Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

Teachers complain of danger on the job
By Susan Snyder INQUIRER STAFF WRITER

It was around lunchtime one school day last month when a second grader in teacher Tanya Hoard's classroom threatened to bring in a shotgun and kill her, an assertion the boy repeated for the principal.

Hoard, a 12-year district teacher now at Huey Elementary in West Philadelphia, was shocked.

"I've heard about students threatening teachers, but I never thought it would happen to me, especially not teaching a second-grade class," said Hoard, 34.

Her next shock came when she learned that the Philadelphia School District would allow the boy - a 9-year-old who earlier this school year was in trouble for exposing himself to another student - to remain at Huey, although not in her class.

Teachers in the 210,000-student Philadelphia system say they increasingly are battered physically and verbally by students, even in elementary schools previously regarded as relatively safe. More than 600 assaults have been reported in the district this year.

Teachers report that they have been pushed, punched, jumped, and hit with objects, and that their lives have been threatened. They have been stalked in parking lots and their cars have been vandalized, say more than a dozen teachers who reported incidents to their union this year.

And, they say, student attackers too often remain in their schools instead of being moved to a disciplinary setting or another alternative spot.

The complaints come as the district is on the verge of upgrading its disciplinary system with a new safety executive at the helm, and in the midst of a recruiting drive to cope with a teacher shortage expected to worsen this fall.

"Clearly, we acknowledge we need to improve a lot of things throughout our system when it comes to the handling of disruptive students," district spokeswoman Alexis Moore said.

But, she said, "you can't just throw everybody out of the school. That doesn't solve the problem. A lot of times we adults forget we are dealing with children. Children deserve second and sometimes third chances."

The Philadelphia Federation of Teachers says disruptive behavior has escalated in recent years and discipline has been too lax.

"Kids have to know this is not going to be permitted, particularly on the heels of very serious incidents that have occurred in schools across the country," said Jerry Jordan, the union's chief of staff.

"We have a responsibility to make sure that a youngster gets a good education, but they don't have to get a good education in the building where they threatened a staff member."

While the district does not keep records on threats, assaults on teachers by students have increased from five years ago, when statistics were first compiled, district officials said. But they appear to have dropped somewhat this year from 1999-2000, when they hit a high of 710. As of Wednesday, 623 had been reported.

Teachers say disruptive behavior is becoming more frequent, more intense - and occurring at younger ages.

Take the case of Karin Bowen, a third-grade teacher at Bryant Elementary in West Philadelphia.

Bowen, a teacher since 1972, was punched by a student who had been in trouble several times before. As a second grader in another school, the boy was caught with a razor blade, she said. At Bryant earlier this year, he had bitten and hit lunch aides.

When Bowen was punched, the administration wanted to send the boy back to her class after a brief suspension. Bowen and some parents objected; he was moved to another class.

"You can't just let this kid punch a teacher and put the kid back in the same classroom," she said. "It's like, 'I punched the teacher. I went home for three days [on suspension]. What can I do next?' "

He wasn't the only child in her classroom this year with a disciplinary history. There was also a girl caught with a knife, along with a boy who punched another teacher in the eye and was then transferred to Bowen's room.

Hoard, the Huey teacher, said the boy who threatened her should have been removed from the school. She sought police action but was told that children under 10 in Pennsylvania are not charged in cases of threats.

The boy, she said, exhibited troubling behavior all year, making her fearful that he could carry out such a threat. On the day of the incident, she had taken a basketball away from him in class, leading to the outburst.

Fearful, she stayed home from school the day after the threat and kept her classroom door locked for a while after that.

"This is very serious and there should be more consequences," she said.

The boy was suspended for four days, then assigned to another class. The school is paying staff $300 a week in overtime to shadow the child one-on-one. The child also is being tested for possible designation as a special-education student and for mental-health treatment.

The district does not have a disciplinary school for children under grade five, and officials are reluctant to create one.

"These are children, and I think we first need to do all that we can do in terms of socialization, intervention and prevention," said Dexter Green, the district's chief safety executive.

While Bowen did not sustain serious injury, not all teachers are as fortunate. A West Philadelphia High School teacher, Larry Milburn, has been out on workers' compensation since November when he was jumped from behind, punched, and kicked while trying to break up a fight.

A third-grade teacher at an elementary school in Southwest Philadelphia underwent surgery on her arm last week. She said she suffered a displaced bone and a torn ligament after a 10-year-old erupted in a tantrum. The student was allowed to remain in her class but later was moved to another room after he tried to throw a classmate down the stairs.

She, like some other teachers, requested anonymity.

Such violent behavior in early grades is being seen in many districts.

"Overage, underachieving youngsters is a typical problem, and you have a school setting that for the most part hasn't had to deal with violence at this very young age," said Ronald Stephens of the National School Safety Center.

Many districts are developing an elementary program for disruptive youths, he said.

In Philadelphia, officials say each case must be dealt with individually, and they note that some children are exposed to abuse and poor living conditions that affect their behavior. A small number have mental problems that require treatment, not disciplinary transfer.

They add that the law severely restricts them from transferring special-education students out of regular schools for disciplinary reasons. They also say that transferring regular students to a disciplinary school is a last resort.

For some teachers, that message is hard to hear.

A North Philadelphia middle-school teacher said an eighth grader hurled a chair at her in February. A few weeks later, the teacher said, the girl threatened to pour gasoline on her and set her afire.

"It's been a very, very difficult year. There have been many, many times when I've cried about coming back," said the first-year teacher.

A Bartram High School teacher, Shirley Allen, recently complained to district officials that a student who had pushed her through a door in April remained in the school. She was outraged when she learned the same boy was charged with possession of a weapon one month later: He had a starter's pistol.

Allen pressed charges in the assault. "Kids can't get away with thinking they can do these things to adults," said Allen, a teacher since 1974.

In some schools, teachers say discipline is handled well. In Erik Fleming's class at Morton Elementary in Southwest Philadelphia, a fourth grader was found with a loaded gun. The principal quietly and immediately removed the child. The boy was transferred to another school.

"Our administration does not deal lightly with discipline," Fleming said. "They're very swift with their action and they support the teachers and the staff."

In September, the district will begin training staff on how to better cope with disruptive children.

"Within a classroom you can manage troublemakers with different levels of action," said Moore, a former city high school teacher.

For example, ejecting a child from class for refusing to open a book may encourage others to act up. A teacher instead could withhold privileges, such as participation on a class trip.

The district is considering creating a diagnostic center where, in some severe cases and with parental permission, children could be given mental-health evaluations. It is also computerizing disciplinary records to speed up transfers and anticipating expansion of a privately run disciplinary school next year from 300 to 1,200 students.

Parents, officials said, sometimes encourage their children to defy teachers, and some assault teachers themselves.

Last school year at Bryant Elementary, a parent attacked preschool teacher Heather Eaton with keys and cut her below the left cheek. The parent had been late in picking up her child.

The parent simply left after the attack, she said.

Eaton got a temporary restraining order and pressed charges. The child remained in her class. Since it took police several days to find the parent and charge her, Eaton asked colleagues to walk her to her car.

"I was scared to death to leave the grounds," she said.

Susan Snyder's e-mail address is ssnyder@phillynews.com.

This whole thing is a nonsense. Everyone is passing the buck once more. The child could come from a bad home. The child could have mental problems.

The child could just be a little shit who needs a foot up the arse and a school board to support teachers who are attacked. Furthermore, other parents should support them too. If they don't they're making the education of their own children worse. Such violent classrooms are not beneficial to the other students both directly, and indirectly (if their teachers spend all their time dealing with other students or scared and at home).

I have to say though, I think much of this has been brought on by teachers and teacher unions and the whole modern ethos of education.

shorbe

On top of some things you mentioned, part of the problem also lies in the fact that many parents believe that it's not their job to educate their children. "That's what school is for!" Parents leave it up to the educators (whether in private or public schools) to teach their children the lessons and skills they need.

But! When their children are disciplined at school, the parents are there to attack the teacher. "Why did you fail my daughter?" "Why did you give my son detention?" Of course nothing could be wrong with the kids, it MUST be the school's fault!

Freak: I couldn't agree more. If the parents aren't involved, there's little the school can do. My parents were actively involved in my education and I believe that made a big difference.

shorbe

But! When their children are disciplined at school, the parents are there to attack the teacher. "Why did you fail my daughter?" "Why did you give my son detention?" Of course nothing could be wrong with the kids, it MUST be the school's fault!

You have obviously never met my dad.

At 6/15/01 12:34 PM, Freakapotimus wrote: Teachers complain of danger on the job
By Susan Snyder INQUIRER STAFF WRITER

This is what happens when the school districs are forced to "streamline" the students.

Remember back when children of different learning capabilities were put into different classes? They had Gifted, Regular, and classes for those that needed some extra help. Now what they have had to do out of political correctness is make all the classes (mainly in elementry and middle schools) Regular. There is nothing wrong with any of these groups but contrary to the politically correct thought, all these class levels are needed and important.

Now we are putting tremndous pressure on the kids that have learning disabilities and boring the living crap out of the fast learners. So only about a third of the school isn't frustrated...that and we are concentrating more on testing as a form of proof of scholastic results instead of actually taking the time to look at what the child has done and giving them individual reviews.

We are all part of the problem, whether it be parents that have kids as though they are another accessory to their house, or a complete lack of funds towards teachers thus making their only job satisfaction being those few kids a year that actually try, or what seems to be the worst part is society as a whole always pointing fingers somewhere instead of all of us taking responsibility for the results of what we produce.

Our children are nothing but a product of society.

At 6/22/01 12:06 AM, shorbe wrote: Freak: I couldn't agree more. If the parents aren't involved, there's little the school can do. My parents were actively involved in my education and I believe that made a big difference.

shorbe

The school can do a hella lot of things without the parents involvement, I was put in isolation without my parents knowing, because I was considered 'dangerous' by the way i dressed. My parent isnt involved in shit I do at school, at the beginning of the year I fill out my forms and turn them in, the fact that my mom isnt really involved has had no effect on me, Im still a straight a student and I stay out of trouble most of the time. Some kids are just spoiled and need a good kick to the ass to keep them from threatening anyone. They also need stronger punishments because if a child goes up to a teacher and threatens them they should not be put back in a classroom they should be sent somewhere where they will learn that what they said was wrong. Putting them back in class just shows them that they can get away with what they did.

Strawberry: I'm only disagreeing with you in part.

What I am saying is that yes, everyone can make their own decisions and control their own future, and yes, children should be disciplined if they fuck up.

What I am saying is that they not only need that at school (and the schools need the ability to stop violent children), but parents' need to do something about it as well.

It's a bit of a lost cause without a united front.

shorbe

Now we are putting tremndous pressure on the kids that have learning disabilities and boring the living crap out of the fast learners. So only about a third of the school isn't frustrated...that and we are concentrating more on testing as a form of proof of scholastic results instead of actually taking the time to look at what the child has done and giving them individual reviews.

It doesn't matter how much you divide the bright kids from the not so bright kids, the bright kids still get bored. For instance the most intelligent kids (including me) in my year have all had discipinary problems. One of them almost got expelled this week. However quick the teachers go it's not quick enough and the stuff that we do in schools is just plain boring!

Slizor: Is anyone in the education system listening? I doubt it. School sucks.

shorbe

At 6/23/01 11:50 AM, shorbe wrote: Slizor: Is anyone in the education system listening? I doubt it. School sucks.

shorbe

I blame the government.

The government sucks.

It seems like only the rich will be able to afford better education for their children.

Shrapnel: The people elect or don't elect (if they don't vote) the government though. They have the ability to change that. I think the government is a massive problem, but it's something that can be solved.

People might be able to afford a lot of things if they weren't being taxed. Then they could choose where their money went.

Then again, the laziness and stupidity of people never ceases to amaze me.

I was watching a current affairs programme, and they got politicians to live on the same amount of money as their average constituents in their electorates. At the end of it, the politician was talking to the family, and asked them what they wanted changed.

They said they didn't know, and that was up to the politicians.

People are stupid. They complain they don't like things, but don't know what they want, and still want to put the responsibility back in the hands of others. Is it any wonder politicians get corrupt or don't listen to people?

shorbe

At 6/24/01 12:22 AM, shorbe wrote: Shrapnel: The people elect or don't elect (if they don't vote) the government though. They have the ability to change that. I think the government is a massive problem, but it's something that can be solved.

I do not like the voting system in place where I live and my knowledge of other governments is weak but I suspect there may be parallels to other countries.
The people can vote for their government but they only vote for the big issues. The technical details on how to solve issues are overlooked.
In the province I live, the people elect the government but after they are in power, it seems to me that there is little say from the people afterwards in terms of allocation of money.
This in turn leads to a loss of control from the population in designing a curriculum for students.
Not only that, the regulation of teachers is quite weak. There are many poor teachers in the province who cannot get kicked out because of the system in place for them to keep their jobs.
This goes across the board for bad doctors and bad police officers. They get stuck in the system.
If the system is bad, I blame the system of government and the people running it.

People might be able to afford a lot of things if they weren't being taxed. Then they could choose where their money went.

Then again, the laziness and stupidity of people never ceases to amaze me.

This is an issue I find trouble making a stand on.
In Canada, the policy is to try to keep a large middle class to avoid the large class divide that is present in the US. As a result, our taxes are high.
The government takes are money and reallocates it the way they think it is best used for our benefit.
The downside is the mismanagement of money and money lost by paying people to manage the system.
But as you implied, there are a lot of people out there who are not capable of managing their money.

They said they didn't know, and that was up to the politicians.

People are stupid. They complain they don't like things, but don't know what they want, and still want to put the responsibility back in the hands of others.

I agree with the statement. Except I wouldn't go as far to call people stupid. I'm a little more lenient and prefer to call people misinformed and ignorant of the issues. But the word stupid serves it's purpose.

The whole notion of a government is in shambles.
It seems like the average person wants to delegate the tasks to the politicians and hope for the best.
It also seems like the more educated stay away from politics knowing the futility as well as the lack of respect they get from being in government.
My MP (member of Parliament for the US readers) that I elect doesn't have a say in anything- he has to vote what his party votes anyway.

The really sick thing is our MP right now for my city didn't even live in my city before... fuck.. what pisses me off is the fact that he has only been in my city during the duration of the election.... He's a fucking Toronto native... the "majority" of my city has voted for a foreigner from the East working for a party that is supposed to represent the West.

Ok I change my tone now...
You're right.. people are stupid.
That was for our Federal election.

For our provincial election I didn't even vote....
all our parties supported the post-secondary tuition freeze...
although everyone seems to want a free ride for their education, people don't realize 2 fundamental things:

1) Inflation is a reality. The science and medical programs at my University have suffered severe budget cuts over the past 6-7 years of the tuition freeze.
As a result the programs have decreased in the quality of their education. Lab time is being cut. The education we are paying for is subpar.

2) The educated will leave for higher paying jobs out of the province after having their education paid for by the taxpaying inhabitants of the province who will never see their money coming back into the community.

There, that's my rant.

I'll be posting on the political BBS until I leave for the UK.

Shrapnel: You're going to the UK. Weren't you just in Asia? I'm jealous! :P

Have a great time though :)

From what I can tell, the Canadian and Australian systems are fairly similar, except voting is compulsory here (which brings with it all sorts of other issues). Do you have preferential voting? That might be different.

Basically, votes have to be preferential (except in one state election I think). That way, it gets down to a two party preferred choice. Pretty bizarre really. To further complicate things, they only have that in the lower house. They have a quasi-version in the upper house.

Anyhow, I agree with all the points you made.

There is certainly a huge problem with the issues. Cause let's face it, for the majority of people, there are a handful of major issues on which they vote. Health, education, taxes.

It pisses me off that you have to make a choice on the big issues, and then the party that gets in brings a whole lot of other things also that are of minor importance compared to something like health for instance, or that aren't even announced until they gain government.

Likewise, you're right about the problem with politicians having to vote along party lines. Cause basically, they can go it alone as an independent (which is fucking difficult), or they can join a party. In that case, if you vote for a member of a party, you basically have to accept that you're going to get minimal representation, because the party obviously can't and won't vote on local issues.

Representative democracy isn't!

As such, I register my protest vote by not voting for any of them, and writing some rant on the ballot paper. Probably a complete waste of time, but I'm not going to vote for the lesser of two evils. Fuck that. That's a silent endorsement, not a sign of disapproval.

I have a solution though. Some people might think this is crazy, but I think it can be achieved in this day and age.

Given that we have the internet, why can't we have direct democracy?

Rather than having one decision once every few years with all the afore mentioned problems, why not cut out the middlemen, and put the power back in the hands of the people?

I propose that anyone who wants to make a change about something be able to post it on some giant fucking bulletin board. There can be a shitload of current issues, or none. People can vote whenever they like (although, say there might be a month in which to vote on each issue before it is resolved). Presumably everyone- ordinary people, experts in the field, whomever, can post on the topic, instead of getting the politician double-speak.

Sure, you might say, there are two issues.

The first is that yeah, there'd be a lot of debate. Well, then it's the responsibility of the electorate to be informed. More information is better than little or no information (as we currently get from the politicians).

Secondly, there is obviously the major issue of privacy and fraud. Perhaps to counter the privacy problem, it could be like you have to go somewhere to get like a voting token. Basically, you prove your id (so you can't commit fraud), but the token (perhaps one for each issue, or you could be marked off for having voted on certain issues) or whatever, to operate the internet would be completely annonymous. It's basically just a modern version of what happens anyway.

The second issue would be no more of an issue than it already is.

There's a saying here amongst members of the Labor Party: vote early, vote often.

If set up the correct way, this could be a brilliant system. It would be democratic at least. For the first time in a long time, people could have a real say in things. It's been impossible in the past because of the logistics of a large population that is spread out. This though, would be just as good as a small community gathering in a hall.

Regarding the stupidity of people, it really does amaze me. I don't know what to make of it, because I'd like to think I'm capable of thinking for myself, but maybe I think too much of people sometimes by thinking everyone else can also. It worries me that the entire adult population gets let loose on the electoral process every so often.

shorbe

Shrapnel: Oh yeah, I wanted to say something about educational funding at the tertiary level also.

It sounds like you have exactly the same problem as us in Australia.

There's been a lot of talk over the years by the Labor Party (somewhat left wing) about making Australia the "clever country." The latest version is "knowledge nation."

What these morons don't realise is exactly what you're pointing out. They're all for mass education. However, that can't be, by it's very own title. For education to be affordable for everyone, it must be cheap, in which case, it's also nasty, especially when a lot of materials, etc are involved.

The biggest problem with the tertiary system here is that it's in limbo. It's neither academic, nor vocational.

The fact is that most people work in jobs requiring little academic knowledge. Yet, they don't learn any job skills at university. That's what most of them want too. They're there to enhance their job prospects, which is such bullshit, since most of what they do is learnt on the job. One of my friends did a commerce-science degree, and in the com. part, they said that the three years of com. was good for five weeks on the job. Fuck that.

Conversely, the people who really do want academia, or highly specialised knowledge, can't get it because it is so watered down.

I'm all for limiting the places at universities, and keeping them real. Keep the vocational colleges separate. I think knowledge (at the tertiary level) should be divided along the lines of the French words savoir and connaitre, cause at the moment, the thing is a complete fucking joke.

You're right about people leaving and the community losing the benefit. We call that brain drain here. Anyone sensible goes and works overseas. I'm planning on doing so.

With my current prospects at the end of this year, I'll start on around $37,000. That's Australian dollars. I've been to recruitment drives for working in the UK. They have said that on average, even after living expenses, tax, etc, I could save 200 pounds per week. That's 10,000 pounds per year. In Australian dollars, that's around $25,000 at least. At least. I'd be lucky to save that in a few years here.

Why would I work here when I could go to the UK, earn shitloads of money, and travel to Europe as well?

People wonder why I am losing my respect for this country.

shorbe

At 6/22/01 01:04 AM, ladyluck69 wrote: This is what happens when the school districs are forced to "streamline" the students.

There are many problems trying to get kids into the right classes. When I was in grade school, we only had two sections for math, English, science, etc. Religion (I went to parochial schools) was taught to one class as a whole. Reading/literature was split into four groups. Even those were mistaken. Kids got placed in the wrong groups.

In high school, I was kept out of Honors English for the first two years because "there wasn't enough room in the class." My mother finally went to the school to complain, and she demanded they put me in the right class. And if there wasn't room they could bring a desk from another room.

I was also in an unleveled accounting class my senior year, and I was extremely bored in the class. Other girls struggled.

I never blamed teachers for my failings, accomplishments, or anything else. (Except for my fourth grade teacher, she was a bitch!) I've taken credit for my own actions, and I never once thought about killing a teacher.

At 6/24/01 10:49 PM, shorbe wrote: Shrapnel: You're going to the UK. Weren't you just in Asia? I'm jealous! :P

Have a great time though :)

Thanks.

From what I can tell, the Canadian and Australian systems are fairly similar, except voting is compulsory here (which brings with it all sorts of other issues). Do you have preferential voting? That might be different.

No. I think the US, Great Britain and Canada do not have preferential voting.
We have proportional representation for Canada.

Basically, votes have to be preferential (except in one state election I think). That way, it gets down to a two party preferred choice. Pretty bizarre really. To further complicate things, they only have that in the lower house. They have a quasi-version in the upper house.

Confusing. : (
You don't have to explain further... I'll try looking it up later... if I feel up to making my brain work.

I have a solution though. Some people might think this is crazy, but I think it can be achieved in this day and age.

Given that we have the internet, why can't we have direct democracy?

Rather than having one decision once every few years with all the afore mentioned problems, why not cut out the middlemen, and put the power back in the hands of the people?

I propose that anyone who wants to make a change about something be able to post it on some giant fucking bulletin board. There can be a shitload of current issues, or none. People can vote whenever they like (although, say there might be a month in which to vote on each issue before it is resolved). Presumably everyone- ordinary people, experts in the field, whomever, can post on the topic, instead of getting the politician double-speak.

Interesting concept.
I've never heard of it before.

For once it seems, we completely agree with each other.

I've read the rest of what you've written below.
The idea is still new to me so I'm not quite sure if I have anything to add or ask.

Shrapnel: I figure it can't be much worse than the present system. At least it would give power to the people, scary as that is.

Of course, politicians would be strongly opposed to it, because they'd be out of a job and a powertrip.

shorbe

At 6/24/01 11:05 PM, shorbe wrote: It sounds like you have exactly the same problem as us in Australia.

I guess that's what you get for being part of the Commonwealth....

There's been a lot of talk over the years by the Labor Party (somewhat left wing) about making Australia the "clever country." The latest version is "knowledge nation."

What these morons don't realise is exactly what you're pointing out. They're all for mass education. However, that can't be, by it's very own title. For education to be affordable for everyone, it must be cheap, in which case, it's also nasty, especially when a lot of materials, etc are involved.

Mass education is a noble idea but it's as effective as communism is.

The biggest problem with the tertiary system here is that it's in limbo. It's neither academic, nor vocational.

The fact is that most people work in jobs requiring little academic knowledge. Yet, they don't learn any job skills at university. That's what most of them want too. They're there to enhance their job prospects, which is such bullshit, since most of what they do is learnt on the job. One of my friends did a commerce-science degree, and in the com. part, they said that the three years of com. was good for five weeks on the job. Fuck that.

That whole paragraph rings so true.

Conversely, the people who really do want academia, or highly specialised knowledge, can't get it because it is so watered down.

From my knowledge, you can get to Med school directly from high school after you graduate right?
This is the same as the UK?

In Canada and the US, you need at least 3 years at a post-secondary institution before you can apply at a professional school like Dentistry or Medicine or Law... even then, you're usually better off with a Bachelor's degree.
As a result, I was stuck for 4 years surrounded by pre-med hopefuls not caring about the subjects they learned but only about getting good marks so they could be accepted into Med... that's part of the reason things get watered down (the biggest factor is the mass education effect).... I basically gave up trying to learn from un-enthusiastic profs just trying to keep their lab funding....

I'm all for limiting the places at universities, and keeping them real. Keep the vocational colleges separate. I think knowledge (at the tertiary level) should be divided along the lines of the French words savoir and connaitre, cause at the moment, the thing is a complete fucking joke.

This is where things get complicated....
I'm bringing up the other side for the sake of discussion.
I'm hoping someone else can bring in something to this discussion as I'm having trouble putting my ideas succinctly at the moment.
Point form it is!

-a social divide may lead to social unrest
-a population of uneducated will not appreciate matters they do not understand--- as a result, in the long run, academic matters before irrelevant and fulfilling pleasure will be paramount
-equal opportunity must be provided (or at least the image of it thereof) to eliminate or at least decrease the exclusivity of higher jobs which also equate to status

but
-until we have robots, someone will always have to clean the toliet... not a PC thing to say but a fact of life.... no politician will ever touch that with subject with a 20 foot pole

You're right about people leaving and the community losing the benefit. We call that brain drain here. Anyone sensible goes and works overseas. I'm planning on doing so.

The brain drain is one of the issues our politicians are trying to "solve" right now....

I think we can predict the outcome before they're done....

At 6/26/01 12:54 AM, shorbe wrote: Shrapnel: I figure it can't be much worse than the present system. At least it would give power to the people, scary as that is.

Of course, politicians would be strongly opposed to it, because they'd be out of a job and a powertrip.

That and their cushy retirement packages.

Politics today is not about the smart people making decisions, it's about a club where you have to pay a monthly fee of sucking dick to stay in.

At 6/26/01 12:54 AM, shorbe wrote: Shrapnel: I figure it can't be much worse than the present system. At least it would give power to the people, scary as that is.

Of course, politicians would be strongly opposed to it, because they'd be out of a job and a powertrip.

That and their cushy retirement packages.

Politics today is not about the smart people making decisions, it's about a club where you have to pay a monthly fee of sucking dick to stay in.

Shrapnel: In my state you can go directly into medicine, dentistry, law and a whole lot of other things as undergraduate degrees. I know that's not quite the case (at least with medicine) in Queensland, as I met a few guys from there who were at Uni. Melb. so they wouldn't have to do an undergraduate science degree. Basically though, yeah, I met some med. students who were seventeen.

There are good and bad points obviously. I think we know the bad points for both. For doing med. as an undergraduate degree- too young and inexperienced.

For doing an undergraduate science degree first- might not care about the undergraduate (as you mentioned), huge financial burden (not just in terms of the cost of education, but in that they won't be in the workforce for an extra three or four years, and will probably have to live with their parents until then).

I don't think there's any definite solution either way.

I see the points you're making about the problem with separating the education system.

Indeed, I think the whole reason universities were opened up to the masses was partly because of social unrest. There were other reasons too, including keeping unemployment in check and to try to get some "technological edge" on other nations.

When you talk about an uneducated population though, maybe I'm a lot more cynical. I don't equate "education" with learning. One of the saddest things about university for me has always been that very few people in my classes have really understood anything. Sure, they're good at learning in the sense of being able to regurgitate things on an exam, but I think that's a very limited sense of learning. Attendance doesn't mean much when it comes down to it. Whether you're talking arts or sciences, I think the vast majority of people are just going through the motions. I witnessed this time and again in psychology in particular (philosophy was definitely full on), and see it right now in my current classes in education (which is really scary). Whenever it came to a point of having to think, rather than regurgitate, or whenever there was no "right" answer (in other words, the lecturers didn't say "we want you to say this"...that meaning of "right), most people were lost.

When you say equal opportunity, in what sense? I'm all for meritocracy. Basically, if someone can get the marks, then they should get in, reagrdless of anything else. Otherwise, I think you end up with less than the best, as well as a lot of resentment from those who are the best.

It's problematic, I know. I just think people need to clearly define their objectives, because everything is really muddled right now.

Your last point (about the cleaners) was right on. Unfortunately, in this day and age, everyone thinks they're going to be rich and famous. They think they're entitled to it even. Then, they get out in the real world, and get a hard dose of reality.

Originally, universities had nothing to do with vocational training. To go to university was to end up being a sort of a monk. You dedicated your life to learning and thinking, and money was rarely a reward. Of course, things weren't as technical back then, but nevertheless, I still think in today's day and age, not a lot has changed in the sense that the majority of jobs require on the job training only.

Furthermore, as someone who has always enjoyed learning, as well as debate, etc., I find the educational system does everything but discourage learning.

For the majority of people, they just want to get through it, get their qualifications, and get a job. They're lucky if they ever learn anything ever again (I'm exaggerating of course, but not by much). For those who truly love exercising the intellect, it's very disappointing and disillusioning.

I went through a phase where I hated intellectualism because I confused it with everything that was wrong with education.

It's all one big mess, and short of some drastic changes, I don't know that anything will improve. I've had this discussion with a lot of people in different areas, and really, I can't stand the vast majority of humanities and social science students. They're so worked up about political agendas and all this other stuff, that they lose track of the big picture, and the fact that the current system doesn't work.

All we've done is replaced a system that served a few with a system that serves no one.

When I have time later, I'll tell you all about this one discussion we had in class one day. God it was surreal.

shorbe

At 6/27/01 12:58 AM, shorbe wrote: degree. Basically though, yeah, I met some med. students who were seventeen.

There are good and bad points obviously. I think we know the bad points for both. For doing med. as an undergraduate degree- too young and inexperienced.

I think the whole issue of deciding a career so early is so iffy.

When you talk about an uneducated population though, maybe I'm a lot more cynical. I don't equate "education" with learning. One of the saddest things about university for me has always been that very few people in my classes have really understood anything. Sure, they're good at learning in the sense of being able to regurgitate things on an exam, but I think that's a very limited sense of learning. Attendance doesn't mean much when it comes down to it. Whether you're talking arts or sciences, I think the vast majority of people are just going through the motions. I witnessed this time and again in psychology in particular (philosophy was definitely full on), and see it right now in my current classes in education (which is really scary). Whenever it came to a point of having to think, rather than regurgitate, or whenever there was no "right" answer (in other words, the lecturers didn't say "we want you to say this"...that meaning of "right), most people were lost.

Actually, I have been disapointed with University for the exact same reasons.
The only thing I want to add is that teaching in Science classes is so hypocritical. On a test they want to discourage rote memorization (this is the trend these days) and give "new" problems that you have to solve using your knowledge. BS- memorize your notes and you will do will because the problems on the test parallel the prof's notes. Answer differently from the answer key and the TA or prof won't have to time to go through your answer and logic that you used and give you a big fat 0 for all your time.

When you say equal opportunity, in what sense?

I misused the common use of that term.
I take it as everyone having a chance to start from the same beginning- i.e. same levels of Elementary school teaching and same levels of High School teaching.
I think the common use of equal opportunity applies to
"quotas" of groups of people.
Whoops on my part.

It's problematic, I know. I just think people need to clearly define their objectives, because everything is really muddled right now.

So muddled I find it's really hard to explain and get people to understand.

Unfortunately, in this day and age, everyone thinks they're going to be rich and famous. They think they're entitled to it even.

The biggest lie is that you can do everything you put your heart to (or whatever variation on that).... I actually believed that....
Like a 110 lbs 5'5" man is going to play in the NFL....
sure he works out everyday but no matter what he's going to get creamed by the 6'3" 300lbs man.

Originally, universities had nothing to do with vocational training. To go to university was to end up being a sort of a monk. You dedicated your life to learning and thinking, and money was rarely a reward.

When the hell did this image change is what I want to know. Universities are supposed to be centres for learning. Now they are a centre for whiners.

I went through a phase where I hated intellectualism because I confused it with everything that was wrong with education.

Interesting.
I never felt that way because I always thought teachers were aloof and incompetent and weren't intellectual enough. I concluded that a lack of intellectualism was the problem of the system.
Teachers were so prone to favouritism and popularity among students in the schools I grew up in.

All we've done is replaced a system that served a few with a system that serves no one.

Here here!

Anybody else want to bitch about their problems with the school system?

Be warned- if you want to do well in the system, you still have to suck dick to get there as well as take it up the ass.

Shrapnel: Of course deciding a career so early is iffy. Unfortunately, it's a rat race. So, if you're not out of the blocks first, and going hard the whole way, you're left behind.

One thing I like a lot more about our system/society than that of the US is that there is still a lot of room for taking it easy or doing your own thing. A lot of people here (at least from the middle to upper classes) take a year or two off either at the end of high school, or straight after university, so they can travel. That doesn't happen nearly as much in the US, which is a bit of a shame.

The whole education system is hypocritical. The stories I could tell...

Unfortunately, one can't get anywhere near an even start from the beginning. However, trying to make things even at the end point is a ridiculous notion. Quotas and adjusting entrance scores based on where you went to school end up being so problematic.

When I say I confused intellectualism with everything else, I meant a couple of things. There is a lot of masturbation in academia, which I find a bit too much at times. What I meant in the main though, was that because the system does cater to the LCD and there is so much rote, I ended up where you are with the lack of intellectualism being the problem.

So anyway, I'll tell you one of several amusing stories I have from this year.

God knows how, but this year, I ended up doing a graduate diploma in education. In other words, training to be a high school teacher. I mean, I've always loved teaching people, but I've never wanted to become a teacher. I have even less inclination right now. The main incentive for me was because I can get a job pretty well anywhere, which is what I want to do until I get into the things I want to do. It's pretty weird really, when I think about just how I got here.

Furthermore, if you ever need convincing as to why public education is a really bad thing, then this is it. So I guess it's been enlightening in that respect.

I didn't even know what I would be teaching anyway, since my undergraduate degree was really top heavy in the philosophy department. So much so, that I did a little history and classics in first year, and the rest of my degree was psych and philosophy.

Fortunately, for my first teaching round, I actually got to teach philosophy (not many schools offer it though) and psychology (which is okay, but not thrilling. It's a bit of a circus).

However, this coming round (beginning on 16th of July) I'm going to be teaching psych and history, which will be bizarre in itself.

The history thing is because of this subject called SOSE (Studies of Society and Environment) which is this trendy new thing they're trying to do here by combining history, geography, economics, politics, environmental studies into one subject. Also, anyone who did a major in some weird subject (like philosophy or criminology) gets thrown in there too.

Some schools offer SOSE. Some don't.

So yeah, I'm going to be teaching history. Thrilling hey? I know you think I have a bad attitude towards history, which isn't entirely true. I actually really dig history for its own sake, but I think people try to draw out a whole lot of non-existant moral lessons...

Anyhow, so back to the chase.

In this SOSE class of mine, probably about half the people are history/English (which is ironic since probably half of the people in my classes couldn't distinguish a noun and a verb. I was teaching prepositions to one English student once). Then there's this real mixed bag of everyone else. If you exclude psych, there are only two people (to my knowledge) in the class who have any sort of maths or science as their other teaching area.

If Perdix ever ends up putting the essay up on his site (he put one up from one of my other subjects), you'll get to read this essay, about which I shall now complain.

We had to write this essay justifying SOSE, which seemed like a lot of political bs to me. It's all serving someone's agenda. I mean, I can't teach geography or half the crap in it (I could talk a lot of shit in politics or history, but that's not the point), yet they want me to justify why I would? Come on. If you knew half the crap going on in the public education system, you'd pull your kid out right away (if you had one). I wouldn't want me teaching my kid geography or even history to a degree, if you know what I mean.

Anyway, we were discussing this essay in class, and that issue came up, along with one discussing SOSE being shallow and losing academic rigour. Boy did most of the class crucify this guy Paul for that. I was one of the only people defending him.

Then there's this other guy in the class, David, who really gets on my tits in a big way. He's one of the history/English people.

He made the most bizarre comment, and I was almost outside of myself having some mystical experience because not only did no one else criticise him, but they were agreeing with him. It was like the Twilight Zone.

He was going on and on about science and business subjects stealing time on the curriculum from the humanities (it's a real thing in this subject about justifying our very existences and there's such paranoia. It's almost comical).

I was like "dude, science teachers aren't the enemy."

Then he said (and this is the surreal part) something along the lines of "English and history are the last refuges for critical thinking in the educational system."

Unfortunately, Michael (who is teaching science also) wasn't there, cause he's brilliant. He's one of the few intelligent people in the class. Well, one of the few people whose head isn't up his own arse.

I was doing a double take on the whole thing. I did sciences in school, and I know I can be critical of them in many ways, but God, science and mathematics don't involve critical thinking? I think in my last year of mathematics, I did more thinking than most of my SOSE class has in their whole lives!

I guess I need to put this in context also. Every second comment in this fucking class is about how you can't teach this or that cause it might upset the feelings of the kids, or such and such curriculum doesn't take account of the feminist perspective, blah, blah.

It's like a fucking creche. Really. It's embarrassing.

The greatest irony of this whole course (not only this subject) is that we look at all this stuff from how things were taught in the bad old days, and how biased it was in this way or that way, and everyone has a good chuckle about how much more enlightened we are in this day and age.

I think I'm one of the few people who recognises (or at least mentions) that in thirty years time, people are probably going to be deconstructing all the political fashions and agendas of this point in time and laughing at us.

History and English are the last refuges of critical thinking though, you understand...

I end up in the shit in almost every class cause I'm so cynical about all this crap. Like they're all so fucking clever cause they can deconstruct the past and they're going to instill real "moral virtues" in their students, yet they can't recognise their own short-sightedness. It's really fucked up.

Like it's not okay to push the whole patriarchal, conservative, religious dogma down the throat of students, but it's cool to push some feminism and every other ism they like.

In many ways, I'm just as opposed to the past way as they are, but I'm not so fucking up myself that I can't see past all my own bs. That's precisely why I'm not going to push my beliefs onto others. Hell, I don't even want to tell the students what I believe. My beliefs shouldn't even come into the class (easier said than done I know, but still).

I know you don't like my scepticism, and my sophistry, but I think that's the least dangerous stance to take.

So anyway, that whole class is a barrell of laughs, and I feel like the only sane person in the asylum most weeks (cause my friends in that class who share my views are usually too timid or apathetic to speak up).

The funniest thing happened right near the end of our last lesson last semester. That guy David (let's call him David the Defender of Critical Thinking from now on...hehe) and I were going at it, and I was bitching about the subject when he said, "so why'd you choose it then?"

I replied, "I didn't. I got stuck in here cause they didn't have philosophy." I got a few chuckles from that one.

It's such a fucked up class, and I really don't want to teach any of it now. I'd much rather teach mathematics actually, unless the feminists, post modernists, cubists and fucking impressionists (okay, now I'm just being silly) get into that too. I think I could probably do it too, at least at the lower levels, cause I've been tutoring two of my friends in maths (I'll tell you all about the primary school teachers here one day. That's really FUCKING scary) and I sat in (we had to observe a lot of classes too) on this year 10 maths class at my first school. They were doing surds, and the teacher was busy with some kid and all the other kids needed some help. I had watched the teacher do one on the board, and I remembered how to do them, so I offered to help. They were a bit sceptical at first, cause I was "only a philosophy teacher," but I got them right, so they were cool after that.

Hell, at least I know more about mathematics than fucking geography or environmental studies. At least I'd get some intelligence in that subject too.

The education system is so fucked up. Aside from working for a few years in the UK, I have no intention of being part of public education.

shorbe

At 6/27/01 09:11 AM, shorbe wrote:

He was going on and on about science and business subjects stealing time on the curriculum from the humanities (it's a real thing in this subject about justifying our very existences and there's such paranoia. It's almost comical).

I was like "dude, science teachers aren't the enemy."

Heh, if I was there I would've went nuts.
Nuts I tell you, NUTS!

I know you don't like my scepticism, and my sophistry, but I think that's the least dangerous stance to take.

True (on all counts).

The funniest thing happened right near the end of our last lesson last semester. That guy David (let's call him David the Defender of Critical Thinking from now on...hehe) and I were going at it, and I was bitching about the subject when he said, "so why'd you choose it then?"

I replied, "I didn't. I got stuck in here cause they didn't have philosophy." I got a few chuckles from that one.

That's clutch. : )
I hope Goliath falls on him.

The education system is so fucked up. Aside from working for a few years in the UK, I have no intention of being part of public education.

Hmm.... Well teaching can be a rewarding experience if you happen to find a position that suits you.

You'd probably be best in a position where you teach an advanced class or a class of more motivated learners. Just some program where you have more control over the students' entire curriculum.

At 6/27/01 09:05 AM, shorbe wrote:
If Perdix ever ends up putting the essay up on his site (he put one up from one of my other subjects), you'll get to read this essay, about which I shall now complain.

It is up now, here

I bet you talk to his mom "Shotgun Sally" and she'll say .........."Oh he just a silly boy." I don't care if there parents are ants. THEY INFLUENCE THE CHILD IN EVERYWAY. Its not tv, its not mortal kombat, its the parents actions and responses. Take for instance a child ends up dying of lung cancer. Of Course, the parents smoked. He probably slept in a house where the walls were stained yellow from the smoke. NOW I WANNA TALK ABOUT CIGARETTES "WHATS THE POINT!?!?!?" DO SOME YOGA IF YOU WANNA RELEIVE STRESS. IT HELPS IN BED.

At 6/28/01 02:19 PM, PawnShop17 wrote: I bet you talk to his mom "Shotgun Sally" and she'll say .........."Oh he just a silly boy." I don't care if there parents are ants. THEY INFLUENCE THE CHILD IN EVERYWAY. Its not tv, its not mortal kombat, its the parents actions and responses. Take for instance a child ends up dying of lung cancer. Of Course, the parents smoked. He probably slept in a house where the walls were stained yellow from the smoke. NOW I WANNA TALK ABOUT CIGARETTES "WHATS THE POINT!?!?!?" DO SOME YOGA IF YOU WANNA RELEIVE STRESS. IT HELPS IN BED.

I think teachers should have big beatin sticks to beat the snot nosed sugar rush spoiled brats