| T.R | Title | User | Personal
Name | Date | Lines |
|---|
| 1281.1 | I don't think that would solve anything | TLE::RANDALL | liberal feminist redneck pacifist | Mon Jan 20 1992 10:31 | 51 |
| As a person who was picked nearly last in nearly every event,
sometimes had to stand on the bus for 8 miles because all the
seats were reserved for someone else, and got beat up on after
school by the other girls for getting good grades . . .
I disagree almost totally with almost everything you suggest.
Yes it was painful growing up, but come on, Mom and Dad and
Teacher aren't going to be there to protect the kids forever. And
I don't know about you, but I don't go running to the police or to
personnel every time somebody says something rude to or about me.
There might be some merit to clarifying the policies for problem
resolution, so a kid knows who to go to when they need help
working out a problem with another kid. But I'm afraid that in
general, this is a free country with rights of free association,
and that in dealing with other people, yes, each of us does take
the law into our own hands because there aren't and shouldn't be
any laws governing interpersonal relationships.
I can't see any point to regimenting children into assigned seats
everywhere from the time they get on the bus to the time they get
off (and you forgot to assign positions in line for the bus; what
about the humiliation of always having to get on the bus last?
What about the disagreements that erupt there?) All that would do
is discourage them from developing friendships. And assigned
seating in class never protected me from any bully -- if the girl
whose mother was on her case about getting C's when I was getting
A's wanted to get me, she could do it from several seats away, or
after school, or whatever. It wouldn't solve anything and it
would prevent the kids from getting together with the people whose
company they do enjoy.
The only thing I can think of that helps very much is for the
parents to try to help their kids cope better and offer them
support and assurance they're still loved. My mother didn't have
any better than I did what to do in difficult situations, and I
interpreted her detachment as annoyance with me and my social
incompetence rather than as helplessness. Realizing that has
taken the sting out of a lot of the unpleassant memories.
I also find that most of us tend to remember the unpleasant events
much more than the pleasant ones. If I stop to think about it,
for every time someone made fun of me for my glasses and my
grades and the way I dress, there's a wonderful memory of
discovering a new book, a new idea, a new scientific fact. For
every gym class I was picked last in, there's a spelling bee I was
picked first in. For every bully I was the butt of, there was a
friend I shared wonderful times with.
--bonnie
|
| 1281.2 | | FSDEV::MGILBERT | GHWB-Anywhere But America Tour 92 | Mon Jan 20 1992 12:08 | 19 |
|
I won't go into Bonnie's diatribe but I essentially agree that what
you're trying to do will simply create more problems. I would suggest
that your time may better put into the following:
1) Approach the administration with a suggestion for teacher
in-service on the subject of children dealing with peers.
2) Approach the administration with a suggestion about running
parenting seminars.
3) Approach the administration with suggestions about examining
Health curriculum with the goal of instilling "valueing
differences" and "random acts of kindness" mentalities. FWIW,
there are programs available that do this. One of the best is
nationally sponsored by the Lions Club. It's known as the QUEST
program and is run in many school systems in Eastern Mass.
|
| 1281.3 | | ERLANG::KAUFMAN | Charlie Kaufman | Tue Jan 21 1992 21:03 | 79 |
| I think that one of the most important lessons schools teach is how to interact
socially. Some of these lessons are of necessity painful. While minimizing
the pain should certainly be a goal, the first priority has to be teaching the
lesson.
I think in many cases, schools permit and even encourage behavior that is not
only unnecessarily painful, but also teaches the wrong lesson. When deciding
what kinds of behavior are encouraged and what are tolerated, the guiding
principal should be: is this the kind of behavior that is rewarded/tolerated in
adults in the society these children are growing into.
I take particular issue with violence. It's true that I don't call the police
every time I have a dispute with my neighbor. That's because I don't have to.
We have learned that beating people up is not OK. Somewhere along the line,
most bullies learn that physical violence is not acceptable in polite society.
I'm not sure where they learn that. It doesn't appear to be in school. I'm
not sure your proposal of having an adult to tattle to always identified is
necessary. It should be possible to report unacceptable behavior to any adult
and they should be able to find the right person. What children need to learn
is what are tattle-able offenses and what are not. If my neighbor punched me
every time he saw me, I might well end up calling the police; if he swore it
me, I'd probably have to live with it. If it bothered me enough, I could move.
Schools should not tolerate behavior that my employer would not tolerate. A
kid should be able to go to a teacher with any complaint that I would take to
personnel or my manager if it happened here. Except perhaps for schools that
graduate mostly drug dealers... if they want to continue in that tradition,
they should set a different standard.
Assigned seats are bad because they keep friends apart. Forming friendships is
part of the socialization process. I wouldn't tolerate assigned seats in the
cafeteria, so I don't see why kids should either. On the other hand, if
someone I didn't know or even didn't like sat down with my group, I wouldn't
tell them to go away *even* if there was someone coming who I was hoping would
sit there. In some such situations, I would risk rudeness by moving. The
rules for children should be what we expect to become second nature to adults.
Part of the difference between our cafeteria and theirs is that theirs is much
more crowded. Every effort should be made to at least give the geeks the
option of sitting alone if they can't get along with anyone. I remember the
nightmare of the school bus. Friends should stand together in line. Anyone
should be able to sit in any seat that is open. It works on the T. Why not
here?
I think it would be useful to *sometimes* assign partners for projects more or
less randomly and sometimes let people form their own. In life I sometimes get
to choose who I will work with and sometimes I don't. It should certainly be
the case that people should have the option of being assigned to a group...
perhaps by putting all the losers together. That happens in life too. When
choosing up teams, the goal is to make two teams of approximately equal ability
with some weighting toward keeping friends together. If half the players were
so chosen and the remaining half counted off, it would seem like the goal would
be accomplished with less harassment. It's worth a try. I never particularly
minded being picked last; I was proud to be seen as lacking certain skills on
which I placed negative value.
Organized open enrollment activities at recess are a good idea to the extent
they are voluntary. People should be able to hang out with their friends and
snub people they don't like. As adults, we have to learn to act in ways that
people will tolerate or be very lonely. It's an unpleasant lesson, but an
important one. I definitely agree that it would be nice if people had the
option of reading or doing homework. Exercise and fresh air are good for you,
but they shouldn't be forced on people.
"Valuing Differences" sounds like a wonderful idea, but I agree it could easily
backfire. At younger ages, an interesting varient on "show and tell" might be
to randomly draw names and you have to learn and explain something interesting
about the person whose name you drew. Presumably with their cooperation. In
general, assignments that require that people talk with people they don't
normally associate with and learn something about them would be good. I'm
reminded of those horrible "themes" we had to write for English class on
idiotic subjects. How about one about how someone else feels about some issue.
You didn't mention gym class except in the context of being the last chosen.
When I was in school, this was the great opportunity for the dumb kids to get
back at the smart kids. And the biggest dumbest most vengeful kid of them all
was the gym teacher. It took almost 20 years before I would even consider the
possibility of voluntarily engaging in any form of physical exercise. I doubt
my experience was unique. Gym classes should deemphasize competitive sports
and aim for more nearly homogeneous groupings. If they are going to teach
"sportsmanship", they should teach the kind they want to encourage.
|
| 1281.4 | Choosing teams | MOIRA::FAIMAN | light upon the figured leaf | Tue Jan 21 1992 21:32 | 29 |
| from Wladimir SSoulchin, _Ein Tropfen Tau_ [A drop of dew]; quoted
in _Children at Play: Preparation for Life_, by Heidi Britz
Crecelius; describing play in a Russian kolkhoz village:
These Russian children form pairs, always two of equal strength.
Each pair thinks of two words which also correspond. For
example, one is the gate, the other the fence. One a stable,
the other a barn. Then they stand in front of the two captains
who have been chosen earlier and are also of equal strength.
They ask the one, "Do you want gate or fence?" "Gate," he may
answer, and the boy who has chosen "gate" will go and stand in
his team and the boy who is "fence" goes to the other side.
Thus pair after pair go to the captains and ask the one, then
the other:
"Nail or horseshoe?"
"Plough or harrow?"
"Forest or river?"
The girls choose more delicate symbols:
"Lilac or elderberry?"
"Cornflower or forget-me-not?"
"Red or blue?"
The final result is the same as with our more authoritarian
procedure: in the end two equally strong groups stand facing
one another. Only the choosing of teams in the kolkhoz is
already an exciting game in itself.
|
| 1281.5 | Interesting response... | RADIA::PERLMAN | | Sun Jan 26 1992 08:13 | 48 |
| Re: .1
Unless I misunderstand you, you seem to be saying that whatever
the climate is within a school, the kids getting picked on should
just learn to take it. There are people who believe that, and
I would find it interesting to explore that a bit.
Elimination of "hostile work climates" seems to be a big thing
these days. I know of people fired for sexual harrassment, and
it was only crass verbal comments, not anything like rape. I'm
also certain people would be fired for racial harrassment. Do
you think it is wrong for an employer to make it clear that they
do not tolerate sexual and racial harrassment, and to enforce
the policy?
a) if you think it is wrong for an employer to do anything about
harrassment, is that because you think harrassment is a part of
life, this is a free country and people ought to be able to say
whatever they like, and people should just learn to deal with it, or is it
because you think nothing an employer can do will be effective?
Also, in terms of "freedom of association", do you support an
employer's or restaurant's right to discriminate in hiring or
serving customers?
b) if you support employers' actions in attempting to eliminate
harrassment, why is the school situation any different? Are children
less affected by harrassment? Are children less likely to be
influenced by education from authorities about what is acceptable
behavior? Or is there something about sexual harrassment and
racial harrassment that is different from harrassing a kid because
he's not up on the latest fads, or because he has acne, so that you'd
support elimination of calling other kids "nigger", but you'd say
it's OK to call them "fag" or "fatso"?
The previous replies did convince me not to suggest assigned seats
as a primary suggestion. Obviously my son's school thinks it's
a good idea, since they do it at lunch. I haven't found out why
they do it. I think it's a great way to break the ice with new
kids and get kids to know a wider group of other kids. But I'd
suggest primarily that bus rules (and caf rules) be that each
kid gets to sit in exactly one seat (unless they are taking home
a tuba), and that it is not allowed to tell someone they can't
sit in a seat. If you want to make sure you can sit with a particular
friend, then you have to arrange to stand with them on line, or move
if your table is full when they get their lunch.
Radia
|
| 1281.6 | not either/or | TLE::RANDALL | liberal feminist redneck pacifist | Mon Jan 27 1992 12:18 | 50 |
| re: 5
I don't think you're misunderstanding me so much as drawing a
conclusion based on a dichotomy I don't agree with. It's not
either unrestricted harrassment or total control.
I don't think that restricting the privileges and options of the
entire student body -- and you basically proposed regimenting the
entire school day for everybody -- because of the misbehavior of a
few students is the proper way to deal with cases of harrassment
and unpopularity. I think they have to be dealt with one on one,
and primarily through the individuals involved.
This is not the same thing as saying they just have to learn to
take it. Taking it is not the only way to deal with cliques and
teasing. Having both the teaser and the teasee learn some social
and political skills is a lot more effective. When my daughter
was involved in a fight with another girl after school, besides
calling both sets of parents in and reading everybody a lecture,
they made the girls do a joint "apology" project that they had to
work together, under a teacher's supervision, to complete. They
still don't like each other 10 years later, but they can behave
politely in a school situation.
Teaching valuing differences is a good idea.
No, I don't think firing people for making harrassing jokes or
rude remarks does any good. I think it primarily increases the
resentment the fired person feels for the group s/he already
disliked. I don't think it makes the workplace any friendlier,
either -- the people who are left take sides, the ones who
sympathize with the person who was fired go underground and resent
even more the ones who caused the firing, and pretty soon
everybody is working in a climate of mistrust and hate. It looks
placid and well-run but underneath it's seething. This is based
on a real experience, not just theory. Almost five years later
there are still people who won't work in an entire group in this
company because they don't ever again want to work with somebody
who was on the other side.
And I think the same thing would happen in a school that regulated
everybody's behavior to the point there was no possibility of
expressing a forbidden thought or behavior. It would look orderly
and pleasant, but it wouldn't be doing anything to change the
emotions and beliefs that produce the behavior, and increasing the
likelihood that those beliefs will come out strongly in a
situation where the controls aren't in place. Like after-school
or off-premises fights.
--bonnie
|
| 1281.7 | Children Harassing Each Other | CSC32::DUBOIS | Love | Mon Jan 27 1992 17:17 | 29 |
| I haven't responded here because I haven't known what my feelings really
are. I think I am probably somewhere between Bonnie and the basenoter.
I believe that assigned partners in lab work or other projects can be
very good. I also like the idea of having some games open to anyone.
I also see merit in the teaching of conformity that occurs from the nasty
behaviour of some kids; I just hate the means by which they teach this.
I also value diversity, and know that not all conformity is good.
Additionally, no one should *ever* have to stand on a school bus.
I was a kid who was harassed a *lot*. It wasn't until 8th grade that I really
got friends. From then on, I had tons of friends. The "teasing" in my
younger years hurt me a lot. I also saw other kids get teased. One girl was
really harassed because she had holes in her underwear. I'm pretty sure that
her family was poor. When I stuck up for her, I was alienated, too. I think
teachers should stop this type of behaviour. I think it would be useful to put
the kids in situations where they got to know each other as *people*, not just
as something to tease (poor, nerd, effeminate, tall, short, whatever).
I suggest that school administrators provide and make obvious an environment
which supports and encourages teachers to stop harassing behaviour.
I suggest that teachers find ways to bring kids closer together. One idea
would be to assign partners then have them learn about each other and tell or
write a story about the other person. Perhaps the kids could all talk about
how *they* are different, because of course each child is different in his/her
own way. This may help to minimize the difference they see in the children
whom they tease.
Carol
|
| 1281.8 | Who's responsibility? Parent(s) or Teacher's! | CALS::JENSEN | | Tue Jan 28 1992 11:22 | 34 |
|
I totally agree with Bonnie.
I don't doubt that "some" teachers need to be more sensitive about teasing
and harrassing, however, the social problems children provoke are usually
a distinct indication of THEIR upbringing. I don't envy teachers when it
comes to trying to instill values into a child who was not subjected or
raised with those values.
No matter how much a teacher tries, a child raised with racism will be a
racist UNTIL he chooses to re-evaluate and change (if you're lucky! and this
won't occur until he's a young adult, AT BEST!). I'm always amazed to hear
a child's political viewpoint (during an election year) -- exactly the
same words they hear Mommy/Daddy speak over and over again at the supper
table! Bullies didn't become bullies overnight, they "learned" that behavior
... and not from school! But we expect our teachers to "fix it".
So, I believe teachers can only do "just so much" in curbing children's
behavior and instilling values and respect. This has to begin at a young
age and from their family life. All a teacher can do is set limits and
expectations (within a grey area which allows children to experiment and
grow and mature THEMSELVES) ... and then "punish" offenders - but as
Bonnie pointed out, punishment doesn't always teach or defer ... but rather
tends to escalate and fuel the problem (at best).
Unfortunately, children (and adults!) will provoke - and continue provoking -
when they get the negative response they are expecting. I remember crying
to my Mom that "Johnny said this ... or Johnny did that" and her reaction
was "well, Johnny will keep doing it as long as you react to it!"
I agree with Bonnie that the problem needs parental interaction of the PARTIES
INVOLVED ... not the entire student body or administration.
Dottie
|
| 1281.9 | FIGHT FOR YOUR CHILD'S RIGHTS | CGVAX2::GALPIN | | Tue Jan 28 1992 12:02 | 32 |
| It took me awhile to come up with how I feel on this subject, so
here it goes. For the most part, I agree with the basenoter as far as
the main points she is bringing up. Being another victim of childhood
harassment, ranging from noone wanting to sit next to me on the bus to
being told that I could not participate in any games during recess, I
grew up feeling that I was indeed inferior to the human race. I never
questioned that fact, just accepted it. Why did I feel this way?
Because the teachers never stood up for me or tried to make me feel
like I was worth it. They just let the harrassments continue, feeling
that it was none of their business.
How I wish if just one teacher made a difference in my life. The
basenoter indicated to have one teacher that the kids could go to in
times of trouble. I'm all for that. I'm all for assigning kids for
projects and gym activities. I do feel that kids should be able to sit
anywhere on the bus or cafe as they please.
Lastly, .8 mentioned that it is the parent's responsibility. This
is true for the bullies in question. But what about the victim's
parents? Don't they have a right to have an harrassment free
environment for their children? If the bully's parents choose to do
nothing to correct the situation, why should the victim continue to
suffer?
I have a son going into first grade this September, and I have
already made a vow that the FIRST time someone harrasses my son for any
reason will the the LAST time they will do so.
There, I feel better now.
Diane
|
| 1281.10 | | POWDML::SATOW | | Tue Jan 28 1992 13:20 | 131 |
| This is a complex one. At times, I've been on both sides of the fence.
You can't, by regulation, change attitudes, but you can (and sometimes should)
control and regulate behavior. This means, for example, that you can't make
someone LIKE or seek out an outsider. But you can, and maybe should, make
them work with the outsider, or treat them with respect. You can't, for
example, say "it's against school regualtion to be a racist," but you can say
"it's against school regulations to use racial slurs."
This works both ways, though. You may be able to tell someone that they must
work with the "outsider." But you can't make them be pleasant to the outsider
or like her/him.
As to .0 specifics:
1) Have the school assign seats on buses and in the school lunchroom.
I disagree for the same reason as many of the earlier replies,
but I also wonder if you haven't "backed down" too easily. You
say that you don't know why your son's school does it. Why not
find out why and how? Perhaps they have some method of doing
it that overcomes some or all of the objections that some of
the previous replies have raised.
That having been said, I agree with your compromise.
Another possibility is for tables be reserved for classes, or
grades. The "outsider" may end up sitting on the end, but at least
they would have a place to sit.
My son's school has a system which may make the situation better or
worse. The tables seat only four students. That may make the
situation better, in that it would increase the likelihood that
there is an empty table in which that "outsider" could sit,
without objection. But it could make the situation worse, in
that if the "outsider" couldn't find an empty table, or did not
want to sit alone, there would be even more rejections.
2) Groupings of children for school projects and teams should be randomly
done, or chosen by the teacher.
I agree with "chosen by the teacher." There may be some
combinations that just don't make sense, or that make
great sense. Random selection would make the undesirable
combinations more likely to occur, and the desirable
combinations less likely to occur. For the type of person
that the base note is about, the teacher could put the
"outsider" with a student who might be a fine work partner,
but who, because of peer pressure, or even shyness, doesn't
willingly choose to work with the "outsider."
But the teacher should be sensitive. The "accommodating" student
in the previous paragraph should, on some occasions, get to
work with kids that he/she wants to. I have a friend whose
child always seemed to be teamed up with disruptive, unruly students.
At first she just thought it was bad luck. But later, on
inquiry, she found out it was intentional. "He's such a good
influence." IMO, that's outrageous. It punishes good behavior.
Additionally, remember that the sword may cut both directions.
The "outsider" may end up with a work partner that s/he doesn't
like. Particularly if the task involves work outside the classroom,
or outside the teacher's control, then the experience may be as
unpleasant as having gotten rejected in a "pick your own partner"
situation.
3) It should always be clear which adult is available when a child
feels he needs help resolving a problem.
I agree with the above statement, but I'm not sure I would
apply it in some of your examples. If my son or daughter
complained to me that one of their classmates made "rude faces,"
I wouldn't suggest complaining to the teacher. There have
been times that our son is, in our opinion, overly concerned
with misbehavior on the part of another student. I would
welcome a teacher non-response, or even better, the teacher
working with our son to work through whatever it is that
bothers him so much. And sometime the problem really IS that
the person being rejected is approaching the wrong people, or
approaching them in a way that invites rejection.
4) Have semi-organized activities at recess.
Disagree, because I don't think that it would work, and
because it would divert time from teachers, administrators,
or school volunteers from other activities I think would be
more productive. If you had a "baseball corner," for example,
I'd be willing to bet that you'd have large numbers of kids
boycotting the "baseball corner" and starting their own game;
don't let them play baseball, and they'll find some other
activity. It is not _baseball_ they want to play. It is that
they want to play with their friends. I believe that kids
deserve some non-structured play time, with kids of their own
choice.
As for the "choosing up sides" situation, I was not typically
the last one chosen. I think that the reason that you hear
so many stories about being the last one, is that when it does
happen, it is painful, and thus memorable. In an organized
situation, such as gym class, I think that it may make sense for
the gym teacher to select the sides. This not only prevents the
"last chosen" problem, but also saves time, and does a better
job of creating equal competition (kids don't always select the
most skilled player available -- they often select their friends).
Better still, IMO, is to emphasize activities that don't require
"teams." But once again, I think that kids need and deserve some
non-structured time, with kids of their own choice.
5) Make "valuing differences" and "random acts of kindness" part of
the culture. What I mean is that appropriate behavior should be
taught as part of the curriculum.
Fine -- do it in the context of social studies. But whenever
I see a suggestion of adding something to the curriculum that
is something other than reading, writing, and computing, I cringe,
even if it is an entirely worthy goal, as "valuing differences" is.
I worry that we will produce a bunch of Politically Correct kids
who can't read, write, or compute.
I am not doubting your word about your experiences, but my experience is that
kids can usually find someone who will eat lunch with them and who will play
with them at recess and lunch. Both of my children are pretty mainstream, but
both of them have at times been excluded from groups, for one reason or
another. They were generally able to find someone who was also excluded --
kids who were relatively new to the school, or kids who were on the outs with
their normal peer group -- to eat lunch with and play with. Sometimes the
friendships stuck, sometimes they were transitory. I don't doubt that (a lot
of) exclusionary kids exist. It's just not my experience that ALL kids are
so exclusionary ALL the time.
Clay
|
| 1281.11 | | VERGA::STEWART | Caryn....Perspective is Everything! | Wed Jan 29 1992 12:48 | 38 |
| Well, I empathize with the rest of the geeks and nerds out there, and also
acknowledge that sometimes kids invite rejection (my son is a good example
of that although he's getting better and making more friends these days).
Many of the previous replies echo my own experiences in school (getting
beaten up or threatened for how I looked, dressed, my ethnic background, my
shyness, and probably a dozen other things as well).
I hate to think of kids having to experience peer-cruelty. I agree that
it's unlikely that forced socializing will solve the problem, but I still
think that creating an environment where growth can happen is good. And if
there isn't a guidance counselor that kids can go to, then they should
certainly know who they can go to whether because they've been threatened,
beat up, or harassed to the point where their ability to learn or
participate is affected.
I think the idea about setting up two groups for team captains to choose
from is a good one - there's still a choice but everyone gets chosen and
in an unweighted order.
I think forbidding "reserved seating" both on buses and in cafs is good as
well. Kids who want to sit together just need to group together before
sitting.
Classroom activities and projects that encourage kids to work with new
people is also a good idea. If kids are so stubborn that they refuse to
work with others in a group they can simply flunk the project. I think
there's a lesson in maturity here...
There's plenty of time at recess, lunch, after school for buddies to hang
out. They won't die if they have to work with someone other than their
bossom buddie.
School is a mix between academics and social learning, whether it's a part
of the formal curriculum or not. Why not help the social part along if
possible?
|
| 1281.12 | yes, help it along, but... | TLE::RANDALL | liberal feminist redneck pacifist | Thu Jan 30 1992 10:22 | 31 |
| >Classroom activities and projects that encourage kids to work
>with new people is also a good idea. If kids are so stubborn that
>they refuse to work with others in a group they can simply flunk
>the project. I think there's a lesson in maturity here...
This is an extremely painful process for an introvert, especially
one who is already behind in social skills. Working in such
situations occasionally, in a context of an environment that
develops other skills, helps people like us learn the skills we
need. But having to frequently adjust to different working
partners is a strain by itself. If you haven't learned the social
techniques that smooth such a working relationship, you can be in
the group and yet never work with it -- there are plenty of ways
to make sure someone knows they're an outcast without ever doing
anything even the strictest rules could prohibit.
And if you don't have those skills, and yet you're repeatedly
sent into situations where you need those techniques in order to
succeed, you can be forced into a situation where your only choice
is which kind of failure -- refuse to participate and get flunked
directly, or try to participate, fail, and then get flunked
indirectly for not having the skills you don't have.
It becomes the social equivalent of teaching to swim by throwing
them into the pond. Either you drown or you learn to swim. It's
much better to have swimming lessons -- but who gives social
lessons? Is it really the school's responsibility to teach
remedial everything -- from hygiene to spelling, from softball to
manners, from teamwork to counting?
--bonnie
|