New Detention law?

[Zanthos]

I have to say that from my experience Tardiness has been a big problem in my highschool...

So much so that one day 250 kids came in late to school (on a clear skied fall day), over 100 of which didn't have a note

This prompted our principal to pass a rule stating that anyone with an unexcused tardiness will be forced to spend first block (82 minutes) in the cafeteria, or what remained of the block. They recieved no credit for missed work and their teacher was suposted to give them no opportunity to make it up (like a test would be an automatic zero)

And hey, it worked. A week later tardiness dropped to like 60 people a day with upwards of 2/3 of them having parental excuses. For the most part the kids who still showed up late without excuse were already failing their first block class and could probably be classified as the kids who won't succeed at life...

So overkill? possibly, does it work? yes.

[Phalynx]

But Zanthos, due respect but the punishment doesn't fit the crime... the 60 who don't attend after the sanctions are the one's who need more input and direction.

HF I don't agree with you, you don't give choice unles the person can bear the responsibility or consequences of their actions, otherwise what is the point of parents. Children have access to choices too ealry, and not necessarily through enlightend parenting, sometimes from laziness or lack of understanding. A child at 12 is most often unlikely to understand the consequences of bunking off school therefore shouldn't be given the opportunity.

You can be libetarian with adults, I think then the burden of care and responsibilty by society is reduced and they have to accept the consequences.

Consultation is completely different to choice. Anyone who has been through any consultative process knows exactly that. I am in favour of consultation in every area of life, but recognising that the influence this has on outcome is usually very limited.

'Playing by the rules' is a phrase I hate. If playing by the rules does not get you what you want, then break them.

This is so frightening to me. The rules like do not murder, do not steal, do not rape are not some repressive tool of the state they are essential for some form of society that doesn't involve the strong taking everything from the weak to an even greater extent than they do already.

Call me bleak and cynical but if society continues to lose control, the darker side of humanity will begin to come out. Those with real power will tolerate only so much. We are only a genration or so away from segregation of society, gated communites, private armed security and incredibly harsh restrictions on the freedom of us all. If we don't take a responsible attitude now, I think we will be rewarded with a loss of almost everything I as an individual hold dear.

[formerly known as hf]

HF I don't agree with you, you don't give choice unles the person can bear the responsibility or consequences of their actions, otherwise what is the point of parents. Children have access to choices too ealry, and not necessarily through enlightend parenting, sometimes from laziness or lack of understanding. A child at 12 is most often unlikely to understand the consequences of bunking off school therefore shouldn't be given the opportunity.

You can be libetarian with adults, I think then the burden of care and responsibilty by society is reduced and they have to accept the consequences.

Consultation is completely different to choice. Anyone who has been through any consultative process knows exactly that. I am in favour of consultation in every area of life, but recognising that the influence this has on outcome is usually very limited.

Consultation is at least the first step towards more choice. We lack even basic consultation with children in almost all areas of society.

I think you will be surprised at just how mature children can be in their choices. Many children are seen to make 'bad choices' - because they are so used to having choices made for them, that when given the chance they rebel for the sake of rebellion.

When forced to make choices and take responsibility - for example, children who are primary carers for siblings/parents - they are capable of taking that responsibility, and being extremely mature in their descisons. I would agree that they should not have to take on that level of responsibility, but when they need to, they can.

I think you'll find that the majority of children would become bored, very quickly, if given the choice of not going to school - if you have children yourself, do they not seem to get bored after a few weeks of holiday?

The 'bad choices' children are seen to make are a result of exercising choice, when they have it, in opposition to what is good for them. And often they are aware that they 'shouldn't' be doing what they do, but they do it because they, for the first time, have an opportunity to choose, so they choose against what they would have been forced to do.

In glib terms, this may be the 'terrible twos' - when young children are first able to walk and manipulate their environment fully - having spent so long dependent and without control/choice, they go OTT with it...
The same thing is seen in teenagers who go 'off the rails' - first time they are allowed out without supervision, can get hold of drink/fags, can be in control of these choices etc. This doesn;t always last that long, and is a part of 'gowing up' in our society.

They are both a response to getting some freedoms and choices not available previously, and do not last forever. Very quickly, after the initial shock of freedom, children will settle down, and are capable of making informed and mature choices - the vast majority do realise that schooling is important, they do realise that drink and drugs are not such a great thing in excess.

'Playing by the rules' is a phrase I hate. If playing by the rules does not get you what you want, then break them.

This is so frightening to me. The rules like do not murder, do not steal, do not rape are not some repressive tool of the state they are essential for some form of society that doesn't involve the strong taking everything from the weak to an even greater extent than they do already.

I think you probably know I didn't mean it in those terms? There are some 'rules' which are firm parts of the fabric of our society - these are not the rules I mean.

Call me bleak and cynical but if society continues to lose control, the darker side of humanity will begin to come out. Those with real power will tolerate only so much. We are only a genration or so away from segregation of society, gated communites, private armed security and incredibly harsh restrictions on the freedom of us all. If we don't take a responsible attitude now, I think we will be rewarded with a loss of almost everything I as an individual hold dear.

I too shudder at the thought of gated communities and private security as many places in the US laready have - and I doubt we're even a generation away, there are some prime examples already in and around London, and I'm sure elsewhere - I'd give it a decade at most...

But that is not a sign of society loosing control.
The gated communities of the US are overkill. They are a response not to an unravelling of society, but to hype and hysteria - a percieved unravelling.

We are going down a route which makes things seem worse than they are.

The reaction which says we need to tighten control, is one which takes us further down that path to gated communities and their ilk...

[Phalynx]

There are some 'rules' which are firm parts of the fabric of our society - these are not the rules I mean.

Maybe I'm a bit thick and simplistic but if you errode what might be seen as 'petty' rules, like no loud music after 11pm, or no cannabis in school, then you undermine the concepts of rules and laws itself... Then you hit more serious laws which can be viewed as just as petty to someone whose boundaries are skewed.

I'm probably oversensitive to this because of the work I do, and probably too jaded and cyncial. I don't think we are as far apart as you think but it's nice to have the discussion!

[formerly known as hf]

I don't think we are as far apart as you think but it's nice to have the discussion!

I was just thinking that after your last post.

I'm only 22, so it's my inalienable to right to be a pinko wooly leftie...

[Phalynx]

I tried to join the socialist worker party when I was 21, they didn't trust me, thought I was journalist

Having kids set me down the reactionary right wing avenue.... suddenly I cared a bit more about my kids than the whole of society, now I'm coming around again thinking my kids won't have a society to grow up into soon unless things change..


I hear New Zealand is a bit like England in the 50's maybe I should pack me bags!

[Sicofonte]

Do not murder is a rule valid only while there is space/resources for everyone. Once this is not possible, murder is a natural survival choice.

[Phalynx]

Do not murder is a rule valid only while there is space/resources for everyone. Once this is not possible, murder is a natural survival choice.

I have to agree, I never could work out how humanism could coexist with darwinism.

[Sicofonte]

Do not murder is a rule valid only while there is space/resources for everyone. Once this is not possible, murder is a natural survival choice.

I have to agree, I never could work out how humanism could coexist with darwinism.

Easy: darwinism talks about evolution due to natural seleccion, while humanism about human ethics and phillosophies. To kill in order to survive is a right ethic in certain natural selection environments.

[Phalynx]

Wehey eugenics and euthanasia!

Natural selection would involve allowing all disabled, fat, thick, weak people to die.... not something you will find a lot of Humanists (openly) espousing, methinks. Most of what is good in society acts in opposition to natural selection... but that's another subject

[formerly known as hf]

We have vastly overpopulated our planet.
The easiest, most straightforward solution is mass eugenics of some form.

Academicaly, this is a sound argument. It could never be a reality.
- Our experience of eugenics are almost universally negative (holocaust as the prime example)
- The target would be western populations (we are the ones who most over-consume)
- And unless the descision is voluntary, insurmountable issues about who makes the descisions and freedom of choice are raised.

Sad, though, as it would be such a simple solution...


Anyway, bit of a tangent I guess...

[deadboy]

Depends what you want your kids to turn out like.

If you want little anarchists who will spend half their life in jail, flount the rules, drop 'em late tell the head teacher to go screw her rules...

If you want conformists who will fit in with the system and perform well in our consumerist society and go on to university I say show your kids a good example and if you accidentally are late rake your punishemnt like a grown-up and look suitably humble.

If you choose the former, don't be suprised if you are the first one your kids steal from.... If you choose the latter at least think your little citizens will be in a position to look after you comfortably when you're old, can't go to the toilet on your own and need some paid immigrants to after you!

Ok seriously, only read the first page of this but are you absolutely insane Phalynx? I am 16. From the ages of 8 and thirteen I had my mother take me to school, and was late, roughly 4 out of 5 days a week. Now, strangely enough, I'm not in jail right now because my mum didn't drop me off in time. Now am I, suprisingly considering what you just said, a school dropout. Hmmmmm.... could it be because this is rubbish? (Oh yes and I can't see how droping your children off late has anything to do with going to university either, I am most likely going to go to Oxford or Cambridge if I don't go to jail first )

[Nosajimiki]

I have to say that from my experience Tardiness has been a big problem in my highschool...

So much so that one day 250 kids came in late to school (on a clear skied fall day), over 100 of which didn't have a note

This prompted our principal to pass a rule stating that anyone with an unexcused tardiness will be forced to spend first block (82 minutes) in the cafeteria, or what remained of the block. They recieved no credit for missed work and their teacher was suposted to give them no opportunity to make it up (like a test would be an automatic zero)

And hey, it worked. A week later tardiness dropped to like 60 people a day with upwards of 2/3 of them having parental excuses. For the most part the kids who still showed up late without excuse were already failing their first block class and could probably be classified as the kids who won't succeed at life...

So overkill? possibly, does it work? yes.

Punnish the child, I like that solution. Children have fewer responsibilities so the kick in the ass wont destroy thier lives the same as it would the parent, but serve to motivate them. Most students in this country are in walking range of school or can take a school bus (public schools anyway) if thier parents cant get them thier on time themselves. If it's a private insititute then the parents most likely have the resources and concern to get the kid there themselves anyway. Either which way it should be the job of the student to get to school, and it is the schools obligation to enforce a motivation to get the children there even if that meens that the child must presure his/her parents to resolve the problem in exinuating circumstances.

As Zanthos pointed out, 4-5 students were motivated to be on time by putting the blame on the students and I'm betting that not most of the remaining 1/5th weren't thier parents faults. My highschool started a simialr policy my senior year and I saw the same effect. Since 2/3s of the remaining 1/5th were probably unsuale circumstances as having notes would ussaly insinuate, only 1/15th of the people who were missing were likely flagrently not careing which itself is only a fraction of the entire school. You can no more convience some people to get an edjucation and make better lives for themselves than me or Elros could convince the other of our own religious views . This said, punnishing the child is extremly effective and practical and other methods would not yeald much additional results. You might not like the solution, but it's the best one there is.

[Phalynx]

Ok seriously, only read the first page of this but are you absolutely insane Phalynx? I am 16. From the ages of 8 and thirteen I had my mother take me to school, and was late, roughly 4 out of 5 days a week. Now, strangely enough, I'm not in jail right now because my mum didn't drop me off in time. Now am I, suprisingly considering what you just said, a school dropout. Hmmmmm.... could it be because this is rubbish? (Oh yes and I can't see how droping your children off late has anything to do with going to university either, I am most likely going to go to Oxford or Cambridge if I don't go to jail first )

Oi Ratboy, read the rest of the thread then you can comment.... The principle being that your mother's tardiness has shown you the principle that you can ignore the rules... oh much like you did with this game as I recall. And dude what gives you the idea that goign to oxbridge stops you from being a crim? Insider trading or fraud? Heard of Enron? Besides which something tells me you don't wear burberry and live on a council estate...

[deadboy]

Ok seriously, only read the first page of this but are you absolutely insane Phalynx? I am 16. From the ages of 8 and thirteen I had my mother take me to school, and was late, roughly 4 out of 5 days a week. Now, strangely enough, I'm not in jail right now because my mum didn't drop me off in time. Now am I, suprisingly considering what you just said, a school dropout. Hmmmmm.... could it be because this is rubbish? (Oh yes and I can't see how droping your children off late has anything to do with going to university either, I am most likely going to go to Oxford or Cambridge if I don't go to jail first )

Oi Ratboy, read the rest of the thread then you can comment.... The principle being that your mother's tardiness has shown you the principle that you can ignore the rules... oh much like you did with this game as I recall. And dude what gives you the idea that goign to oxbridge stops you from being a crim? Insider trading or fraud? Heard of Enron? Besides which something tells me you don't wear burberry and live on a council estate...

Just as a pre-answer thought - Tardniness was always one american word that didn't seem to fit in. Over here in england we seem to interchnage almost every american word with english words -other- than tardiness.

Anyhow, moving on; when, other than when I first started the game, did I ever break the rules? Secondly, you talk as if every chuld should be sheltered from this fact. One of the facts of life is that if in a society everyone blindly accepts every rule then eventually that society will collapse. Things do not change without people having the principles to stand up and say that rules should ignored or are wrong, hell, otherwise women would still not be allowed to vote, and we would still be hanging people for petty theft. Now, I'm not saying that being on time is a rule that shouldn't be followed, but the principle is one that should be learnt.