Education Thread: Why are the youth disrespectful?

[ZombieRothbard]

Kids could make friends at their part time work, or make friends with adults in the neighborhood who could act as mentors. You could always enroll your children in programs to help them meet peers. The problem right now with homeschooling is that all of your childs potential friends are locked up in public schools.

What if kids don't want to work? Or talk to strange adults? Or go to programs? How is homeschooling not a prison? For a lot of kids from bad homes, school is their only liberation.

Oh, but wait--it's not prison if PARENTS make you do it, only if the government makes parents do it. You don't actually care about kids as individuals, you just don't want to do what anyone tells you.

Children should be able to liberate themselves from abusive homes.

[Ryadn]

I can't leave the planet either. WHY MUST GRAVITY AND THE ATMOSPHERE COMBINE TO SUPPRESS ME SO?

School isn't a law of nature.

I like this game where we define words using whatever particular parameters we want, regardless of how consistent they are or how much sense they make. Do 'government' now! C'mon!

[The Black Forrest]

He is just acting up because mommy made him go to school.

What a compelling refutation of my OP. You are indeed an intellectual powerhouse.

You grossly over estimate the value of your op.

Seriously, comments and comparisons to prison. Questioning parenting practices when you aren't one?

How can I take you seriously?

[ZombieRothbard]

What a compelling refutation of my OP. You are indeed an intellectual powerhouse.

You grossly over estimate the value of your op.

Seriously, comments and comparisons to prison. Questioning parenting practices when you aren't one?

How can I take you seriously?

So I have to be a parent to question them?

[ZombieRothbard]

School isn't a law of nature.

I like this game where we define words using whatever particular parameters we want, regardless of how consistent they are or how much sense they make. Do 'government' now! C'mon!

School isn't a law of nature.

[Wikipedia and Universe]

Children should be able to liberate themselves from abusive homes.

I have disagreed with most of your opinions here, but with this I will say that I am somewhat in agreement. Sadly, many children are not able to liberate themselves from abusive homes on account of a number of factors, including physical confinement or incentive to stay out of fear, for example. However, legally, a child should be able to defend themselves from an abusive parent or so-called guardian, as having custody of a child does not and should not equate to property. Likewise, runaways should be treated with great tact to discern their situation rather than automatically sending them home. It should by default be taken as a high consideration that they might have run because they are being abused, rather than automatically assuming that they fled out of angst or because they didn't want to eat their vegetables.

[Meowfoundland]

So do all parents have to go to university now? Because I'm pretty sure that mine would be awful teachers. Where will they learn the things that I need to be taught?

[Magechill-Izeckistan]

Children should be able to liberate themselves from abusive homes.

So, If I'm a 4' 11'' seventh grader, severly malnourished because my parents spent their money on meth/alcohol, I should be able to get past my parents, both of whom probably eat more then I do and are larger, or (in the case of meth) are so fucked up they'd kick my ass for breathing wrong, let alone trying to come into contact with someone who would "liberate" me?
This is just a hypothetical, but wouldn't most children face some resistance from their parents in leaving an abusive home?

[ZombieRothbard]

Children should be able to liberate themselves from abusive homes.

I have disagreed with most of your opinions here, but with this I will say that I am somewhat in agreement. Sadly, many children are not able to liberate themselves from abusive homes on account of a number of factors, including physical confinement or incentive to stay out of fear, for example. However, legally, a child should be able to defend themselves from an abusive parent or so-called guardian, as having custody of a child does not and should not equate to property. Likewise, runaways should be treated with great tact to discern their situation rather than automatically sending them home. It should by default be taken as a high consideration that they might have run because they are being abused, rather than automatically assuming that they fled out of angst or because they didn't want to eat their vegetables.

Indeed. I think children should be able to change residence to live with other adults, provided that the adults accept them and are willing to accept the child and be their guardian.

[ZombieRothbard]

Children should be able to liberate themselves from abusive homes.

So, If I'm a 4' 11'' seventh grader, severly malnourished because my parents spent their money on meth/alcohol, I should be able to get past my parents, both of whom probably eat more then I do and are larger, or (in the case of meth) are so fucked up they'd kick my ass for breathing wrong, let alone trying to come into contact with someone who would "liberate" me?
This is just a hypothetical, but wouldn't most children face some resistance from their parents in leaving an abusive home?

Wait until they are past out and walk away?

[The Black Forrest]

You grossly over estimate the value of your op.

Seriously, comments and comparisons to prison. Questioning parenting practices when you aren't one?

How can I take you seriously?

So I have to be a parent to question them?

To understand what is involved; absolutely.

It's easy to sit back and spout off how children should be raised. Have a couple and find out most of your perceptions were wrong.

You are free to your opinions but talking about how children should be raised and calling schools prisons? Nobody is going to take you seriously.

[The Black Forrest]

Children should be able to liberate themselves from abusive homes.

So, If I'm a 4' 11'' seventh grader, severly malnourished because my parents spent their money on meth/alcohol, I should be able to get past my parents, both of whom probably eat more then I do and are larger, or (in the case of meth) are so fucked up they'd kick my ass for breathing wrong, let alone trying to come into contact with someone who would "liberate" me?
This is just a hypothetical, but wouldn't most children face some resistance from their parents in leaving an abusive home?

There is also the mentality of "but they are my parents, I can't leave"

Personal issues don't magically disappear when removed from an abusive household.

[Infinite Harmony]

"Of course schooling is compulsory, it has to be. If it wasn't then honestly who would be schooled? Where would we be as a society if a significant minority, or even a majority, had no education at all (Hint: Think Oliver). Can I agree that the system is flawed? Absolutely! Can I agree that lots of shit needs changed? Sure! But can I agree that compulsory education or even public education is bad... fuck no."

For the record, I didn't mean that public education was "bad" as opposed to being neutral or good, I said that it was broken and very far from helping kids reach their potential, especially with the amount of money (over $10 000 per student per year) invested.

As for your comment, I think this idea is flawed. Before the first few grades of school, children love learning and trying things out, they are exuberant and natural learners, and highly creative. After a few years of public education this enthusiasm tends to be greatly diminished, indeed they may instead learn to dislike or even hate learning due to its association with modern (public) schools. As John Taylor Gatto's extensive research (many of thousands of hours of research as I recall, read his book for free here http://www.johntaylorgatto.com/chapters/index.htm) suggests, this shift towards non-questioning obedience to authority is not an accident, although most teachers and administrators are likely unaware of the history here.

As the people I mentioned in my post seem to agree, the public school model is extremely sub-optimal in helping children reach their full potential, while other models seem to do much better in this area. I see no reason to think that children not forced into the standard public school model would suffer, indeed quite the opposite.


Some related links:

http://hslda.org/docs/nche/000000/00000017.asp

Standardized test results for 16,000 home educated children, grades K-12, were analyzed in 1994 by researcher Dr. Brian Ray. He found the nationwide grand mean in reading for homeschoolers was at the 79th percentile; for language and math, the 73rd percentile. This ranking means home-educated students performed better than approximately 77% of the sample population on whom the test was normed. Nearly 80% of homeschooled children achieved individual scores above the national average and 54.7% of the 16,000 homeschoolers achieved individual scores in the top quarter of the population, more than double the number of conventional school students who score in the top quarter.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9M4tdMsg3ts / http://americaviaerica.blogspot.com/201 ... peech.html
- A valedictorian speaks out against schooling. 622 000 views at the time of this writing, with an overwhelming (95.64%) positive rating as counted by youtube's like/dislike rating system.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LwIyy1Fi-4Q - A talk given on "unschooling", essentially unstructured homeschooling.


In the past I have also seen a report of surveys of extracurricular activities by homeschooled students which reported that they engaged in more of these activities than their public-schooled counterparts, suggesting that the concern of poor social skills by these children are most likely ill-founded.

[Seleucas]

What grade are you in right now?

College

Well, I'm in graduate school, and though fortunately many of the more conformist aspects of compulsory public education are not present in higher education (walking in line, needing to ask for breaks, etc.), there are aspects in common that really limit the value of what is supposedly being learned. In hindsight, I feel that practical experience in terms of work would have served far better than an equivalent amount of time in class (and, indeed, I've found that, when I have had work, I've learnt much more and more quickly than I have in classes dealing with the same matters), and not only that, I would be paid to gain this skill and manage to do something productive. Unfortunately, given the lousy state of the economy and the fact that the diplomas are overvalued in terms of employment, I really do not have any choice other than getting my degree and hoping it might possibly open up some opportunities.

[The Black Forrest]

College

Well, I'm in graduate school, and though fortunately many of the more conformist aspects of compulsory public education are not present in higher education (walking in line, needing to ask for breaks, etc.), there are aspects in common that really limit the value of what is supposedly being learned. In hindsight, I feel that practical experience in terms of work would have served far better than an equivalent amount of time in class (and, indeed, I've found that, when I have had work, I've learnt much more and more quickly than I have in classes dealing with the same matters), and not only that, I would be paid to gain this skill and manage to do something productive. Unfortunately, given the lousy state of the economy and the fact that the diplomas are overvalued in terms of employment, I really do not have any choice other than getting my degree and hoping it might possibly open up some opportunities.

Depending on what you want to do; you have no choice.

You want serious science work; you need a PhD and be published.

You want a basic job in tech; you have had a degree to get by the HR retards.

Part of the game.......

[The Black Forrest]

Some related links:

http://hslda.org/docs/nche/000000/00000017.asp

Standardized test results for 16,000 home educated children, grades K-12, were analyzed in 1994 by researcher Dr. Brian Ray. He found the nationwide grand mean in reading for homeschoolers was at the 79th percentile; for language and math, the 73rd percentile. This ranking means home-educated students performed better than approximately 77% of the sample population on whom the test was normed. Nearly 80% of homeschooled children achieved individual scores above the national average and 54.7% of the 16,000 homeschoolers achieved individual scores in the top quarter of the population, more than double the number of conventional school students who score in the top quarter.

you started loosing me when I saw "legal counsel"

You lost me when I saw Oral Roberts and Bob Jones.

The book link I will read when I get time........

[Seleucas]

Well, I'm in graduate school, and though fortunately many of the more conformist aspects of compulsory public education are not present in higher education (walking in line, needing to ask for breaks, etc.), there are aspects in common that really limit the value of what is supposedly being learned. In hindsight, I feel that practical experience in terms of work would have served far better than an equivalent amount of time in class (and, indeed, I've found that, when I have had work, I've learnt much more and more quickly than I have in classes dealing with the same matters), and not only that, I would be paid to gain this skill and manage to do something productive. Unfortunately, given the lousy state of the economy and the fact that the diplomas are overvalued in terms of employment, I really do not have any choice other than getting my degree and hoping it might possibly open up some opportunities.

Depending on what you want to do; you have no choice.

You want serious science work; you need a PhD and be published.

You want a basic job in tech; you have had a degree to get by the HR retards.

Part of the game.......

Not a scientist, business major, so yeah. Unfortunately, it seems like there are far too many people with MBAs who simply gamed the educational system, and are absolute rubbish at the work place.

[Norstal]

I agree with everything, everything you just said, my friend.

No flaws whatsoever? Nothing you can think of?

Peer-review is important.

[NERVUN]

It's been addressed, but what the hey, right?

Since the other topic was locked, I wanted to make my own. The usual responses to why kids are disrespectful now adays are typically things like:

This assumes that kids are somehow more disrespectful nowadays. This is a false premise. It's already been shown that such complaints about youth stretch back into ancient times. Reading reports about the rebellious youth of the '50s shows that the complaints are nothing new. Children push against the boundaries, that's because they are children. I see it in my 11-month-old just as well as I see it in my jr high students.

Family unit is breaking down, teachers cannot physically beat kids anymore, schools do not have enough authority over the children, parents are not strict enough with their children, kids are not medicated enough, there isn't enough religion in schools, there is no enforced dress codes in many schools, there isn't enough funding etc etc.

Basically, the fact that children have any sorts of rights is what the problem is according to such folk. The concept is simple: lock the children up and beat them into law abiding citizens, drug them to be docile and agreeable, and most of all, teach them to follow authority.

And thus you've taken multiple ideas and painted them all with one broad brush and given them the same source regardless of what is actually thought by said groups and the reasons they subscribe to. This is such an arrogant statement that it defies belief.

I have a different reason for the decline of Americas youth in particular.

1. Children are treated like criminals, and they will in turn act like criminals. There is nothing that says "you are a criminal" more than locking a child up for the better half of the day. Once in school, kids form their own cliques (equivalent to prison gangs) and segregate themselves based on class, race etc.

I have a feeling that you have not studied just how criminals are actually treated.

2. Parents don't give a shit about their kids, mainly because there is a free daycare available. This free daycare is the public education system, which provides an opportunity to dump your kids off in jail all day, and incentivizes it. Have you ever wondered why the school day often starts at 7 in the morning, when studies show that children learn better when they actually get sleep? The reason why is because the parents need to be off to work by that time, so they need to be able to throw their kids in the daycare early in the morning. Nothing says "I don't give a shit about you" more than abandoning your child in a prison for the day.

And yet another attempt to ignore the needs and drives of every single parent in the United States in order to make some asinine statement attempting to equate schools with prisons. It also ignores a number of issues including staggered school schedules meant to deal with limited busing facilities and multiple schools (Elementary schools traditionally starting slightly later in the day and going earlier as the school level rises and then reverses in the afternoon with the high schools letting out first), not to mention your point falls flat on its face. If this was really daycare, why the heck do they get out in the middle of the day? 3pm is not quitting time after all, not to mention that the school day tends to follow traditional patterns set long, long before it was the norm to have both parents working (And Dad was so not carpooling kids to school in the good 'ol days) so needing the kids to be in school before the work day starts is bullshit.

3. Some kids aren't meant to be in school. Children are energetic, and they don't always sit in a desk for hours and hours when you want them to. Kids learn better at early ages, so you need to make sure you can mould their minds into the husks you want them to be early on, so instead of waiting for them to be mentally and emotionally mature enough for schooling, you chemically lobotomize them so they will comply with your demands easier.

So... instead of teaching them from an early age when they absorb (but not process more), we need to wait for them to be more mature... what?

4. School offers an opportunity to teach kids that nothing can ever be accomplished, and that life is a waste of time. Before anything of substance can be completed in the classroom, the bell rings and you are off to your next menial task. Basically, this is how the system turns kids into procrastinators. John Gatto, a former teacher of the year writes about the REAL lessons kids learn in the classroom. Instead of listing them all here, I will just direct you to this link.

John Gatto is a man who has an agenda and cherry picks his stories. He also writes very unbalanced and poorly sourced articles. But, what's REALLY funny is that you do not provide (Nor does he) any guarantee that homeschooling does anything different.

5. Instead of gaining working experience and bonding time with their parents, children are forced to go to compulsory prison. At a young age, children should be working part time and learning important habits like the value of hard work and the value of money. After work, children should come home to a loving parent who homeschools them one on one and teaches them all the necessary fields of study. Instead of relegating the parenting of your child to a bunch of bureaucrats, a parent should stay home and affectionately guide their children, cultivating their interests and stirring their imaginations.

At a young age? How young is a young age? My eldest will be four next Saturday, should I be sending him off to work? At what?

As for your other assertions, this assumes that parents have the time or ability to be able to teach (And sir, as a child of a single mother who worked full time to support her two children after the death of my father when I was 3, I find your assertion that because she was unable to stay at home with my sister and I and teach from her limited educational background she shouldn't have had us or was somehow unfit to be a mother incredibly insulting. If I WASN'T a Moderator I would be highly tempted to respond with some rather choice vocabulary). Most parents have neither needing to work full time to get the bills payed. Sadly, as someone probably having their college paid for, life doesn't exactly allow for all families to be able to let someone stay at home for child care, nor is everyone college educated and capable of teaching others. Nor can parents be expected to handle the educational challenges of special education children, some of which need some highly specialized equipment.

So what do you think of my reasons for the disrespectful youth, and my solutions I intermittently offered throughout? There are more, these are just the first five things I thought to write down.

That it ain't worth the electricity spent shoving it around the Interwebtubes. You proceeded from a false premise, invented strawmen to grandly dismiss without bothering to look at the merits of their arguments, and then proceeded to concoct a solution that does not address the real life issues faced by parents, nor does it serve to meet the needs of students, and totally ignores just about all that has been learned about education since the get-go.

Yours is a very poor proposal.

[-St George]

The children now love luxury. They have bad manners, contempt for authority, they show disrespect to their elders.... They no longer rise when elders enter the room. They contradict their parents, chatter before company, gobble up dainties at the table, cross their legs, and are tyrants over their teachers.

Yeah, everyone assumes the worst of the following generation. The simple answer about why youth are disrespectful comes from the label: they're youth.

^ This should be posted every time someone brings up the terrible 'yoof' of today.

[Quelesh]

Of course schooling is compulsory, it has to be. If it wasn't then honestly who would be schooled? Where would we be as a society if a significant minority, or even a majority, had no education at all (Hint: Think Oliver). Can I agree that the system is flawed? Absolutely! Can I agree that lots of shit needs changed? Sure! But can I agree that compulsory education or even public education is bad... fuck no.

Compulsory schooling is bad because force is inherently bad.

I also couldn't disagree more with your assertion that most people would have no education at all if schooling were not compulsory. Human beings are naturally curious about the world around them. Babies and toddlers learn a lot; they're real self-educators. People would continue to learn throughout childhood if they were given a genuine choice.

Folks like Ken Robinson certainly have a lot of intriguing and important things to say about public education.

I remember seeing that a few months ago, but I just watched it again. That's a great speech.

forcing them to work is counterproductive

We shouldn't force them (anyone) to work (do anything), but how about allowing them to work?

As a sidenote, I'm not sure why you'd idolize old-style teaching when it was far more authoritarian and violent than today's classes.

You're certainly right about this. We shouldn't turn back the clock. We should instead create a new paradigm centered on self-education.

Oh, but wait--it's not prison if PARENTS make you do it, only if the government makes parents do it. You don't actually care about kids as individuals, you just don't want to do what anyone tells you.

I can't speak for ZR, but from my perspective the use of force and coercion by parents against their children is just as bad.

Seriously, comments and comparisons to prison. Questioning parenting practices when you aren't one?

Are you saying that only parents can question parenting practices? Surely the people who are subjected to those same practices can question them as well. I would guess that ZR has many years of experience with parent/child relationships.

Children should be able to liberate themselves from abusive homes.

I have disagreed with most of your opinions here, but with this I will say that I am somewhat in agreement. Sadly, many children are not able to liberate themselves from abusive homes on account of a number of factors, including physical confinement or incentive to stay out of fear, for example. However, legally, a child should be able to defend themselves from an abusive parent or so-called guardian, as having custody of a child does not and should not equate to property. Likewise, runaways should be treated with great tact to discern their situation rather than automatically sending them home. It should by default be taken as a high consideration that they might have run because they are being abused, rather than automatically assuming that they fled out of angst or because they didn't want to eat their vegetables.

I think that running away should be entirely legal. Running away is nothing more than a status offense, and status offenses are inherently immoral.

This assumes that kids are somehow more disrespectful nowadays. This is a false premise. It's already been shown that such complaints about youth stretch back into ancient times. Reading reports about the rebellious youth of the '50s shows that the complaints are nothing new.

This is certainly true.

"The children now love luxury; they have bad manners, contempt for authority; they show disrespect for elders and love chatter in place of exercise. Children are now tyrants, not the servants of their households. They no longer rise when elders enter the room. They contradict their parents, chatter before company, gobble up dainties at the table, cross their legs, and tyrannize their teachers." - Socrates

"The world is passing through troublous times. The young people of today think of nothing but themselves. They have no reverence for parents or old age. They are impatient of all restraint. They talk as if they knew everything, and what passes for wisdom with us is foolishness with them. As for the girls, they are forward, immodest and unladylike in speech, behavior and dress." - Peter the Hermit, 1274 AD

[United low territories]

Youth isn't disrespectfull, no more than they used to be. The ancient Greeks already complained abou the youth. If anyone's disrespecful it's the old folks. I was sitting in the train a while back, it was quite busy, and a middle aged to old woman walks in. Immedately a young woman/girl near the door stands up and gives the older woman her seat. You know what she said? "These days I'm happy anyone stands up at all, that rarely happens anymore". That means about the same as "thank you for your seat, I know you just had to wait an hour because someone jumped in front of a train too but I still think you and your entire generation suck". That's what you can get for your respect, a face full of insults. But sure, it's all the youths fault.

[Norstal]

Of course schooling is compulsory, it has to be. If it wasn't then honestly who would be schooled? Where would we be as a society if a significant minority, or even a majority, had no education at all (Hint: Think Oliver). Can I agree that the system is flawed? Absolutely! Can I agree that lots of shit needs changed? Sure! But can I agree that compulsory education or even public education is bad... fuck no.

Compulsory schooling is bad because force is inherently bad.

What, like parenting? We shouldn't make kids then. That would be forcing them to live in this cruel world. There's no social contracts for fetuses to sign after all. Why do you hate fetuses?

No, don't make generalizations like that.

I also couldn't disagree more with your assertion that most people would have no education at all if schooling were not compulsory. Human beings are naturally curious about the world around them. Babies and toddlers learn a lot; they're real self-educators. People would continue to learn throughout childhood if they were given a genuine choice.

Explain how we have creationism then. Explain why it took us more than 10k years just to establish modern science. Explain why, after all these years, people STILL deny evolution.

If people are naturally curious, they wouldn't have beliefs like creationism and denial of credible scientific theories. They are just curious until they reach conclusions even if it isn't supported by evidence. By that time, they will stop being curious and would deny any incoming ideas or information that opposes their conclusion. There are those who don't, but if the majority of people aren't like this, we would have a lot more scientists.

I can't speak for ZR, but from my perspective the use of force and coercion by parents against their children is just as bad.

Which means that we shouldn't reproduce because that's using force and coercion to bring life into this world. Good job defending freedom bro.

[The Truth and Light]

Explain how we have creationism then. Explain why it took us more than 10k years just to establish modern science. Explain why, after all these years, people STILL deny evolution.

If people are naturally curious, they wouldn't have beliefs like creationism and denial of credible scientific theories. They are just curious until they reach conclusions even if it isn't supported by evidence. By that time, they will stop being curious and would deny any incoming ideas or information that opposes their conclusion. There are those who don't, but if the majority of people aren't like this, we would have a lot more scientists.

Creationism was created because of curiosity, unanswered questions and mysteries we could not understand. It is similar to science in this. Both of their purposes were for the curiposity of man about the world around them.

People are only getting more curious, you know. That's why atheism is growing in America. That's why religion has become passe in the old world. People are still curious, but as throughout time, the answer to our questions are different than before.

[Norstal]

Explain how we have creationism then. Explain why it took us more than 10k years just to establish modern science. Explain why, after all these years, people STILL deny evolution.

If people are naturally curious, they wouldn't have beliefs like creationism and denial of credible scientific theories. They are just curious until they reach conclusions even if it isn't supported by evidence. By that time, they will stop being curious and would deny any incoming ideas or information that opposes their conclusion. There are those who don't, but if the majority of people aren't like this, we would have a lot more scientists.

Creationism was created because of curiosity, unanswered questions and mysteries we could not understand. It is similar to science in this. Both of their purposes were for the curiposity of man about the world around them.

People are only getting more curious, you know. That's why atheism is growing in America. That's why religion has become passe in the old world. People are still curious, but as throughout time, the answer to our questions are different than before.

I mentioned that. People are only curious to a certain point. And even then, reaching that conclusion can be flawed. That's why we have education, where we teach how to find conclusions flawlessly. That's why we teach the scientific method.

A person who just teach themselves new knowledge would not have to abide by this method. No kid would just research about the methodology by themselves. Or in other words, people don't actually care about the philosophy behind science. They just care about the science itself. Which is why the widespread rise of atheism is only after educational standards are established (although there are significant statistical problems with this one).

Not saying a non-schooled person can't be educated. They can. But only certain people who are extremely curious and logical can. Not everyone would want to learn Philosophy. Even I admit that crap is boring, but important.