Smack your kid and tell him or her to shut up and Social Service comes a-knocking. Prescribe a narcotic drug to an adolescent and you're called a doctor/teacher/psychiatrist.

This bullshit against allowing adults to discipline their kids is mind-blowing.

Sorry, drugging kids is bad but you think violence against them is ok?

arf
Offline
Joined: 25-11-06
Feb 27 2008 01:03

I missed that.

Khawaga's picture
Khawaga
Offline
Joined: 7-08-06
Feb 27 2008 10:08

Arf, regarding homework. I think it is all BS. And I do agree somewhat with Save the Children on that point. Kids are locked up in a school all day and on top of that you have to do homework, which might take 20 minutes to several hours depending on how school smart the kid is and how much help the child can get at home. If you don't do it you're in trouble and will be punished in some way. It favours those kids that have parents with spare time (usually those with more money) and good educations (unless you just hire a tutor, which at least in Egypt is extremely common). I don't really see any pedagogic value to it as well, unless it's a subject like maths or languages that does require quite a bit of effort to get into (in the context of the edu system we have now).

ADD. Load of wank. Kids are supposed to be that way to a certain degree. Though in the US I guess it doesn't help that practically every foodstuff there's got that syrup (corn?) in it. ADD as far as I've read is just a marketing scheme for Ritalin (excellent study aid in university though) and all those other speed pills. I agree that it is more about control than any fucking attention deficit or hyperactivity.

Choccy's picture
Choccy
Offline
Joined: 9-12-04
Feb 27 2008 11:26
revol68 wrote:
Homework is a fucking joke, i've was always in shit for never doing mine.

You're such a rebel, twat. I take it you didn't tidy your bedroom either?
That said I hated giving homework, it is a bit pointless, I wouldn't infer my own experience onto kids.

Quote:
never trust anyone who always did their homework in school, never.

I did - it made sense. Get home, do homework quickly, go out and play football the rest of the evening smile I was a bit of a mummy's boy though embarrassed

madashell's picture
madashell
Offline
Joined: 19-06-06
Feb 27 2008 12:17
Caiman del Barrio wrote:
I'd like to see what percentage of children are considered "not normal" then? I'd generally agree with the sentiment that ADD is merely the modern liberal alternative to corporal punishment for "difficult", badly behaved children. i can't comment on the science behind it - maybe it does exist - but if so, it's hugely over-diagnosed. The fact that ADD didn't exist a generation ago should emphasise the importance of diet, lifestyle etc over genetics...

It was never diagnosed a generation ago. Neither was Auspergers until the mid 1940s. Anybody care to argue that doesn't exist?

arf
Offline
Joined: 25-11-06
Feb 27 2008 13:14
Quote:
never trust anyone who always did their homework in school, never.

You have to be nice to them though if you want to copy it.