Parents murder kid (discussion on death penalty)

[Tonkyhonk]

@Tonkyhonk: I can't correct the grammar because I can't figure out what you meant. It is semantics, but it's not so much a semantic debate as a semantic brick wall.

what you quoted are basically saying the same thing, so if you got the last sentence, then you got them all.

I believe will help reveal to overtyped what you meant. Telling overtyped that he is me doesn't cut it.

if what overtyped has posted here is really what he believes, then he wouldnt want the direct answer of mine and he would like to think on his own to seek the answer. thats the method he believes the best. i hope he is currently thinking.
and since you dont want to think on your own and rely on others to give you the straight answers *you* want, you will never understand. you cling to yourself, and you are not ready for this argument, thus, waste of time.

[Vaku]

Let me know when you get off your high horse.

[Tonkyhonk]

let me know when you are finally bored with your toys

[MagicManICT]

i know what you mean, but the current fad in education is to ask him back the question, "why do YOU think?",

If you go back and study the classic teachings, that's usually the standard response to those asking questions that they can figure out themselves or get to with only a small bit of prompting or correction. Can you do this with a five or six year old? To a degree, but by the time a student is in any sort of secondary school, they should be learning to figure stuff out on their own.

then again, the world needs factory workers and middle management as much or more so than it needs innovators and inventors.

[Kathdys]

The fad when I was growing up was 'Because I said so!' or 'Because that's the way things are/have always been'. In most circumstances all of these amount to 'I don't know or don't care, but instead of admitting it I'm going to appeal to something else to try and save face'.

It's not a healthy attitude for someone whose actual job or role is to teach others, and if they're seriously not capable of explaining--if they don't have an understanding about it that they can share--that only makes it clear that the role or job should be left to someone else.

A good teacher doesn't do all the work for the student, it's true, but if the teacher doesn't understand all the steps, and fails to guide their students, yet a student manages to figure things out anyway, that student should probably be the one to teach the class from then on.

[Flame]

Honestly, part of the step in education should be to give to theacher the right to scold and punish the student. Not phisical punishment, but as is it now one can't neither Scold.
you can be denounced so easily.

So, students have theyr "freedom to think" right now and they aren't using it very well. I can say, totally using it badly.

The teacher Can't stop that dumb student from doing dumb things, and so can't neither "teach him to think". Without any authority, no one cares of teacher. They could be in the room or outside, ther's little difference.
This is the school i know and, imho, the "think" problem is really really the last in the list.

[Tonkyhonk]

Can you do this with a five or six year old? To a degree, but by the time a student is in any sort of secondary school, they should be learning to figure stuff out on their own.

thats what some say and ive read some ads on such books. (you know, some kids here have elementary entrance exams for elite kids too, and some parents blindly believe their kids are genius and often force such exams to their kids. there are so many books published for those exams or "how to bring up genius kids" kinda stuff.)
but realistically, its a luxury only for parents who can spend enough time staying with their kids and are educated enough to know what they are doing. without certain training, i dont think every adult with time could do it right. kids maturity levels vary and not every kid reaches at the same level at the same age, and the adult doing it has to know if they are doing it at the right phase using the right materials. i doubt it is possible at public schools.
the method is especially popular at elementary here to lead students to search on internet (but on pc with kids restrictions that they cannot access to "wrong" sites) and sometimes it doesnt seem very effective as kids learn to just print out whatever close enough it seems to them, without understanding what is actually written, and not enough teachers to stick around to every kid to explain what each site they picked says. when its made a group work, then always smartest kids do most and others just waste their time watching.

the school-ish system we had in edo era were said to be discussions too, but they were private and rich kids usually learned writing and reading only.
at present, all schools have to follow the national "curriculum" and "syllabus" to make sure the "right" things are being taught with strict designated hours. discussions can be really ideal sometimes for certain things, but as you all are aware, it depends heavily on the teaching side and it takes too long besides completing the already given curriculum. you of course expect certain decent contents being taught at every school for sure and not some controversial revisionists lectures secretly going on.

[Kathdys]

Most teachers, if they had the right to scold children, would use it to assert their authority without doing their job. They're paid for 'teaching a class', one might say, so as long as their conduct doesn't break the rules it's fine if they don't actually teach any students except at their whim. That's part of why the rules exist, so teachers don't have the power to just cow and paralyze their students without having to help them do more than meet the minimum requirements of the standardized tests. I've had a few teachers like this, regardless. The only students who thrive in their classrooms are the ones that avoid interacting with the teacher, and either study on their own, or else don't bother studying, get the answers from their friends, and find something else to do for the duration.

A very sad thing at my high school is that every class only made it a third of the way through its curriculum each year. The rest was skipped or dropped, never to be taught again, even though it was still assumed to have been taught. This was especially bad in home economics, which was supposed to be one third about sewing, one third about cooking, and one third about finances. We never got around to cooking or finances, by the end of the year all we'd accomplished was learning how to do basic clothing repairs and improvisations. I could have learned that in two weeks at home.

Teaching is a hard job and limits on what the teachers can do make it harder. Unfortunately, it's also a job where it's easy to confuse things running smoothly with things going well. Good teachers have to somehow get students interested in learning what they're required to learn, there is no way to make this easy, exceptional people are required before the job can be done even half-decently. Shame and humiliation, like anything else, don't help if the student doesn't want to learn, and since these tactics can lead to the student not wanting to be in the classroom or at school at all, they can be extremely counterproductive.

I've only had one teacher who did discipline well, and he did it by keeping everyone silent during class and encouraging them to speak to him after class with their questions. It's not a perfect solution--and most teachers don't want to triple the amount of time they have to spend dealing with students--but it's a lot better than just letting everything fester according to the adage 'out of sight, out of mind'.