Skip to comments.Schools, Kids and Whippings
Posted on 05/20/2002 9:54:04 AM PDT by Sir Gawain
Schools, Kids and Whippings
| Because of the lack of discipline among school kids these days, some folks honestly believe that bringing back classroom "whuppins" is going to solve the problems created by parental failure, "easy" ways out of personal responsibility, federalized education where the agenda overrides parental authority, where schools blacklist "problem" parents who are, for the most part, those who disagree with flaky school policies, and a great deal of federally-sponsored racial bias.
To which I say, bullschwacky!
Okay so I don't have kids of my own, but I had two parents, a war-zone home, and I have friends who do have kids. Discipline begins at home. Respect for authority begins at home. The knowledge of right and wrong begins at home. Instruction about the value of a good education begins at home. In fact, life begins at home!
No whuppins at any school will instill in any child the values that parents fail to teach or teach properly. It might make for more dropouts, runaways and resentment, including a few more school shootings or other acts of violence, because we're living in a violent era that didn't exist when I was growing up. Oh yes, some violence has always existed ... but not on the scale we see it now. Today's headlines injected onto a 1950's front page of a city newspaper would cause collective cardiac arrest.
Letting federalized teachers whip the daylights out of kids in school because they have religious beliefs opposed to certain teachings in the schools might make more drones for the Great Senseless Society, but it won't produce better kids and it will not enhance education. It won't stop school violence but it may increase it.
My mother and her siblings grew up in an environment where grandpa "ran the home" and he used a double razor strop to whip his frail daughters and one son. When granny tried to intercede on behalf of the kids to talk to them, grandpa would threaten her with "stay out of this, Emma, or else." That isn't being the man of the house ... it's being a brute. (As a side note, once granny got over being intimidated, she gave him "hail columbia" for the rest of his living days and told him over and over "I was too young and dumb to know I'd married a crazy man." She gave no quarter and spared no insult, but she did stay married. When he died, she shed no tears.)
My mother was dead-set against corporal punishment as the standard way of training children. She felt there were times it was needed, and I got a few wooden coathangers swatted across my back, but from as far back as any memories exist, mom first tried talking to me, then if I didn't get the point, she was good at intimidation. My dad didn't like me, my mother knew it, and would not let him lay a hand on me. Once, when I was 14, mama and I were having a somewhat heated discussion, and without warning he interfered long enough to backhand me across the jaw and send all 103 pounds of me sprawling across the living room floor and into a chair. Of course, this is the same dad who dumped mom and me in Arizona when I was in my early 20's, demanded a divorce, and went about his womanizing and the booze my mother wouldn't let him drink.
The school issue was never a concern when it came to corporal punishment. I went to California private schools, was a good student, corporal punishment was not applied. Rather, the headmistress of the school sent for the parents for a "conference" when the kids were a problem. At least I didn't have to be terrified of school ... and I do not like to be hit. There are some kids that people feel like blistering until they cannot sit down for a week, I've met them all through life, but look into their homes and generally the problem is readily discernible. Delinquent parents. Or just plain mean parents like my dad and my grandpa.
Bringing back corporal punishment into federalized schools allows for all sorts of options for teacher abuse. Race bias is one of them, and it exists. It also exists in the workplace, as I found out all too soon when I went to work for the State of Arizona in 1992 where Hispanics were favored. I have no doubt that kids whose parents are trying to bring them up with values of abstinence, a drug-free life, belief in God, and respect for proper authority would meet with some federalized teachers who would beat the daylights out of them at the slightest mention of any of these precepts. We're also talking about the same federalized system that calls it a crime in some states for parents to discipline their kids with a swat on the behind when they act up in the store.
Neither the school nor the government have the job of parenting children, and the parents of this nation should make sure they never do, because they are trying to do just that.
Now, before I start sounding like I've gone soft-headed on bringing up kids, I am a believer in discipline beginning at the earliest age. This idea that kids need to get in touch with their inner selves and be given free reign for all sorts of acting-out is nonsense only a new-age society would promote. Any parent with that philosophy isn't fit to bring up children anyway, and that seems to be the way "Taliban John" Lindh was allowed to express himself. Advice from the Spock of Star Trek would be better than the advice Dr. Spock gave in the 60's about how to let kids run wild and grow up without any respect for authority.
However, as nearly as I can tell from the reports that I receive from folks who have kids attending highly federalized schools and their battle to keep the kids from calling 911 at the slightest hint of discipline (where did kids five and six learn about that?) -- the first place to begin with corporal punishment is with delinquent parents, and the second place is with leftist teachers who instruct kids on their "rights" against home discipline.
Originally, public schools were there to educate children in specific courses such as language, spelling, arithmetic, history, civics, and other "school" subjects to prepare them for either college or the workplace. All other child-rearing was to be done at home. Living day in and day out in any home environment will, intentionally or unintentionally, transfer to the children the values modeled in the home. That's how we got the welfare dynasties. The values of society as reflected in the neighborhood in which kids are brought up will also transfer, which is why so many thoughtful parents today are trying to get out of the city and into areas where they can keep a closer eye on the kids, their friends, and what's being taught at school.
When we can't trust our government with our immigration policies, our Bill of Rights or even our Constitution, should we trust them with the children? I would say at this point the statement of former president Ronald Reagan applies to the highest degree: "government is not the solution to the problem, government IS the problem."
Incorrect as a point of fact. Correct in so much as it is your opinion.
Government-run schools are a bad idea.
You got it half right.
Some kids react better to the threat of a paddle. I know we sure did. We all wore safety glasses in shop, even the kids who didn't care if they passed because the penalty was a lick in front of the whole class. And Coach Page used to play for the Dolphins.
Please explain the "liberal" reference and after that please elighten me about what he correct about. (other than the half I already pointed out)
They were as wrong as the others who told us that corporal punishment would solve the same problems.
You should have the right to send your children to schools where physical punishment is allowed. And I should have the same right to send my children to a school where my children are not touched physically, except by me. Since government schools are mandatory for those who do not have the resources to educate them privately it is a good thing that government employees are not given the right to touch children for purposes of "punishment".
If you send your child to a government school, you must live within the bounds of the school. If your child is disruptive, they will be punished in a manner decided by the school. If you don't like the method, you can remove your child.
Your child will be hit in school. That is guaranteed. The question is whether the attacker will be sufficiently deterred from hitting your child again. If you want to remove the consequences, that is your business. But your child will live with that deterrence. I would rather my son get paddled in school than beaten by his classmates. I have children in a public elementary school and their biggest complaint is lack of discipline by wimpy administrators.
That is precisely why government schools should be abolished. Particularly because the is no choice to opt out for some people. The attendance is mandatory even for people who do not have the resources to opt out.
If your child is disruptive, they will be punished in a manner decided by the school.
I don't know what state you live in but In Illinois, corporal punishment is forbidden and it has been since I was in elementary school in the 50s, probably before then. Rightfully so.
If you don't like the method, you can remove your child.
I thought I made it clear that we were talking about people without an option like that.
Your child will be hit in school. That is guaranteed. The question is whether the attacker will be sufficiently deterred from hitting your child again.
None of my three children has ever been hit in school. And they won't be because their primary education is now ended.
If you want to remove the consequences, that is your business. But your child will live with that deterrence.
See above comment.
I would rather my son get paddled in school than beaten by his classmates. I have children in a public elementary school and their biggest complaint is lack of discipline by wimpy administrators.
It's OK with me if you choose to have government employees physically touch your children, I do not choose that. I assume my own responsibilites, I do not cede them to anyone, certainly not government employees.
Your children were hit in school. You just don't know it. There is no way your kids went through 12 years of school and never got hit by anyone. That's ludicrous.
Thankfully those aren't the only two choices. PS....if I was forced to choose, which I am not, I would never opt to allow anyone to physically touch my children.
Your children were hit in school.
You just don't know it.
There is no way your kids went through 12 years of school and never got hit by anyone.
If you have substantial funds to wager, I will accomodate you.
Funny, I was just thinking that about your comments.
You don't believe in government schools BUT you believe in making rules for them.
False. I merely recognise that they exist. Laws against anyone physically touching my children, except in self defense apply to all walks of life, not only schools. Laws permitting the suspension of my childrens rights (and mine as parent) have been passed by thugs many times though as exceptions to the natural rights which exist.
If you make rules for them, you obviously believe in them.
As I pointed out, I make no rules for them, I merely acknowledge that others have made exceptions on occasion to suspend the rights.
Rules haven't been made to support the right to not be physically accosted, they have been made to permit it as an exception. Those rules are an abomination.
Every important detail, such as assault, has been reported.
You need another mirror, Alice.