Do children need to be beaten more?

[overthere]

Its not just the quality of parenting its the quantity. Most families have two working parents now. This leaves less time for parents and kids to do things together, and traditional things like "sit down family meals" are for many families a think of the past.

Anyhow, the REAL difference is this conversation itself. When an incident like this happened 20 years ago (and they did happen) it was a short blurb in a local newspaper. But now everyone has a camera and the first thing people do is upload the videos of these things to viral video sites.

Iv seen more incididents of violence in the last 10 years than in my whole life before that. Its everyone now... I can go online and watch tens of thousands of outrageous assaults, beatings, shootings, etc. But it skews your perception because the reality is that these type of crimes are actually in decline. They happen less... we just see them more.

MMM, no, it's the quality that matters now and always has mattered. The old hackneyed phrase 'quality time' is as relevant now as it ever was...... just spending time with children is not enough, they have to have your actual attention and involvement. Kids can easily adapt and thrive with two working parents if those parents pay attention when they are together. Having a non working parent in no way guarantees any kind of quality of life, the opposite may be true.

There are plenty of screwed up adults around who were raised in Leave It To Beaver type homes.

[Guest]

Yes, I know, I know. I should realize by now that the general IQ level of this forum is fairly low, and their understanding of basic concepts tends not to past the obvious.

The 'children need to be beaten' is more a metaphore than a suggestion. Ie, they need to experience losing, failing, and thus discovering how to cope with that. Hell, they aren't even beaten in sports in places now because that might hurt their spirit! Sports teams aren't even keeping score!

http://ww3.suicideinfo.ca/ForProfessionals/TrendsinYouthSuicide/tabid/710/Default.aspx

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/blogs/dailybrew/canadian-researchers-alarming-rise-suicides-among-teen-pre-210437470.html

Hey, I got it. I have no idea why anyone would actually think you would advocate child abuse. In fact, I'm sure they don't. They are just making it up.

[BC_chick]

Re OP: based on my anecdotal evidence, spankings do nothing but create children who think it's ok to hit when they're angry. Also, they are more angry because they feel powerless.

As for the link to suicide, I agree with others who say that spanking is not the only variable to consider. Personally, I'm aghast at at the idea of being cyberbullied. I was bullied for one year as a tween and to this day I feel the damage that was done to me but I can't imagine having gone through what Amanda Todd did where her personal torture was inescapable and open for the world to see.

I also can't imagine what Rehtaeh Parsons went through. Similar things happened to girls I knew in high school but nobody filmed it and put it out there for the world to see.

The Internet is that variable, in my opinion. The Internet immortalizes the abuse and of course with it comes a feeling of desperation that our generation never had to deal with.

As traumatizing as my experience was with being bullied, I would take it any day over what either of those girls went through.

[overthere]

Internet bullying is pretty unique....in that is is somewhat voluntary. Nobody is obliged to go to sites or join forums or listen to insults/smack talk online.

Live bullying at work or school is different.

[eyeball]

Internet bullying is pretty unique....in that is is somewhat voluntary. Nobody is obliged to go to sites or join forums or listen to insults/smack talk online.

Live bullying at work or school is different.

When you suggest the victim had it coming it's no different at all no matter where they get it.

[jacee]

Many school systems won't fail a child because they consider it damaging to their self-esteem, for example. I think they ought to be held back a year if necessary. They'll learn there are severe consequences to not working hard that mommy and daddy can't protect you from.

I think you don't know much about education or child development.

The education system is arbitrarily designed in year-long 'grades' for reasons that suit adults, not developing children. The arbitrary year-long 'package' of learning may work ok for average learners, but it will be too little for some and too much for others.

Punishing kids because an arbitrary 'package' of education doesn't work for them is absolutely ludicrous.

If schools handed out average sized mittens too big for some and too small for others, should some kids be left to freeze their hands?

Ludicrous.

The system is responsible for educating every child to their 'personal best'.

It's not for picking 'winners' and discarding 'losers'.

And failing kids is discarding them as losers.

Fact is, kids who are failed - "held back" for an entire year - often continue failing, dropout, and continue failing throughout their life.

If they are held back one year in elementary, there's a good chance they'll fail again.

If they are held back two years in elementary, they'll be 16 before secondary and will likely never go.

Some are gifted kids held back from their personal best by a 'package' too easy that bores them to tears and they can't focus or complete such mundane work, fall asleep, torment others, etc etc.

Some are average kids experiencing personal/family trauma in a particular year.

Some progress more slowly than average, but progress continuously nonetheless.

Some have learning disabilities specifically affecting reading & writing skills but not learning information and concepts, thinking, problem-solving, etc.

The challenge is to provide continuous programming to maximize learning for each child through all arbitrary grades.

That's what works best for kids.

These are things we've learned in the last 50 years by researching education and child development.

Failing kids doesn't lead to improvement.

It leads to more failure.

If you think you can prove differently, Argus, show me your evidence.

.

[Argus]

The education system is arbitrarily designed in year-long 'grades' for reasons that suit adults, not developing children. The arbitrary year-long 'package' of learning may work ok for average learners, but it will be too little for some and too much for others.

Arbitrarily? With no thought to the child? Gee, why don't they just stuff in everything then and expect kids to learn it all in one year? Maybe because it's not so arbitrary and a great deal of thought is put into ensuring the curriculum is not too strenuous for the time period?

And if it's too much for some because of either behavioural or intellectual problems then they should be in special classes.

The system is responsible for educating every child to their 'personal best'.

It's not for picking 'winners' and discarding 'losers'.

Exactly, so the system should be doing what's best for most children. Right now, you have classes which have among them any number of children who should have been failed because they don't know the material, children who have disabilities who should be in special classes, and ESL students who don't really understand English all that well. This makes it almost impossible to teach to an average, and bores the snot out of kids who got it the first time and yet have to wait around while teacher goes over the material again and again for the slow learners and those with various 'issues'.

In order to please parents who don't want little Johnny in a 'special' class, or to please Jimmy, who goofed off all year and doesn't understand Math, they screw up every other kid.

Fact is, kids who are failed - "held back" for an entire year - often continue failing, dropout, and continue failing throughout their life.

Fact is such kids often fail when pushed forward too. If you don't get grade seven math how are you going to cope with grade eight math, and if you don't get that what happens in grade nine? It's a lot easier to teach to a failed student's level among other students who are at that level then trying to cope with a kid with grade six knowledge in a grade eight class. So what happens? The kid never really gets it, feels stupid, hates school, gets into trouble, and either drops out or is thrown out.

Barring disabilities school is not that hard. If a kid is failing its usually behavioural and needs to be addressed. Fearing being held back is a major motivator, or used to be, inspiring kids to put away the toys and study. And if it doesn't, well, guess what, there's a price for laziness and doing what you want rather than what you need to do. Best to learn that early in life.

[eyeball]

Just don't try to beat that into a kid. There's a price for that too.

[Michael's input]

I do believe kids these days are far weaker than those 50 years ago. We can blame parents for keeping their kids too close and never weaning them. But we can also blame drugs, gangs, and any other mischief conduct. Then again we can blame parents of those gangs and drug dealers for not being strict enough.

The question isn't who to blame but rather we should all blame ourselves. It's about setting examples to the younger generations to come.

[guyser]

But I agree it's not the same. After all, being called names on the computer is far worse than getting beaten up in real life, right?

I happen to think so , yes.

Getting tens, hundreds or the like to denigrate someone online is much worse than 1 person getting physical. It becomes a pervasive thing, affecting all that the kid does, he sees people (real or imaginary) who all denigrated him or her.

Add in the fact that it can occur 24/7 makes it infinitely worse. No one can beat anyone that long without other harm coming to them.

[Black Dog]

What makes you think I wasn't the one being pushed?

But I agree it's not the same. After all, being called names on the computer is far worse than getting beaten up in real life, right?

It's different. And it's not really an either/or thing.

Perhaps marginally, but they're rising again of late.

Perhaps, but the point is teen suicide rates were as high or higher in eras where the namby pamby coddling you're talking about here was not in fashion. What do you make of that, then?

One expects a certain degree of suicide among older folks due to such things as diseases and marital breakdowns. Young people, with their whole lives ahead of them, should not be killing themselves.

One would think the toughness you espouse would see them through such bumps along life's road, no?

Edited December 2, 2013 by Black Dog

[Bonam]

After all, being called names on the computer is far worse than getting beaten up in real life, right?

I happen to think so , yes.

I would disagree. Getting physically hurt is one thing, a bunch of online nonsense is easy to ignore. In the end, it's those that are making the denigrating comments that will have said comments come back and bite them later on, when a potential employer searches their online history and finds out that they are a bully.

[guyser]

I would disagree. Getting physically hurt is one thing, a bunch of online nonsense is easy to ignore.

I wish I could agree and I wish I understood the social media of a kid, but I don't.

That said,I do think it is hard for almost every kid to 'ignore' it when every other kid he/she knows is talking to said kid about it , not to mention every kid they don't know.

[TimG]

That said,I do think it is hard for almost every kid to 'ignore' it when every other kid he/she knows is talking to said kid about it , not to mention every kid they don't know.

Actually, it is typical teenage angst to assume that anyone is talking about it. There is so much crap out there on the internet the idea that other people care enough to even read the stuff is pretty self arrogant. I would say being able to ignore such comments is an essential life skill. Edited December 3, 2013 by TimG

[Bonam]

Actually, it is typical teenage angst to assume that anyone is talking about it. There is so much crap out there on the internet the idea that other people care enough to even read the stuff is pretty self arrogant. I would say being able to ignore such comments is an essential life skill.

Agreed.

[Mighty AC]

I disagree. I spend a fair amount of time around teenage kids and the crap posted online is being read, shared and then talked about. Online chatter among high schoolers is constant and as real to them as the face to face encounters with peers in the halls, cafeteria and class. It is hard for those of us who didn't grow up online to comprehend just how connected they are.

Fifteen years ago and more, kids were still bullied at school but the victims at least got a break when they went home in the evening. Now it follows them everywhere.

Edited December 3, 2013 by Mighty AC

[TimG]

Online chatter among high schoolers is constant and as real to them as the face to face encounters with peers in the halls, cafeteria and class.

It used to be that you went to a high school and that was your entire world. Today the internet connects like minded kids together to the point where the school community becomes irrelevant. While it is probably true that every school has a core circle of people who specialize in socializing and gossip - there are many other groups within a high school that simply ignore them. Kids that get into trouble get into trouble because they don't walk away from social group that abuses them. Edited December 3, 2013 by TimG

[GostHacked]

Fifteen years ago and more, kids were still bullied at school but the victims at least got a break when they went home in the evening. Now it follows them everywhere.

It follows them only because they allow it to. Constantly checking updates to see what people say about you will only bring you problems.

[Mighty AC]

It used to be that you went to a high school and that was your entire world. Today the internet connects like minded kids together to the point where the school community becomes irrelevant. While it is probably true that every school has a core circle of people who specialize in socializing and gossip - there are many other groups within a high school that simply ignore them. Kids that get into trouble get into trouble because they don't walk away from social group that abuses them.

You would think that being connected to an online world would free kids from the social confines of a single high school, but that's not the case. Students spend 7+ hours a day around each other and that social environment is impossible to escape.

It follows them only because they allow it to. Constantly checking updates to see what people say about you will only bring you problems.

Partly...but try to imagine what it feels like to be out of the loop or the only one not in on a joke. Online student gossip is incessant. Students who don't check up on what's being said can quickly feel like outsiders. Imagine walking down the hallway or into the cafeteria and feeling like every little laugh or chuckle is potentially directed at you.

The 'kids just have to learn to ignore it' type responses are common among adults. We forget what it's like to be in a world where we are constantly jockeying for social position and trying hard to fit in. At the same time these kids are just discovering who they are and battling dramatic changes and self esteem issues.

Edited December 3, 2013 by Mighty AC

[Army Guy]

I think you don't know much about education or child development.

The education system is arbitrarily designed in year-long 'grades' for reasons that suit adults, not developing children. The arbitrary year-long 'package' of learning may work ok for average learners, but it will be too little for some and too much for others.

Punishing kids because an arbitrary 'package' of education doesn't work for them is absolutely ludicrous.

If schools handed out average sized mittens too big for some and too small for others, should some kids be left to freeze their hands?

Ludicrous.

The system is responsible for educating every child to their 'personal best'.

It's not for picking 'winners' and discarding 'losers'.

And failing kids is discarding them as losers.

Fact is, kids who are failed - "held back" for an entire year - often continue failing, dropout, and continue failing throughout their life.

If they are held back one year in elementary, there's a good chance they'll fail again.

If they are held back two years in elementary, they'll be 16 before secondary and will likely never go.

Some are gifted kids held back from their personal best by a 'package' too easy that bores them to tears and they can't focus or complete such mundane work, fall asleep, torment others, etc etc.

Some are average kids experiencing personal/family trauma in a particular year.

Some progress more slowly than average, but progress continuously nonetheless.

Some have learning disabilities specifically affecting reading & writing skills but not learning information and concepts, thinking, problem-solving, etc.

The challenge is to provide continuous programming to maximize learning for each child through all arbitrary grades.

That's what works best for kids.

These are things we've learned in the last 50 years by researching education and child development.

Failing kids doesn't lead to improvement.

It leads to more failure.

If you think you can prove differently, Argus, show me your evidence.

.

I agree with your certain aspects of your concept, but it also has flaws such as pushing kids that are not ready for the next grade, and with classroom sizes getting bigger teachers in short supply where do they get that extra help to catch up....

Does there need to be a cut off, in age or grade.. because we both know that the real world does not work like that if you are not performing then you are not going to get that promotion etc....At sometime we also need to teach them they are responsable for thier actions....and they will not be pushed on to the next level...

[TimG]

Students spend 7+ hours a day around each other and that social environment is impossible to escape.

That is not the world my teenagers experience. They don't even know the names of many of their classmates because they choose to socialize with different groups of people. Edited December 3, 2013 by TimG

[Mighty AC]

I'm willing to bet they know the names of various antagonists even if they do not socialize with them. I'm also willing to bet that your teenagers would quickly be made aware of any online posts targeting them, even if they normally do not participate in such activities. They can then be very hard to ignore or avoid.

[GostHacked]

I'm willing to bet they know the names of various antagonists even if they do not socialize with them. I'm also willing to bet that your teenagers would quickly be made aware of any online posts targeting them, even if they normally do not participate in such activities. They can then be very hard to ignore or avoid.

The glory of a 'connected always on' world coupled with people who do not have a filter and post every stupid thing about themselves.

[overthere]

When you suggest the victim had it coming it's no different at all no matter where they get it.

The first part of your sentence does not relate to the second part.

And I suggested nothing of the sort nor did I condone bullying, simply pointed out the difference between the virutal world and real life.

I can punch you in the face all I like here, and you'll laugh it off. Your reaction to an actual physical assault would be very different.

[jacee]

I agree with your certain aspects of your concept, but it also has flaws such as pushing kids that are not ready for the next grade, and with classroom sizes getting bigger teachers in short supply where do they get that extra help to catch up....

Does there need to be a cut off, in age or grade.. because we both know that the real world does not work like that if you are not performing then you are not going to get that promotion etc....At sometime we also need to teach them they are responsable for thier actions....and they will not be pushed on to the next level...

Read my post again and tell me which of the examples I provided are kids that you think will benefit from being held back to 'learn responsibility'.

I'd like to see some evidence to support the idea that holding kids back benefits any kids at all.

Without evidence, a theory is just a theory.

.