[Shadowfax]

flu–In a sense I agree with you–live and let live should be the rule in school. But the age of reason in children comes long after they are all thrown in together in schools. Bottom line, it boils down to respecting each other, not being “sensitive” to another’s failings or differences. Nerdiness should be aspired to and obesity should be addressed as a health concern. Being an effeminate boy (in lower grades maybe) and identifying as a gay adolescent should not be labled abnormal.

As for discipline, when was the last time you were out on a school playground at recess? Do you see the 3-5 minimum wage lunch aids standing around? Some of them are retirees–do you think they have great vision and hearing? Can they sprint 50 yards to the far end of the blacktop to break up a fight? How are they supposed to “discipline” 100 elementary or jr high school kids when the budgets are so low that the school only pays them to come in for the 2 hours a day that they serve lunch and have recess? The volunteer moms at the high school are not going to jump in to separate a gang of boys mixing it up. In the classroom, teachers are trying to teach and constantly have to play disciplinarian as well. So, yeah, these transgressions should be corrected in school but they often go unseen.

Should parents be teaching their kids that bullying behavior is wrong? Yes. Will the kid who gets a thrill out of bullying get that lesson? No, at least not the first time and maybe not ever. Some people are just born assholes.

The reason kids bully is because 1) they get something out of it 2) someone taught them that picking on someone who is different or weaker than you is ok 3) the population around you (other students) won’t stop you, either because they agree with you or because they are scared of you and 4) there aren’t enough grownups around who either care or have the ability to stop you. (there may be other reasons, but this is my first impression)

One observation made in regard to the college kid (Tyler Clementi) who killed himself at Rutgers after his roommate published a video of him with another man on Youtube: …”we still aren’t noticing bullying until it gets out of hand, until the emotional violence turns into physical violence or, as alleged here, into suicide and indictments.”
The school systems are really coming down hard on bullies but the problem–like any enforcement issue–is resources. Kids will tattle but it takes grownups who actually believe that the bullying is serious enough to stop it. Even within the school parent population, there remain those who think that “playground rules” are a good life lesson, that being different or weird merits you a good beating so you can “get in line” and “be like the rest of us.” And it’s a fine line–sometimes playground rules reinforce good traits–like shoving the kid out of line who cuts in unfairly. So a teacher hears Johnny calling Jane “butch” three times in one day and later sees Jane on the ground crying. Johnny’s deskmate says Johnny pushed her. Ok, send Johnny to the office, Johnny’s parents come in and say, “What? It’s just normal kid behavior?” Bullying?

Lots of kids come into the school system with certain values from home that don’t fit well in a group environment or society at large. Innocuous example: single children who learn pretty quick that they have to wait in line for their turn and to share. Harmful example: that gays are fags and queers and no son of mine is going to be gay or hang out with someone who is and if you ever find one do you should beat the crap out of them. Yes, you know this exists out there and is sometimes supported by whole communities. The lessons not to hurt others should be taught at home but frequently aren’t. And fortunately our schools do a lot of good in this area. Teaching tolerance of any “difference” is the key to changing those practices. Educating kids that the “weird” kid is just another example of the human condition helps this process.

The bright side here is that I find the younger generation is actually waaaay more accepting of differences than the seniors. Conversations with the college-age kids of my friends give me a lot of hope that people are becoming more and more color blind and accepting of all sorts of variations on “normal” that put most retirees’ panties in a bunch. Yay for integration and liberalism! Even that died in the wool tea bagger retracted his views recently and decided that “those people” are ok. (someone chime in on this–it was on an MSNBC program a couple weeks ago, name escapes me)

[Shadowfax]

flu–In a sense I agree with you–live and let live should be the rule in school. But the age of reason in children comes long after they are all thrown in together in schools. Bottom line, it boils down to respecting each other, not being “sensitive” to another’s failings or differences. Nerdiness should be aspired to and obesity should be addressed as a health concern. Being an effeminate boy (in lower grades maybe) and identifying as a gay adolescent should not be labled abnormal.

As for discipline, when was the last time you were out on a school playground at recess? Do you see the 3-5 minimum wage lunch aids standing around? Some of them are retirees–do you think they have great vision and hearing? Can they sprint 50 yards to the far end of the blacktop to break up a fight? How are they supposed to “discipline” 100 elementary or jr high school kids when the budgets are so low that the school only pays them to come in for the 2 hours a day that they serve lunch and have recess? The volunteer moms at the high school are not going to jump in to separate a gang of boys mixing it up. In the classroom, teachers are trying to teach and constantly have to play disciplinarian as well. So, yeah, these transgressions should be corrected in school but they often go unseen.

Should parents be teaching their kids that bullying behavior is wrong? Yes. Will the kid who gets a thrill out of bullying get that lesson? No, at least not the first time and maybe not ever. Some people are just born assholes.

The reason kids bully is because 1) they get something out of it 2) someone taught them that picking on someone who is different or weaker than you is ok 3) the population around you (other students) won’t stop you, either because they agree with you or because they are scared of you and 4) there aren’t enough grownups around who either care or have the ability to stop you. (there may be other reasons, but this is my first impression)

One observation made in regard to the college kid (Tyler Clementi) who killed himself at Rutgers after his roommate published a video of him with another man on Youtube: …”we still aren’t noticing bullying until it gets out of hand, until the emotional violence turns into physical violence or, as alleged here, into suicide and indictments.”
The school systems are really coming down hard on bullies but the problem–like any enforcement issue–is resources. Kids will tattle but it takes grownups who actually believe that the bullying is serious enough to stop it. Even within the school parent population, there remain those who think that “playground rules” are a good life lesson, that being different or weird merits you a good beating so you can “get in line” and “be like the rest of us.” And it’s a fine line–sometimes playground rules reinforce good traits–like shoving the kid out of line who cuts in unfairly. So a teacher hears Johnny calling Jane “butch” three times in one day and later sees Jane on the ground crying. Johnny’s deskmate says Johnny pushed her. Ok, send Johnny to the office, Johnny’s parents come in and say, “What? It’s just normal kid behavior?” Bullying?

Lots of kids come into the school system with certain values from home that don’t fit well in a group environment or society at large. Innocuous example: single children who learn pretty quick that they have to wait in line for their turn and to share. Harmful example: that gays are fags and queers and no son of mine is going to be gay or hang out with someone who is and if you ever find one do you should beat the crap out of them. Yes, you know this exists out there and is sometimes supported by whole communities. The lessons not to hurt others should be taught at home but frequently aren’t. And fortunately our schools do a lot of good in this area. Teaching tolerance of any “difference” is the key to changing those practices. Educating kids that the “weird” kid is just another example of the human condition helps this process.

The bright side here is that I find the younger generation is actually waaaay more accepting of differences than the seniors. Conversations with the college-age kids of my friends give me a lot of hope that people are becoming more and more color blind and accepting of all sorts of variations on “normal” that put most retirees’ panties in a bunch. Yay for integration and liberalism! Even that died in the wool tea bagger retracted his views recently and decided that “those people” are ok. (someone chime in on this–it was on an MSNBC program a couple weeks ago, name escapes me)

[Shadowfax]

I think there is a lot to be said for deprivation inspiring tenacity and hard work. I struggle with the desire to provide the best we can afford to our kids while also leaving them a little “hungry” so that they understand the value of hard work and persistence. I think that, more than the failure of any particular curriculum, has been the downfall of the American educational system.

Look at Grant Hill and the flack he took from all his baller cohorts for wanting to get a good education while at Duke. If rap and bling and ignorance is glorified in our culture, and being smart and studying makes you “nerdy” (raises hand) then more kids will give up and only try hard enough to pass. Imagine a school system where all the kids really wanted to do well and really wanted to be the top in their class? The schools wouldn’t be able to keep up with the demand for learning and we’d be talking about how to raise the educational level of teachers. We’d be competitive then…

[Shadowfax]

I think there is a lot to be said for deprivation inspiring tenacity and hard work. I struggle with the desire to provide the best we can afford to our kids while also leaving them a little “hungry” so that they understand the value of hard work and persistence. I think that, more than the failure of any particular curriculum, has been the downfall of the American educational system.

Look at Grant Hill and the flack he took from all his baller cohorts for wanting to get a good education while at Duke. If rap and bling and ignorance is glorified in our culture, and being smart and studying makes you “nerdy” (raises hand) then more kids will give up and only try hard enough to pass. Imagine a school system where all the kids really wanted to do well and really wanted to be the top in their class? The schools wouldn’t be able to keep up with the demand for learning and we’d be talking about how to raise the educational level of teachers. We’d be competitive then…

[Shadowfax]

I think there is a lot to be said for deprivation inspiring tenacity and hard work. I struggle with the desire to provide the best we can afford to our kids while also leaving them a little “hungry” so that they understand the value of hard work and persistence. I think that, more than the failure of any particular curriculum, has been the downfall of the American educational system.

Look at Grant Hill and the flack he took from all his baller cohorts for wanting to get a good education while at Duke. If rap and bling and ignorance is glorified in our culture, and being smart and studying makes you “nerdy” (raises hand) then more kids will give up and only try hard enough to pass. Imagine a school system where all the kids really wanted to do well and really wanted to be the top in their class? The schools wouldn’t be able to keep up with the demand for learning and we’d be talking about how to raise the educational level of teachers. We’d be competitive then…

[Shadowfax]

I think there is a lot to be said for deprivation inspiring tenacity and hard work. I struggle with the desire to provide the best we can afford to our kids while also leaving them a little “hungry” so that they understand the value of hard work and persistence. I think that, more than the failure of any particular curriculum, has been the downfall of the American educational system.

Look at Grant Hill and the flack he took from all his baller cohorts for wanting to get a good education while at Duke. If rap and bling and ignorance is glorified in our culture, and being smart and studying makes you “nerdy” (raises hand) then more kids will give up and only try hard enough to pass. Imagine a school system where all the kids really wanted to do well and really wanted to be the top in their class? The schools wouldn’t be able to keep up with the demand for learning and we’d be talking about how to raise the educational level of teachers. We’d be competitive then…

[Shadowfax]

I think there is a lot to be said for deprivation inspiring tenacity and hard work. I struggle with the desire to provide the best we can afford to our kids while also leaving them a little “hungry” so that they understand the value of hard work and persistence. I think that, more than the failure of any particular curriculum, has been the downfall of the American educational system.

Look at Grant Hill and the flack he took from all his baller cohorts for wanting to get a good education while at Duke. If rap and bling and ignorance is glorified in our culture, and being smart and studying makes you “nerdy” (raises hand) then more kids will give up and only try hard enough to pass. Imagine a school system where all the kids really wanted to do well and really wanted to be the top in their class? The schools wouldn’t be able to keep up with the demand for learning and we’d be talking about how to raise the educational level of teachers. We’d be competitive then…

[Shadowfax]

[quote=CBad]I totally agree with Hobie. Also, I wish we could get over covering all of the politically correct categories and focus on actual History. All people should know about important people and events in history and the fact that they are black, white, gay, straight, men or women is besides the point. I’m not against kids learning about Harvey Milk but they had better be able to know where San Francisco is on a map, which Native Americans lived there, and the impact of the Gold Rush first.[/quote]

But this is the point. Instead of my underfunded and lacking public schooling in Maryland, using a 1970s-era text book where every figure was white and male, the history we are encouraging be taught today would be MORE accurate and encourage more analytical thinking. The railroads west just didn’t magically appear–the Chinese labored and died to make them. That is part of our history. That is why SF has such a high Chinese population. I think the past focus on only one group has further pixelated the picture–if you teach a comprehensive version of history it is more wholistic and inclusive of the over all struggle to build America–even when the groups sometimes struggled against each other.

One other comment: I don’t think the school systems will have to have sex ed in first grade in order for elementary schools to incorporate the contributions of individuals into the curriculum. The books like “Dick and Jane Have Two Mommies” or whatever get the point across fairly well without going into the details.

High schoolers could definitely handle sexual orientation as one aspect of a given historical figure and, in fact, I think that’s where this material would do the most good since most teen suicides I am aware of happen during the high school years (duh) and many are attributable, at least in part, to peer hazing and feelings of alienation.

[Shadowfax]

[quote=CBad]I totally agree with Hobie. Also, I wish we could get over covering all of the politically correct categories and focus on actual History. All people should know about important people and events in history and the fact that they are black, white, gay, straight, men or women is besides the point. I’m not against kids learning about Harvey Milk but they had better be able to know where San Francisco is on a map, which Native Americans lived there, and the impact of the Gold Rush first.[/quote]

But this is the point. Instead of my underfunded and lacking public schooling in Maryland, using a 1970s-era text book where every figure was white and male, the history we are encouraging be taught today would be MORE accurate and encourage more analytical thinking. The railroads west just didn’t magically appear–the Chinese labored and died to make them. That is part of our history. That is why SF has such a high Chinese population. I think the past focus on only one group has further pixelated the picture–if you teach a comprehensive version of history it is more wholistic and inclusive of the over all struggle to build America–even when the groups sometimes struggled against each other.

One other comment: I don’t think the school systems will have to have sex ed in first grade in order for elementary schools to incorporate the contributions of individuals into the curriculum. The books like “Dick and Jane Have Two Mommies” or whatever get the point across fairly well without going into the details.

High schoolers could definitely handle sexual orientation as one aspect of a given historical figure and, in fact, I think that’s where this material would do the most good since most teen suicides I am aware of happen during the high school years (duh) and many are attributable, at least in part, to peer hazing and feelings of alienation.

[Shadowfax]

[quote=CBad]I totally agree with Hobie. Also, I wish we could get over covering all of the politically correct categories and focus on actual History. All people should know about important people and events in history and the fact that they are black, white, gay, straight, men or women is besides the point. I’m not against kids learning about Harvey Milk but they had better be able to know where San Francisco is on a map, which Native Americans lived there, and the impact of the Gold Rush first.[/quote]

But this is the point. Instead of my underfunded and lacking public schooling in Maryland, using a 1970s-era text book where every figure was white and male, the history we are encouraging be taught today would be MORE accurate and encourage more analytical thinking. The railroads west just didn’t magically appear–the Chinese labored and died to make them. That is part of our history. That is why SF has such a high Chinese population. I think the past focus on only one group has further pixelated the picture–if you teach a comprehensive version of history it is more wholistic and inclusive of the over all struggle to build America–even when the groups sometimes struggled against each other.

One other comment: I don’t think the school systems will have to have sex ed in first grade in order for elementary schools to incorporate the contributions of individuals into the curriculum. The books like “Dick and Jane Have Two Mommies” or whatever get the point across fairly well without going into the details.

High schoolers could definitely handle sexual orientation as one aspect of a given historical figure and, in fact, I think that’s where this material would do the most good since most teen suicides I am aware of happen during the high school years (duh) and many are attributable, at least in part, to peer hazing and feelings of alienation.

[Shadowfax]

[quote=CBad]I totally agree with Hobie. Also, I wish we could get over covering all of the politically correct categories and focus on actual History. All people should know about important people and events in history and the fact that they are black, white, gay, straight, men or women is besides the point. I’m not against kids learning about Harvey Milk but they had better be able to know where San Francisco is on a map, which Native Americans lived there, and the impact of the Gold Rush first.[/quote]

But this is the point. Instead of my underfunded and lacking public schooling in Maryland, using a 1970s-era text book where every figure was white and male, the history we are encouraging be taught today would be MORE accurate and encourage more analytical thinking. The railroads west just didn’t magically appear–the Chinese labored and died to make them. That is part of our history. That is why SF has such a high Chinese population. I think the past focus on only one group has further pixelated the picture–if you teach a comprehensive version of history it is more wholistic and inclusive of the over all struggle to build America–even when the groups sometimes struggled against each other.

One other comment: I don’t think the school systems will have to have sex ed in first grade in order for elementary schools to incorporate the contributions of individuals into the curriculum. The books like “Dick and Jane Have Two Mommies” or whatever get the point across fairly well without going into the details.

High schoolers could definitely handle sexual orientation as one aspect of a given historical figure and, in fact, I think that’s where this material would do the most good since most teen suicides I am aware of happen during the high school years (duh) and many are attributable, at least in part, to peer hazing and feelings of alienation.

[Shadowfax]

[quote=CBad]I totally agree with Hobie. Also, I wish we could get over covering all of the politically correct categories and focus on actual History. All people should know about important people and events in history and the fact that they are black, white, gay, straight, men or women is besides the point. I’m not against kids learning about Harvey Milk but they had better be able to know where San Francisco is on a map, which Native Americans lived there, and the impact of the Gold Rush first.[/quote]

But this is the point. Instead of my underfunded and lacking public schooling in Maryland, using a 1970s-era text book where every figure was white and male, the history we are encouraging be taught today would be MORE accurate and encourage more analytical thinking. The railroads west just didn’t magically appear–the Chinese labored and died to make them. That is part of our history. That is why SF has such a high Chinese population. I think the past focus on only one group has further pixelated the picture–if you teach a comprehensive version of history it is more wholistic and inclusive of the over all struggle to build America–even when the groups sometimes struggled against each other.

One other comment: I don’t think the school systems will have to have sex ed in first grade in order for elementary schools to incorporate the contributions of individuals into the curriculum. The books like “Dick and Jane Have Two Mommies” or whatever get the point across fairly well without going into the details.

High schoolers could definitely handle sexual orientation as one aspect of a given historical figure and, in fact, I think that’s where this material would do the most good since most teen suicides I am aware of happen during the high school years (duh) and many are attributable, at least in part, to peer hazing and feelings of alienation.

[Shadowfax]

[quote=Hobie]Math>Reading>Writing>US/World History>Art/Music>Home Ec,Woodshop,Life skills( balance checkbook, resume, etc) all should be in front taking time for gay history. Once the test scores are up and we are turning out sharp kids, we can discuss adding esoteric topics to the curricula. [/quote]

I don’t think an entire month should be devoted to it (I really don’t think women’s history or black history should get their 1 month a year either), but it is certainly reasonable to integrate it into your US/World History component above. These areas are so LACKING from my 1970s public school education, my next example requires me to consult wikipedia to flesh it out (which I won’t do due to time constraints).

So here goes: when covering the revolutionary war in US History, for example, we discuss George Washington and the generals. Is it so much trouble to include a few paragraphs on the regimen of freed slaves that contributed to the winning of that war? And when the realization of our manifest destiny is covered, it’s reasonable to include a chapter or subchapter on the contributions of Chinese-Americans to the railroad effort and the place of the gay community in “settling” San Francisco. Art History can include Georgia O’Keefe and what some consider to be the inspiration for her work. English or World History can include information on Sappho (or was it Lesbos–again, my education was lacking.)

See–concise and relevant to core topics. I don’t think they are advocating for diagrams or anything….

[Shadowfax]

[quote=Hobie]Math>Reading>Writing>US/World History>Art/Music>Home Ec,Woodshop,Life skills( balance checkbook, resume, etc) all should be in front taking time for gay history. Once the test scores are up and we are turning out sharp kids, we can discuss adding esoteric topics to the curricula. [/quote]

I don’t think an entire month should be devoted to it (I really don’t think women’s history or black history should get their 1 month a year either), but it is certainly reasonable to integrate it into your US/World History component above. These areas are so LACKING from my 1970s public school education, my next example requires me to consult wikipedia to flesh it out (which I won’t do due to time constraints).

So here goes: when covering the revolutionary war in US History, for example, we discuss George Washington and the generals. Is it so much trouble to include a few paragraphs on the regimen of freed slaves that contributed to the winning of that war? And when the realization of our manifest destiny is covered, it’s reasonable to include a chapter or subchapter on the contributions of Chinese-Americans to the railroad effort and the place of the gay community in “settling” San Francisco. Art History can include Georgia O’Keefe and what some consider to be the inspiration for her work. English or World History can include information on Sappho (or was it Lesbos–again, my education was lacking.)

See–concise and relevant to core topics. I don’t think they are advocating for diagrams or anything….

[Shadowfax]

[quote=Hobie]Math>Reading>Writing>US/World History>Art/Music>Home Ec,Woodshop,Life skills( balance checkbook, resume, etc) all should be in front taking time for gay history. Once the test scores are up and we are turning out sharp kids, we can discuss adding esoteric topics to the curricula. [/quote]

I don’t think an entire month should be devoted to it (I really don’t think women’s history or black history should get their 1 month a year either), but it is certainly reasonable to integrate it into your US/World History component above. These areas are so LACKING from my 1970s public school education, my next example requires me to consult wikipedia to flesh it out (which I won’t do due to time constraints).

So here goes: when covering the revolutionary war in US History, for example, we discuss George Washington and the generals. Is it so much trouble to include a few paragraphs on the regimen of freed slaves that contributed to the winning of that war? And when the realization of our manifest destiny is covered, it’s reasonable to include a chapter or subchapter on the contributions of Chinese-Americans to the railroad effort and the place of the gay community in “settling” San Francisco. Art History can include Georgia O’Keefe and what some consider to be the inspiration for her work. English or World History can include information on Sappho (or was it Lesbos–again, my education was lacking.)

See–concise and relevant to core topics. I don’t think they are advocating for diagrams or anything….

[Author]

Posts