Cruel or clever?

[Frankie's Market]

Re: Cruel...or clever?

I respect this position, but you aren't a teacher (as far as I know).

An assumption. I am not a teacher,.... anymore. But I was a teacher at 2 high schools and 1 intermediate school in the past. Public schools in this state.

So what does that make me and my way of thinking? A dinosaur? Maybe. But a dinosaur that didn't have to worry about kids bringing guns to school. Someone who taught back in the days when it was the norm (not the exception) for boys to come to school dressed in button shirts and slacks instead of the all too typical t-shirts and shorts I see nowadays. Someone who could remember the days when all kids felt safe to go to the bathroom without being harassed.

We've certainly made a lot of progress since those bad old days, huh?

Litigation, schmitigation. If you want a better performing public school system, bring back legal immunity.

But then again, what does a dinosaur like me know?

[Jim75]

Re: Cruel or clever?

Speaking for myself, if my children were high school-aged, I would take the "chance" of some emotional trauma (ooh, so risky ) from this experiment if it would lessen the possibility of their getting involved in an actual accident, wherein the emotional trauma and physical harm would be infinitely greater and very REAL.

But that's just me. My lil' ole' opinion. (So don't everybody who disagrees with me start flaming, calling me insensitive, ignorant, etc.)

You're saying you would accept the risk if the outcome of the action was effective. I'd say that's pretty key. We take measured risks all the time when there is some known, tangible benefit. Vaccinations are an example. As I said before, I'd be very interested to know if these HP's and the School had some longitudinal research design in place to gather statistics across time to measure their results. But now that I think about it, the reality is they can only pull off this charade one time, because now every kid in that school will be braced for more lying in the future.

Yes, it's unlikely that these kids will suffer some serious, long-term effect like nightmares ten years down the road, for example. But like Tutusue and Scrivener noted, ones who have experienced previous trauma or loss could be affected negatively. A teen who is having thoughts of suicide and is generally confused about life could decide that that's the last straw. Kids who are trying to decide whether or not to experiment with alcohol or drugs could decide that what they've been told is probably a lie, since authorities are dishonest. In that case, the ruse could have the exact opposite of its intended effect.

Sometimes a teacher can be the person in a kids life who is a pivotal influence at some important juncture. Their relationship is built on trust. They see this person as a source of stability, wisdom, and reason when maybe their home life doesn't offer these resources. Didn't these people ever hear the story about the boy who cried wolf. I agree completely with Scrivener on the honesty deal. Once you tell a person a serious enough lie, regardless of your intent, they are going to be suspect of you for a very long time, at a minimum. Trust is built over time. One breach can destroy it, sometimes forever.

An assumption. I am not a teacher,.... anymore. But I was a teacher at 2 high schools and 1 intermediate school in the past. Public schools in this state.

So what does that make me and my way of thinking? A dinosaur? Maybe. But a dinosaur that didn't have to worry about kids bringing guns to school. Someone who taught back in the days when it was the norm (not the exception) for boys to come to school dressed in button shirts and slacks instead of the all too typical t-shirts and shorts I see nowadays. Someone who could remember the days when all kids felt safe to go to the bathroom without being harassed.

We've certainly made a lot of progress since those bad old days, huh?

Litigation, schmitigation. If you want a better performing public school system, bring back legal immunity.

But then again, what does a dinosaur like me know?

Remember the Rule of Thumb? Within the law, a man had the right to beat his wife and children with a stick so long as it was no bigger around than his thumb. I'll bet there was plenty of obedience during those times. You appear to romanticize the "bad old days". There's an old construct known as 'identifying with the aggressor". In this scenario, people who are treated harshly go on to treat others harshly, passing the violence on down the line. A quick Google turned up this nicely written page by Beverly Engel that explains much about how people behave in the long-term after mistreatment. http://www.newliving.com/issues/feb_...y%20engel.html The people who were raised under the ways of the past are the same ones who contributed to the creation of the ways of the present. People who are kids now have had a limited contribution to the current situation. Most of the responsibility has to lie with the adults, current and past.

A big part of the problem, as I see it, is that people like parents and teachers have been stripped of their ability to manage the behavior of children by "slapping some sense into them". This is good, because it can help us get away from the interpersonal violence that is often used in attempts to socialize children. The problem seems to be that people whose "toolbox" only contains slapping are left with nothing if slapping is not allowed. We all can benefit from learning how to achieve positive results with one another and meet each other's needs without resorting to rough treatment.

Many of us never had to worry about anybody showing up in school with a gun. There are many developments that are troubling, but the world is a very different place now, in some respects. I think it must be very difficult for kids these days. It must be difficult for parents and teachers, too. Some things in the past were better and some things were worse. The inverse of that is true too.

If you could magically change everything that is now to the way it was back in 1955, would you? I wouldn't.

[Pua'i Mana'o]

Re: Cruel or clever?

One of the earliest rules learned in communication courses is that the speaker must appear trustworthy in order to get his/her point across most effectively. Very few people, teens or otherwise, give permission to have their feelings exploited, especially when it is completely unnecessary, and all for the sake of a "lesson". If it requires a great deal of explanation and justification to soothe the umbrage of those who have been manipulated for the sake of <fill in the blank> then the experiment failed.

In other words, if a teacher chooses to employ exploitation and manipulation to teach a lesson, that lesson learned here by the students is that this teacher will not rise above using manipulative tactics. They won't trust teacher, regardless of whatever great knowledge s/he is capable of imparting.

[cezanne]

Re: Cruel or clever?

I say cruel. If you wanna scare them straight take them to the morgue or show them actual pictures/video of a crash scene.

[oceanpacific]

Re: Cruel or clever?

Sounds like this goes hand-in-hand with the "rule" that the police can lie while interrogating suspects to gain confessions.

[MyopicJoe]

Re: Cruel or clever?

Yeah, the scare tactics are only "useful" because they are novel. If they become commonplace, the kids will find ways to turn them into jokes. As others have said, the little benefit it provides comes at the expense of eroded trust.

Perhaps there should be more field trips to the morgue (with parent and student consent, and no student forced to view more than they can handle). Our society tends to hide death from kids, the only version they see is in movies and video games. I doubt morgues are designed to handle large number of students, though. I wonder how complex the biological safety issues are.

Does anyone know of a morgue designed for public viewing / school field trips? I suppose a more practical thing would be video shown in the classroom, but I don't think that would have the same effect.

I've been especially disturbed by some boys' recent use of the word "rape" to mean "beat in a sporting competition," as in "The Patriots got raped by the Giants in the SuperBowl."

Yeah, it's a big problem online too, especially with the young boy crowd. I suspect most of them live sheltered lives. Add to that their desire to appear macho. It's surprising, and sad, the number of women in online gaming communities who have been abused, molested, or raped

[turtlegirl]

Re: Cruel or clever?

MADD used to do assemblies at my high school every few months to show us the danger of drinking and driving. Usually they would bring some horribly mangled car that was involved in a drunk driving accident. And they would bring some scary "Red Asphalt" kind of movie.

The result? Me and most of my friends from high school are terrified of car accidents! Not necessarily scared of driving drunk, but completely, sincerely terrified of any car accident!

[Peshkwe]

Re: Cruel or clever?

Way to go to instill trust.

I hope every kid that ends up with emotional issues because of this gets free therapy compliments of the people who set that farce up.

Or the parents sue for it.

[Frankie's Market]

Re: Cruel or clever?

You're saying you would accept the risk if the outcome of the action was effective. I'd say that's pretty key. We take measured risks all the time when there is some known, tangible benefit. Vaccinations are an example. As I said before, I'd be very interested to know if these HP's and the School had some longitudinal research design in place to gather statistics across time to measure their results. But now that I think about it, the reality is they can only pull off this charade one time, because now every kid in that school will be braced for more lying in the future.

Yes, it's unlikely that these kids will suffer some serious, long-term effect like nightmares ten years down the road, for example. But like Tutusue and Scrivener noted, ones who have experienced previous trauma or loss could be affected negatively. A teen who is having thoughts of suicide and is generally confused about life could decide that that's the last straw. Kids who are trying to decide whether or not to experiment with alcohol or drugs could decide that what they've been told is probably a lie, since authorities are dishonest. In that case, the ruse could have the exact opposite of its intended effect.

Sometimes a teacher can be the person in a kids life who is a pivotal influence at some important juncture. Their relationship is built on trust. They see this person as a source of stability, wisdom, and reason when maybe their home life doesn't offer these resources. Didn't these people ever hear the story about the boy who cried wolf. I agree completely with Scrivener on the honesty deal. Once you tell a person a serious enough lie, regardless of your intent, they are going to be suspect of you for a very long time, at a minimum. Trust is built over time. One breach can destroy it, sometimes forever.

Remember the Rule of Thumb? Within the law, a man had the right to beat his wife and children with a stick so long as it was no bigger around than his thumb. I'll bet there was plenty of obedience during those times. You appear to romanticize the "bad old days". There's an old construct known as 'identifying with the aggressor". In this scenario, people who are treated harshly go on to treat others harshly, passing the violence on down the line. A quick Google turned up this nicely written page by Beverly Engel that explains much about how people behave in the long-term after mistreatment. http://www.newliving.com/issues/feb_...7;20engel.html The people who were raised under the ways of the past are the same ones who contributed to the creation of the ways of the present. People who are kids now have had a limited contribution to the current situation. Most of the responsibility has to lie with the adults, current and past.

A big part of the problem, as I see it, is that people like parents and teachers have been stripped of their ability to manage the behavior of children by "slapping some sense into them". This is good, because it can help us get away from the interpersonal violence that is often used in attempts to socialize children. The problem seems to be that people whose "toolbox" only contains slapping are left with nothing if slapping is not allowed. We all can benefit from learning how to achieve positive results with one another and meet each other's needs without resorting to rough treatment.

Many of us never had to worry about anybody showing up in school with a gun. There are many developments that are troubling, but the world is a very different place now, in some respects. I think it must be very difficult for kids these days. It must be difficult for parents and teachers, too. Some things in the past were better and some things were worse. The inverse of that is true too.

If you could magically change everything that is now to the way it was back in 1955, would you? I wouldn't.

Sounds all very compelling. But the ironic thing is, with Hawaii's low reading scores, I wonder what percentage of high school students will understand and be able to explain (in their own words) what you wrote.

Ladies and gentleman, once upon a time, teachers in this state could expect every student (excepting the SPED kids) entering the 5th grade to have mastered long division. Nowadays, 7th grade math teachers consider themselves lucky if even half their class start the school year knowing the multiplication table.

Amidst all the so-called "progress" that the public school system has trumpeted over the years, imparting the 3 Rs has somehow become a hit-or-miss affair.

Some progress.

[MyopicJoe]

Re: Cruel or clever?

Amidst all the so-called "progress" that the public school system has trumpeted over the years, imparting the 3 Rs has somehow become a hit-or-miss affair.

The best teacher employment web page is for Oakland Charter Academy (California):

We are always in search of teachers and staff who are smart, ambitious and motivated to teach inner city youth. We believe in setting a high standard for ALL students regardless of race, ethnicity, language, economic standing, etc.

Please DO NOT waste your time if you are a multi-cultural specialist, ultra-liberal zealot, college tainted "Oppression Liberator."


A lot of the students are Hispanic. I am told when the new principal arrived, he fired all the Spanish teachers and other Hispanic culture types. His justification being English is what college courses are taunt in; if parents want their kids to learn Hispanic culture, they can teach them themselves.

Of course a foreign language is still taught at the school: Chinese. No, not because "China will rule the world." He wanted all the students to struggle together, to learn a language that none of them were familiar with. Not to mention learning a language extremely different from English forces the brain to think differently.

During his first year he was hated by students and staff who campaigned to have him fired, but quickly he took a failing school and raised it to the second best in the district (second only to the school run by his mentor). He also wears long sleeve shirts to hide his gang tattoos. He was a former drug dealer.

His rule is autocratic and his students highly disciplined. In fact, a teacher who allowed his students to break a subtle dress code was ratted on by students and promptly fired. The principal has the luxury of kicking out anyone who doesn't fit his vision; a luxury our public schools don't have.

Rather off topic, but I wanted to share something I learned recently. I didn't fact check any of this. This was told to me by someone who did meet and talk with the principal. Hopefully I didn't mangle the details too much.

[Vanguard]

Re: Cruel or clever?

I think it's not only cruel, but quite stupid, as well.

Did they think the HS students would never learn the truth? Great, they just ruined their credibility, at a time when young people are formulating their opinions on key issues and institutions such as government and police force. So in this situation, it seems they learned to distrust what the police tell them. Bravo.

[SusieMisajon]

Re: Cruel or clever?

I say cruel. If you wanna scare them straight take them to the morgue or show them actual pictures/video of a crash scene.

Or to a hospital to meet actual accident victims. While you're at it...visit the ward where lungs go to die because of cigarettes. Then continue to a detention center and a prison. An abused spouse shelter, a tour of homeless hangouts would finish the day.

Too bad orpahanges no longer really exist...maybe a teenage mother center or low income housing where single moms are found? A mind-numbing factory worker's tour? Monopoly money to equal minimum pay, with the homework to go and try and live on it? Hospital emergency room? Sweatshop?

[SusieMisajon]

Re: Cruel or clever?

The next day, take the students into an old-folk's home (too bad that the poorhouse no longer exists), an inner-city multi-racial school, and have lunch outside in a field of fruits or vegetables, where you can watch migrant workers doing their 'thing'.

Be sure to visit a sub-prime mortgae office, and a credit card issue office, and then take them to the mall and explain home equity loans and living beyond your means. Don't forget to pass by for a visit to the foodbank.

PLEASE....SOMEBODY STOP ME!!!!

[Nords]

Re: Cruel or clever?

[url=http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25123570/]I know too many kids who have no regard whatsoever for their life or the lives of others that they need to be scared like this.
Thoughts?

Imagine if a workplace's benevolent bosses had pulled this type of exercise before a three-day weekend "to cut down on drunk driving by our employees"... or if the Hawaii Dept of Transportation had done it to elevate driver awareness of drunk driving.

You can be fairly certain of one consequence. Some of these kids will experience significantly diminished levels of trust for authorities. Rightly so, I would say.

It's an abuse of authority given to those who set the rules and control the information. It's just as bad as the radio station in 1938 broadcasting "War of the Worlds" so realistically that the audience mistook entertainment for breaking news.

Back in the Cold War, the U.S. Navy's ballistic-missile submarines used to make 90-day patrols under radio silence. The only contact with the rest of the world was a 2400 bps broadcast, and each crewmember was allowed to receive eight forty-word familygrams. Some radiomen used to make up familygrams and give them to various crewmembers as a joke, presenting them as if they'd come from the crew's family members. While it initally seemed funny, it wasn't very amusing when it happened to me. When you're the only source of "truth", or when you're operating a public broadcast, you don't mess with the facts.

The students will find subtle ways to let the school authorities share the same feelings that were imposed on them. And when the misbehavior starts happening, the authorities will have no one else to blame it on.

[Lei Liko]

Re: Cruel or clever?

I say cruel. If you wanna scare them straight take them to the morgue or show them actual pictures/video of a crash scene.

My senior class took a field trip to the morgue right before we held our prom. Parents could opt-out if they wanted, but my mom gave 110% support for it and even volunteered to chaperone.

It was sick and disgusting, but I got the message.