Again you skirt the issue. I pointed out that at first you said men are aggressive, competitive, and challenging, and then changed your tune when you said that men and women think differently. Are we talking about cognitive or biological differences? Pick one and stick with it.
Why do I have to pick one? My original message didn't separate the two. The biological and cognitive are intertwined.
Testosterone effects how males think and behave.
You never qualified competition or aggression as being healthy. You also made several disparaging remarks about cooperation.
I don't think there is anything wrong with competition. No need to qualify it. Competition spurs a student on to work hard and learn. And if you reread my original message I did not disparage cooperation. All I did was state it was being taught. Cooperation is indeed important but it is only one side of the scale. Nothing is wrong with promoting competitiveness along with cooperation. Balance is what I am looking for in education.
The dominant white culture of many places values competition, but this is not so in all places or with all ethnicity's. Many cultures value cooperation and dislike competition, especially the Latino culture. Furthermore, I fail to see how aggression could ever be a positive characteristic.
Aggression is just a natural part of how boys behave. I don't view it as evil. My two sons will fight like bear cubs just for fun. Is it wrong? I don't think so. But for some reason, if a group of boys wants to play football in the school field during recess it is now not allowed because someone could get hurt. Please! Do you know how ridiculous that sounds? Boys having been playing rough and tumble together since the beginning of time. Are we now going to penalize them for this behavior because of misplaced political correctness? Sheesh, let them play to work off that testosterone so when they come inside to learn they will be able focus. Your remark about Latino culture may be true but I think if you put a group of Latino boys out on a soccer field I doubt you won't see aggressive behavior used cooperatively.
When have we had it? Go back to the one-room schoolhouse days and you'd be depressed to find even a handful of male teachers. Frequently throughout the twentieth century, the only men in the building were the principals. I would like to see more men willing to teach at the elementary and middle school level (the only ones we have in elementary are the specials teachers, but our middle school has a good balance). And need I remind you that you claimed that women's taking over the administrative roles was "a problem."
We are in agreement here. I would love to see more men teaching and taking on administrative roles throughout. It is a problem that needs to be addressed.
Yes, having consequences does deter future bullying, but lack of consequences actually increases it.
Furthermore, we must also think of the bully in this case. Not being able to be placed in a regular school could be detrimental to his education, and having a criminal record could limit his employment opportunities--and what fourth grader do you know who would really weigh these consequences before bullying? We educators are not here to separate the "good kids" from the "bad kids." We're here to educate everyone--including those who choose to bully.
It is honorable that you want to serve all of the children but it isn't fair to place the burden of a problem child on a teacher who may 32 students times three class periods.
Helping as a one-on-one aide in the class I was able to observe first hand what a teacher has to deal with and focusing attention on one problem child is impossible given all the curriculum that must be covered by state law. Teachers simply do not have time to try and correct parenting errors. We have to be realistic. Unfortunately, the problem children get left behind.
Good for that child. I'm glad to see they're succeeding.
The snitch advisory program isn't what worked. It was the desperate act of finally calling the police and expelling the student which solved the problem.
My point stands, that it is indeed the school's responsibility to ensure the safety of its students.
True. Consequences of behavior should land a problem student in the Principal's office.
We cannot teach academics if the child is not in a condition to learn.
This is true but schools do not have enough staff to solve these problems. One hyperactive 12 year old stays up till midnight each night then eats chocolate chip pancakes, chocolate milk and apple juice for breakfast each morning. She has trouble focusing in class, is constantly moving around and talking to friends. The school can certainly teach children about proper nutrition and adequate rest but the teaching staff doesn't live in the home to make sure the child is doing what he/she needs to do to come to school ready to learn. Responsibility for lifestyle choices lies with the parents.
You may decry this practice of character education, but it is far more important to children's education than you believe.
It only works if what is being taught in the classroom is also being taught at home. The same thing goes for teaching children about our faith. If the child only is being taught about Orthodoxy at church/Sunday school but the message is not being reinforced at home the priest will be fighting a losing battle.