Did anyone one else read it? I did and I thought it was very ordinary. What do you all think?
That transcript was ordinary but who know what he will actually say..? My kids will go to school in the morning with notes that they do not have to be subject to watching his speech. They are MY kids and he doesn't need to be telling them to listen to me and do good in school. My girls do listen to me, mind pretty well and do get wonderful grades. They don't need his help!
But that's just me...
I hope that my kids hear every different view out there. He is our sitting president. If I was to start censoring everything they hear at school it certainly wouldn't start with a speech by a president. They have to hear with their own ears good, bad, or ugly. The speech is pretty vanilla. I didn't catch the undertones of Communism, Socialism, or even vote democrate....
I think they will learn more from it than 20 minutes of spongebob.
If nothing else in 15 years when they are on jeopardy they can at least answer who the president was.
He is the sitting President, but the President of the USA is not
over the public school system. Obama a tyrant? Yes!
Good point Pep :) I agree
Quotethe President of the USA is not over the public school system.
It's not a unique situation - previous Presidents have also spoken to our children. Research shows President Bush spoke from a classroom in 1991 and Reagan spoke in 1988 and had a question/answer session afterward.
The President speaks, we should listen. If parents agree or disagree, talk it over. Explain what's going on.
The President speaks, we should listen. Show some respect to the Office.
And read the speech before making objections. I thought it was interesting.
Respect to the office is good. That's covers a
lot of territory for everyone.
How easy it is to forget...President Bush was in a classroom when 9-11 happened. It's really not that unusual.
Quote from: Diane Amberg on September 08, 2009, 08:20:32 AM
How easy it is to forget...President Bush was in a classroom when 9-11 happened. It's really not that unusual.
Its not the speech or adressing the kids, it is the "assignments" that at first were going to be required. Things like political ideology, religion ect are best handled by parents, not school teachers.
QuoteIts not the speech or adressing the kids, it is the "assignments" that at first were going to be required. Things like political ideology, religion ect are best handled by parents, not school teachers.
Reagan talked about God with the school children. There are appropriate times for it to be discussed by the President.
I wanted my kids to hear differing views while they were still living at home, so I could guide them as they filtered out the fluff and discovered the substance.
Steve, It's over the heads of the little ones any way, but why shouldn't the older kids be involved? No Civics and POD anymore? How are they supposed to learn to think and make decisions? Kids need more work on critical thinking skills not less. Next thing somebody will be recommending the classes be split along political lines? Sure, all the Republican kids in one room and the Democrat kids in another? Before long we'll be back to the very early days with no real school at all and only the wealthy white males could learn to read. How far back are we going to wind that clock?
Quote from: Mom70x7 on September 08, 2009, 08:59:19 AM
QuoteIts not the speech or adressing the kids, it is the "assignments" that at first were going to be required. Things like political ideology, religion ect are best handled by parents, not school teachers.
Reagan talked about God with the school children. There are appropriate times for it to be discussed by the President.
I wanted my kids to hear differing views while they were still living at home, so I could guide them as they filtered out the fluff and discovered the substance.
I don't have a problem with hearing it. Just with who is directing the discussion and who controls the dissemination of that information. That is the parents right not the educators right.
QuoteI wanted my kids to hear differing views while they were still living at home, so I could guide them as they filtered out the fluff and discovered the substance.
That's exactly it Mom70X7, I also gave my kids the opportunity to be exposed to views I didn't agree with for the simple fact that kids don't learn how to think for themselves unless you LET them.
I've always allowed my kids the freedom to talk to me about ANYthing and as a result we have had some VERY good discussions about things others tried to "sell" them that didn't feel right to them.....they knew before I ever said anything it was bull but they had the freedom to talk about it, as a result they are NOT easily led by ANYbody.
Knowledge doesn't scare me...opposing views don't scare me..insulating peoples minds and controlling what they know is what scares me. You are not doin a kid a favor by controlling them that way......for real.
Quote from: srkruzich on September 08, 2009, 09:19:51 AM
Quote from: Mom70x7 on September 08, 2009, 08:59:19 AM
QuoteIts not the speech or addressing the kids, it is the "assignments" that at first were going to be required. Things like political ideology, religion ect are best handled by parents, not school teachers.
Reagan talked about God with the school children. There are appropriate times for it to be discussed by the President.
I wanted my kids to hear differing views while they were still living at home, so I could guide them as they filtered out the fluff and discovered the substance.
I don't have a problem with hearing it. Just with who is directing the discussion and who controls the dissemination of that information. That is the parents right not the educators right.
And I agree with Steve. IF my children are going to hear this, it should be WITH ME...not with a teacher. I read the speech and although it wasn't too bad, I was more concerned about him changing it last minute to start in on the community organizing and so forth that he spews. And yes although I am slow and not a teacher and as smart as people from the East Coast, I do realize that George W. Bush was sitting in a classroom reading to kids when someone walked up and whispered in his ear that New York City was under attack. I do remember Dan Quayle misspelling potato or potahto as maybe some other people might pronounce it. I guess I'm just a dumb inbred who likes ketchup on my freedom fries not vinegar, oops i screwed up again, I guess that would be french fries on the east. Pardon me for NOT wanting to listen to everything the PRESIDENT says. It depends what party is in the White House as to how much respect is given the office of President, because the people screaming for respect definitely didn't respect the last President! Maybe Obama should have been more "respectful" when he was overseas apologizing to everyone for OUR behavior, for US helping them, US bailing them out! Help me out you left wing liberals: tell me what other President has apologized for everything that America has done FOR them, what other President has kissed ass and bowed down to another equal? Oh hold on, before you get carried away, I know he didn't trip, slip or have a sudden bout of back pain, it was just a sudden lapse of memory and confusion on his part of whether he was Christian or Muslim. And before you start I do know that George W. Bush was holding hands with the King of Saudi Arabia. I for one am not letting someone else teach my kids what you consider right and I consider wrong. I consider going to Church to be right. To believe in Jesus Christ to be right. I believe in the Ten Commandments and In God We Trust. I do NOT believe that someone should be talking to MY children without me being present and neither does a court of law. Pep believes that his kids should be allowed to make up their own minds. I hope he has taught them right from wrong, whether the gun is loaded or unloaded, whether you stick your finger in the electrical box or you don't. Whether you smoke this joint or don't. Whether you drink and drive or don't. Whether you have unsafe sex or you don't. Or whether or not homosexuality is right or not. Just a few of my views as a simple minded Kansan. For those of you who still want to bitch at me about my opinion with MY children, I'll hang a little branch of mistletoe on the seat of my pants for ya! Bring some chap stick! MR. KSHILLBILLY
So your kids are home schooled?
Diane, I am curious, how many kids do you have and/or have you raised???
Apparently you can't read on the East Coast and you just add what you want. At no place in my above post did I say my kids are home schooled and why would I be NOT letting my children watch the Obama speech if they were schooled at home? My wife and I both work.
The entire speech was shown on Cspan this evening; did you and your children watch it together, KH?
No, we didn't. We don't watch Cspan much. Didn't know it was on. Thanks for the info. I did read the transcript to them though.
I watch Cspan a lot; got hooked way back in the 80s. It is a good way to see what is going on that the news people ignore. It seems to be very bi-partisan in coverage, for instance I watched a speech tonight from John McCain on the healthcare issue. Seeing these things firsthand is important IMHO, without being filtered through a partisan media seive. Of course the screamers like Rush and Beck are indeed entertaining, but in the end we are, or should be responsible for our own education in the world, and if we are too lazy and let others do it for us, then shame on us, and we deserve exactly what we get in the end.
hillbilly, you raise a good point. There are things that our public schools cover that I wish they didn't. I don't want my kids reading books like "Jane has 2 mommies" or whatever. At least not in elementary school. I also didn't allow my kids to view the presidents speech. Frankly, I don't trust the man, and don't want him talking to my kids, regardless of the message. As for the attitude of "He is the president. We should listen"...sorry but when it comes to my kids, if I think they need to hear something then I will make that decision. At this point in their lives they are not old enough yet to fully understand alot of what is happening.
Yes, other presidents have addressed school children, and when they did the Left went nuts, where was the respect they are hollering for now? Where were the news networks crying that the only reason Democrats and the left spoke out about Bush, was because he was a white guy? Where were the reporter calling them Political Domestic Terrorists?
Do some of you fear the whole east coast or just me? I was just wondering if a couple of you had home schooled your kids. It's quite common around here. Usually it's the Moms and they do a very good job. They often get together for field trips and I'm usually the one who teaches them fire safety when they come to see me at the fire house. I've never been accused of teaching to any particular communist agenda, but since firefights are all fascists, I suspect you would be afraid I'd rub off on your darlings. I'm just being sarcastic, but some of you sound so fearful. I'm not really all that bad, and I've never even fallen off my broom at Halloween. Do some of you demand to see the school board's approved curriculum each year before school starts? That way you can decide which units your child can skip and they could stay home. Might screw up their attendance record, but I don't think they have truancy laws out there. I wish the parents would get more involved in their kids education They need to be prepared for the world they will inherit. Not all will want to stay on the farm.
Diane, I agree. Kids Do need to be prepared for the world they are inheriting. They need to know that it can be an evil, hateful place, but that it can also be beatiful. However, I think that before they are exposed to that they need to know the basic difference between right and wrong, that there ARE moral absolutes, something that folks on BOTH coasts have forgotten.
Just in case yall were includin me in that "east coast" crap. I've never been east of gulfport mississippi. I don't care WHAT you teach your kids. Mine are openminded rednecks and I figure the more they know the more sensitive their bull%^&* meters are gonna be.
now I gotta go watch the Sons of Anarchy have a nice night yall.
Varmit, you are generalizing again.You know perfectly well that there are lots of moral people on both coasts, just as there are some smelly skunks in the middle.
I was raised redneck, white trash, red state ArkaOklaKan and was always told that a skunk smells its' own hole first :angel:
Quote from: Diane Amberg on September 08, 2009, 09:30:35 PM
Varmit, you are generalizing again.You know perfectly well that there are lots of moral people on both coasts, just as there are some smelly skunks in the middle.
No Sh!#...? ::)
Great input kshillbillys, I am for everything you said.
Jane
Varmit...why do you say that the east coast people have forgotten their morals? How would you know?
HANG ON TO YOUR FLAT HAT~~~~~~~~~HERE WE GO AGAIN!!!
sighhhhhhhhhhhh
I just read your rant again MR Hillbilly. As a freethinkin AMERICAN.....I can support your position mostly.....as an OPEN-minded free-thinkin AMerican who as I have said before does NOT believe in censoring my childrens minds but instead giving them the chance to learn from experience what is bull and what isn't and who ISN'T afraid to have them "exposed" to opposite points of view to mine it really torques me off.
The tendency of what I call "closed-minded" people to immediately attack on the principle of "well that just ain't the way it is supposed to, has been or HAS to be" seriously torques me OFF! People like me are supposed to "respect" your right to keep your kids in the dark about what YOU don't think they should know but at the same time we are supposed to listen to a tirade about how "our" "liberal" blah blah blah is ruining YOUR kids future instead of YOU respecting the fact that WE are trying to give OUR kids a better more open future and YOURS too for THAT matter. We don't berate you about how YOUR closed-minded seperatist ideals are just keepin the hate goin. When you get down to it bud I am probly not MUCH more liberal than YOU are on MOST things. I was also BORN and RAISED right there in Severy. My two oldest graduated from West Elk. We came down here about 9 years ago.
The difference between me and YOU is that knowledge, even knowledge that contradicts what I have always believed DOES not scare me. It doesn't even piss me off most of the time. I may think it's STUPID but that's my perogative. I also don't think knowledge will scar my kids, I never taught them to hate ANYbody for ANY reason be it racial, sexual, religious, or anything ELSE.
I taught them JESUS not dogma. I taught them different is NOT dangerous or wrong, that God made us ALL unique.
Being the kind of parent who allows your kids to hear other points of view does not make you a parent who never taught your kids the simple rules we are to live by as you seem to be insinuating. It's beCAUSE we have faith in the morals we have taught them and faith in our kids that we are confident in their ability to sort the wheat from the chaff so to speak.
So next time you get all fired up to nail somebody because their parenting style doesn't match YOURS think about that.
So as usual, my question won't get an answer.
I had a very good reply typed and was reading the preview for grammer and spelling and poof - the electricity blinked off so guess it wasn't supposed to get posted and I don't want to take the time to rewrite it. Sorry, but you won't get to read my very relivent and positive comments on not allowing your children to see the real world as it is. How will they learn from their mistakes if they never get to make any? If they are never exposed to the other side of life as a child, then you better just keep them under your wing throughout their entire adult life, cause I can assure you, once they are out from under that wing, the first thing they will do is "try all those things that I heard about but mom and dad never told me about or why I shouldn't do them". Nuff said, now back to what I was doing.
I am sooo liking and agreeing with some of the views posted. Thanks, ladies!
I totally agree. Life is tough and if children are not taught that "all is NOT well" all of the time, and they will have to face those decisions and learn to make choices that are sometimes right for them and sometimes they are the wrong ones. That is when the lesson begins and the learning process goes on from there. Everyone has to be responsible for their own choices, with guidance from the parents, and a good home life, they will turn out just fine.
There are penalties and then, there are rewards, in every phase of life. BUT you CANNOT be an umbrella for your children for all the things in life that they will have to face. Trust in the fact that you have taught them the golden rule and have made it a prominent way of life for them, and then it is just "Pray - Pray _ Pray" that the teachings were embedded deep enough to last.
First and foremost -- Children MUST HAVE a good foundation, loving, caring parents, and know that whatever comes up, they have their support.
Hug them, kiss them and ALWAYS be there for them.
No one ever said that OUR children are not allowed to make their own mistakes or hear others' points of views. WE didn't think it was best for OUR kids to hear the speech BHO gave without US. Why couldn't he have given his little speech PRIMETIME so that parents and children could VIEW it TOGETHER? If they have questions they come to US, their parents, not to a teacher, not to a neighbor, not to the POTUS. US--their parents. What is so wrong about them coming to US? They are OUR children, we CHOSE to have them, to RAISE them, to LOVE them. They are NO ONE ELSE'S responsibility but OURS!
We READ the transcript of the speech TO THEM ourselves and added in our OWN thoughts on their trying to be successful in life. WE don't tell them to HATE people based on anything either. WE don't KEEP them in the DARK. Our oldest is almost 12. Believe me, she HAS her OWN thoughts and ideas on things and is probably more mature than a lot of teenagers I know. So I will tell MR. Hillbilly what has been said but know that a lot of these thoughts and ideas are not only his or mine but WE share them. Maybe that's why WE get along so well with EACH OTHER but NOT with OTHERS!
Diane---We've had some flooding here and Billy has been at work ALL DAY so I'm sure he'll answer you when he gets home and has time. Remember, not everyone has computer access at work!
MRS. HILLBILLY
Quote from: Diane Amberg on September 09, 2009, 08:27:06 AM
Varmit...why do you say that the east coast people have forgotten their morals? How would you know?
Quote from: Diane Amberg on September 09, 2009, 11:20:18 AM
So as usual, my question won't get an answer.
Diane, I have spent many years on the east coast. I have lived in Kittery, Charleston, Faeyetville. I have family in N.C. Thats how I would know. I have also lived in San Deigo for a short time. My sister lived there when her husband was in the Navy. Not only that, but there are these things called "Newspapers" as well as this niffty little thing called the "internet" which allows people from all over the world to communicate. Thats how I would know.
As for morals. I don't see places like New York, Jersey, Alanta, D.C., Miami, as beacons of morality. Given the amount violence, prostitution, openly embracing homosexuality and transgenderism, the never ending parade of flesh, most cities on the coasts have evolved into something akin to open sewers.
Forgive me if my response to your question wasn't as quick as you would have like, my job demands more from me than just sitting in front of a computer.
Well said Hillbilly.
Speaking of unanswered questions, Maxine and I just noticed that Diane did not answer the question about how many children she has had or raised???????
Living, Kicking and loving life.
Maude and Maxine
ks nobody said a WORD about how you want to let your kids know stuff. We were talkin about OUR perspective with OUR children and yall flew off the handle. I don't CARE how you raise your kids but don't expect me to let you give me crap about how I'm raisin MINE either.
Also Ks....I'm glad yall get along and have the same ideas. Good for you. Please DO tell your fella what I said because I was SAYIN it to him.
M and M, it has never mattered to me how many, if any, kids you all have, so why should it matter to you? We hadn't been talking about anything that the number of kids mattered. I'm interested of course, like I am about lots of things, but I won't pry into it.
Varmit, do you really think it's fair to call us all immoral? People shouldn't all be labeled the same way. Just because there are a few ol' Biddies in the Midwest certainly doesn't mean that everyone there is nosey and judgemental. All big cities, including the Midwestern ones, have their problem areas, and most average people try to stay away from them. I just don't understand how "bleeding heart east coasters" and "immoral east coasters" can have any intent except to be hurtful. To what benefit? I only started this thread because I was interested in how you all felt and once again it is slipping off topic in a negative direction.
Quote from: Varmit on September 08, 2009, 08:55:28 PM
However, I think that before they are exposed to that they need to know the basic difference between right and wrong, that there ARE moral absolutes, something that folks on BOTH coasts have forgotten.
Diane, I didn't say that ALL people on the coasts were immoral. Yet, you accuse me, three times, of doing so. Either you are not reading my posts or you didn't understand my response. As for big cities, yes, they all have their problems. However, on the coasts it seems these problems are amplified by a more liberal line of thinking. I don't see midwestern states pushing things like more gun control laws, restricitions on the press and free speech, seperation of church and state, or "alternative lifestyles".
One more thing, why would you make a comment about your questions not getting answered, and then not answer M&M's question?
Pam, Hillbilly never said anything about how You raise your children. I think you are both kinda sayin the same thing. That is, you will raise your kids the way you see fit. Neither of you want someone else telling you how to raise your kids. As a parent, I can respect that, and in this case I think you are both right.
Varmit, good, I'm glad you didn't mean everybody. As far as M an M's question, that is very personal and an extremely sad subject for me. Frankly, I do not want to talk about it. As mean spirited as a couple of people are on this forum, nothing good would come of it.
This has been an interesting thread to read, and like most political discussions, strewn with personal attacks. Regardless of that, I've decided I want to put my 2 cents in.
I agree and disagree with a lot of stuff on here. I agree wholeheartedly that people should be responsible for raising their children and teaching them right vs. wrong. God knows we've disabled the schools and teachers of the job long ago (heaven forbid a teacher try and teach a student manners or morals or discipline them for something they've done wrong; parents just come unglued and get sue-happy!). In my opinion, this is unfortunate. Yes, I want to teach my child manners and give them discipline, but when they're at school (or grandma's or neighbor's or aunt's), if they do wrong, they should also reinforce my discipline. "It takes a village..."
That also goes for teaching respect. Respect for elders, respect for authority. Yes, there may be people we don't agree with throughout our lives and even in our community, but it's important for children to respect them, regardless. Another problem with things these days; parents portraying their opinions of people onto their children. For example... No, you may not like the sheriff or what he/she's done and how they handle their job, but if you speak badly about them in front of your children, your children won't respect them, either (and not of their own regard). You children will then become one of "those kids" who have no respect for authority and back-talk the officer when they get pulled over for speeding... for which they certainly deserved to be pulled over. You've just actually done what you say you don't want someone else to do... make your children take views/opinions without having the opportunity of forming them themselves.
As for the original question of this thread; letting your children watch the President's speech... I guess I would say why make such a big deal over it if you don't want your children to? For kids, let's say, under 5th or 6th grade, they have such a short attention span that they probably didn't even catch most of the speech...
Susie: "Guess what, Mom? We got to hear the President of the USA talk at school today on TV!"
Mom: "Really? What did he have to say?"
Susie: "Oh, I don't know. Stay in school. Listen to your teachers."
Mom: "Well, that's good advice. What else did he have to say?"
Susie: "I can't remember. But it was cool to be able to watch TV during school!"
Mom: "Do you remember what his name is?"
Susie: "Um... ahhh... The President?"
Mom: "Hmmmm."
Susie: "Can I go play now?"
Mom: "Sure dear, have some milk first."
Susie: "Guess who my best friend is now?".....
;D
Or for that same age group who's parent DID make a big deal about it and caused a ruckus in front of their kids...
Susie: "Did you know we get to watch the President on TV today at school?"
Her friend Johnny: "Yeah, my dad told me the President is a dumb jerk and I don't have to watch it."
Susie: "You don't want to watch TV during school?"
Johnny: "Well... yeah, I want to watch TV, but my mom said the President isn't American."
Susie: "What do you mean? Isn't he President of the US?"
Johnny: "I guess. They were making such a big deal over it and arguing. I just wanted to go to my room and play games, but they made us listen to them."
Susie: "What did they say?"
Johnny: "I don't remember. They were talking about voting and stuff. All I know is that when I grow up, I'm not going to vote for anyone to be President because it just causes you to argue about things. Hey, let's go play ball."
;)
I'm impressed with those of you who have older students and took the time to read the speech with them and visit about politics. I think that is why Diane asked the question if you homeschooled your kids; most parents wouldn't take the time to do that. She was probably especially impressed that you don't homeschool your kids, you work so long and hard outside the home, AND you still took the time and effort to go over the speech with them. Kudos! I think that's important no matter WHAT the subject is... politics, algebra, life lessons, advanced English, etc.
Someone brought up the question about making kids do reports and assign homework based on the speech. I think that's a fantastic idea, especially for older high school kids. I'm sure the teachers didn't expect everyone to AGREE with the message the President had to say... they probably would have encouraged them to interview their parents and other members of the community to compare and get contrasting views. That would help the kids not learn to just take the President (or anyone, for that matter), for their words, but to really understand the issues at hand and to be able to form their own opinions and have LOGICAL, INFORMED discussions. I'm sure that if this discussion on this thread were to be turned in as homework, we would FAIL miserably... name calling, personal attacks, getting off subject to prove a geographical point... probably NOT what most teachers would consider a LOGICAL, INFORMED discussion... but I digress... ;)
Thank you x 3!!! You nailed it exactly. I really appreciate what you just said. That is exactly what I meant and was trying to do. Consider yourself hugged. ( very carefully) :-*
Quote from: Tobina+1 on September 10, 2009, 04:49:34 PM
discipline, but when they're at school (or grandma's or neighbor's or aunt's), if they do wrong, they should also reinforce my discipline. "It takes a village..."
A village? I definately do not want the village raising any child of mine! Its not their right or responsibility and i for sure don't want the responsibility of raising someone elses kid.
QuoteI'm sure that if this discussion on this thread were to be turned in as homework, we would FAIL miserably... name calling, personal attacks, getting off subject to prove a geographical point... probably NOT what most teachers would consider a LOGICAL, INFORMED discussion... but I digress... ;)
So this homework would require a right or wrong answer then. Even though is message is heard differently by different people.
And chaining down the freedom to express ones beliefs, or views?
Steve; really? What you're saying is that if your child was doing something wrong and against your beliefs or morals (or manners), you wouldn't want someone to help correct your child's mistake and put them back on the right (YOUR right) path? And you're also saying that if someone else's kid was cussing or acting in total disregard of any manners or self control, you wouldn't step in and (gently) correct them... even at least to protect your own kids from learning those habits? (Or at least send the little brats home?) That acutally surprises me, coming from you (well from what little I know you on the forum). I took you as a man who is helping teach and raise your friends' kids to be self-sufficient and self-employed by being a role model for them, as well as being there in times of saddness and joy. To those kids, you ARE part of the village, admit it or not.
As for my last statement, you got me. I went a little further than just 2 cents and threw in my nickle about how I usually feel about the Politics section. Thus the winking face... which you were supposed to take as joking. I guess I didn't re-read my "how to act in the Politics section" manual before posting anything close to a joke! (Yet another joke, so LAUGH!) :P
It doesn't take a village to raise a child. But it does take more than just being a parent, it takes being a Mom and a Dad.
Tobina, the problem with the whole "village" concept is that not all adults can agree on what is "moral" behavior, or even on what good manners are. For example, I know adults that will tell children to address them by their first name. I was raised, and am raising my kids, to address their elders as Sir or Ma'am, Mr. or Mrs.
Also, it is most certainly not the place of teachers (nowadays) to project their morals and values onto my children. That is not their job, they are there to teach whatever subject it is they teach, nothing more.
Varmit, interestingly enough I took a whole course in that very thing. It was called Community Forces and had to do with influences on a child's development, including family, church, public helpers, TV, peers, etc. and where a teacher fit in to the whole picture. It was very interesting and useful. I disagree on the morals and manners a bit though. With some kids, the younger ones in particular, somethings have to be handled immediately and can't wait for a note or call to the parents. Or in some cases the parent simply denies that their child was the bully, thief or whatever. It can make the classroom dynamic very difficult.
Diane, I don't mind teachers having to take disciplinary steps, as long as they don't go too far. However, it is when a teacher starts to moralize that I have a problem. For example, little johnny gets into trouble for calling another a "faggot". Teacher says to little johnny, "We don't use that word because it is derogatory and offends homosexuals." Well, this is where, as a parent, I would have a problem. I believe and am teaching my children that homosexuality is a sin. Now given the fact that schools are becoming more "diverse", and there is an emphasis being placed on children being more tolerant, who are my kids supposed to believe?
Now whether you agree with my view on homosexuality or not is irrelevant. I only used that as an example.
Quote from: Tobina+1 on September 10, 2009, 05:56:11 PM
Steve; really? What you're saying is that if your child was doing something wrong and against your beliefs or morals (or manners), you wouldn't want someone to help correct your child's mistake and put them back on the right (YOUR right) path?
First of all, having raised my kids up, I honestly can speak from experience. My children knew right from wrong, and if they chose to do wrong, they had to face the consequences. I didn't allow anyone to correct my kids other than a verbal warning that they were out of line. I handled disclipine and administration of correction. Secondly, i cannot trust that everyone out there is going to "put them on the right path" my path, as most folks don't agree with my path. But my path was effective and did serve to produce 2 marines and 1 army and a fine young mechanic.
can't complain there. I am of the old school that if you are a obnoxious brat, then when you get home daddy will take you to the woodshed!
Now IF their lives were in danger, or their futures were in danger, then thats a different matter. As my friend will tell ya, Her kids have caused more near heart attacks than I care to remember :D.
QuoteAnd you're also saying that if someone else's kid was cussing or acting in total disregard of any manners or self control, you wouldn't step in and (gently) correct them... even at least to protect your own kids from learning those habits?
Not a chance. Thats not my responsibility nor my right. What i would do is use the event as a example of what not to be with mykids and let them know that if I EVER got a report that they were like that, a trip to the woodshed is in order.
Quote(Or at least send the little brats home?)
Well if their brats, then their not going to listen to me if i did try and send them home. Better to just leave and let them face their consequences be it from their parents or the law coming after them to take them to their parents.
QuoteThat acutally surprises me, coming from you (well from what little I know you on the forum). I took you as a man who is helping teach and raise your friends' kids to be self-sufficient and self-employed by being a role model for them, as well as being there in times of saddness and joy. To those kids, you ARE part of the village, admit it or not.
There is a difference between teaching life lessons to children when their parents are there or have approved of it than from strangers. I don't raise her kids :) I will if their life is in danger, or their about to really screw up badly creating a hazard to their health or welfare, step in and stop everything going on until their parents can get there. Thats it.
I have no problem with people saying hey boy your being a snot to them. In fact, none of my boys were ever snots as they knew that if they did not say yes/no sir or yes/no ma'am, they would be in a world of trouble. I remember when one of my boys run afoul of the law when he was a teen, and the officer that arrested him told me he was the politest boy he had the pleasure to have known and that he felt that he just screwed up unlike other kids he has arrested that he had the pleasure of slamming the door on them. Its all a matter of how you train a child when their young.
This village concept was pretty much started back when hillary was in the whitehouse, and this global village concept that was started is far too invasive into the family. The strongest unit of our nation is the family not a global village, and individuality is the key to keeping a family strong.
IF i had kids today in my care, i would post my phone number in the school, police station, grocery store, and pizza shack in town and tell everyone if you see one of my youngins acting improperly, call me and i 'll be there right then to take care of the problem. :)
QuoteAs for my last statement, you got me. I went a little further than just 2 cents and threw in my nickle about how I usually feel about the Politics section. Thus the winking face... which you were supposed to take as joking. I guess I didn't re-read my "how to act in the Politics section" manual before posting anything close to a joke! (Yet another joke, so LAUGH!) :P
Ohhh LOL ok. :D
Quote from: Diane Amberg on September 10, 2009, 07:49:41 PM
Varmit, interestingly enough I took a whole course in that very thing. It was called Community Forces and had to do with influences on a child's development, including family, church, public helpers, TV, peers, etc. and where a teacher fit in to the whole picture. It was very interesting and useful. I disagree on the morals and manners a bit though. With some kids, the younger ones in particular, somethings have to be handled immediately and can't wait for a note or call to the parents. Or in some cases the parent simply denies that their child was the bully, thief or whatever. It can make the classroom dynamic very difficult.
I have a simple solution to the bully problem, teach the one being bullied how to kick the bullys behind. Had a simple rule for my boys, if any of them faced bullies aka bigger kids that were undefeatable, the rest of them jumped on top of the kid until they got him off of their brother. That stops bullies. For the kiddos that don't have brothers, make friends with the kiddos that do have brothers! LOL.
I think our coach had a good concept back when i was in school. IF we got caught in a fight, he put the two who were fighting into the ring with boxing gloves . It was settled there. IF he had to deal with bullies, he put the bullies into the ring with boxers. That settled the bully problem real fast.
Varmit, where, pray tell, did "little Johnny" hear and learn to use the word faggot? This teacher right here would have said "that's not a nice word. We don't use that word in school." That would have been the end of it. No different than the cuss words that kids use. Chances are little Johnny doesn't know what the word "derogatory" means anyway. What else ya got?
Steve, I've got to share one with you. One day when I recess duty, one of the first grade boys ( I was teaching third at the time) was attacked by one of the older special ed. boys. He was taller than I am and totally red rage out of control. He had the boy on the ground by throat and was choking him. When I got to him, the little one was unconscious and turning gray. I grabbed the bigger boy by the back of his hair and hauled him backward off the little guy, because nothing else was working. I committed battery on that boy to save the life of the other. The principal was called out and the little guy, who finally woke up was taken to the hospital down the street. The other parent was called and when she came, I was called down to the office where she accused me of causing "brain damage" to her son. Needless to say, the principal reminded her that if it weren't for what I had done, the charge might have been be homicide. I do know the one family did charge the other, but I never knew how it turned out. The older boy was taken out of that school. Do think in that case a"verbal warning" would have been enough? How do you think the parents of the younger boy would have felt?
Quote from: Diane Amberg on September 10, 2009, 08:54:03 PM
Varmit, where, pray tell, did "little Johnny" hear and learn to use the word faggot? This teacher right here would have said "that's not a nice word. We don't use that word in school." That would have been the end of it. No different than the cuss words that kids use. Chances are little Johnny doesn't know what the word "derogatory" means anyway. What else ya got?
Steve, I've got to share one with you. One day when I recess duty, one of the first grade boys ( I was teaching third at the time) was attacked by one of the older special ed. boys. He was taller than I am and totally red rage out of control. He had the boy on the ground by throat and was choking him. When I got to him, the little one was unconscious and turning gray. I grabbed the bigger boy by the back of his hair and hauled him backward off the little guy, because nothing else was working. I committed battery on that boy to save the life of the other. The principal was called out and the little guy, who finally woke up was taken to the hospital down the street. The other parent was called and when she came, I was called down to the office where she accused me of causing "brain damage" to her son. Needless to say, the principal reminded her that if it weren't for what I had done, the charge might have been be homicide. I do know the one family did charge the other, but I never knew how it turned out. The older boy was taken out of that school. Do think in that case a"verbal warning" would have been enough? How do you think the parents of the younger boy would have felt?
Well i believe if y ou re-read my previous post, that i addressed that issue. IF the life of a child is in danger, i would intervene. I would expect any reasonable adult to do so, not only with children but also when other adults are in danger.
If it affects the life or future of a child, intervene. By future if the child is making a grave error that could cause harm to someone or comit a act that would affect their life in such a way that it would harm them as far as future opportunities.
What were talking about here is common sense. Leave the morals teaching to the parents. Its their job, not the villages job. Granted a little bit of morals training for those like the one you had to knock the fool out of would go a long way to solving problems. But do you think you could accept the way i teach morals? I still believe a good boxing of the ears works wonders in keeping kids on the straight n narrow.
:)
Steve, I was just sharing a personal story with you, I already knew what I expected you would say. No, I'm not for whacking kids around. BUT, I certainly do understand the temptation. I always figured if I could handle 30 and not hit 'em, surely parents could handle their 2,3,or 4.
Quote from: Diane Amberg on September 10, 2009, 08:54:03 PM
Varmit, where, pray tell, did "little Johnny" hear and learn to use the word faggot? This teacher right here would have said "that's not a nice word. We don't use that word in school." That would have been the end of it. No different than the cuss words that kids use. Chances are little Johnny doesn't know what the word "derogatory" means anyway. What else ya got?
Diane, it doesn't matter where the kid learned the word, maybe from his parents, maybe from music or tv, maybe from a teacher. As for a child knowing the meaning of the word "derogatory"... you as a teacher, should know to never underestimate the intelligence of a child.
Besides that, you completely missed the point of my last post.
As for the special ed "red rage" boy. What was he doing interacting with other children? Why wasn't he under supervision BEFORE the attack happened?
As for handling 30 kids and all that, did it ever occur to you that the behavior of those children was influenced heavily by them knowing that if they get to far out of line and the teacher noitified their parents, then those childrens backside would get tanned when they got home?
Quote from: Diane Amberg on September 10, 2009, 09:38:38 PM
Steve, I was just sharing a personal story with you, I already knew what I expected you would say. No, I'm not for whacking kids around. BUT, I certainly do understand the temptation. I always figured if I could handle 30 and not hit 'em, surely parents could handle their 2,3,or 4.
ages 1 -7 are the years that will form the rest of the years of a child. IF you do not get them in line by then, your life as a parent of a teenager will be hell.
As far as disclipine, i reserve corporal punishment for acts of defiance, and rebellion. Those traits show up around 1 year old. So if you tell your child no, and they keep on grabbing this that or the other a good patt on the but of a 1 year old will send em scooting and finding something else to do.
2-4 are the years they first exercise their independence, and test their limits. When you have a youngin that refuses to obey then a little warming of the pants brings them into line. It softens their will and brings their spirit back into line of being maleable and trainable. There is a reason we cry when our feelings are hurt or we experience a spanking. It softens our will and heart and we are brought to a point where we will listen.
Sure you can make them sit in a corner til hell freezes over, or banish them to the room, but your not teaching anything. If you don't get past the anger and rebellion, your just reinforcing it. You break through those two things, then your teaching.
Steve, there is nothing new about childhood development that you can tell me. You are really preaching to the choir! Yes, corporal punishment MIGHT work with some kids but to me it's the easy way out. Telling the child "no" and then distracting them with something else also works. with the toddler age. Little kids are very much in the moment. Yes, at school many kids are well disciplined and that came from the parents choice of home environment. It didn't mean they all hit their kids to achieve that. Then there were the parents who who were weaker in their parenting skills. We have all talked about them before. Some kids do transfer how they were treated at home to school. Some of the kids who were whacked often at home, were the ones who fought fast and often at school. Others develop a separate school personality from their home personality and are totally different in the two environments. I remember one boy well. He wasn't in my room but I saw him often. His father was a "take no prisoners"parent and beat the boy so badly and so often when he was little that he turned into a perfect child at home. He was scared to death. The mother was a meek little mouse who I always suspected was abused at home too. But, the minute he got on the bus, he changed into hell on wheels. He pushed and shoved his way to school and caused trouble all day long for his teachers, the cafeteria staff, just anybody. The principal spent more time dealing with him than anybody else. The father never believed his "perfect " son would act that way at school. Everybody must have been picking on him. He finally lost his bus privileges all together. Right after school was out in 5th grade, he went down the street to an empty lot and tried to start a field fire, except he threw gasoline on it and it flashed back and set him on fire. He did survive, but spent many months in the hospital, had skin grafts on his legs and had terrible permanent scars.
Steve, you apparently used your discipline well for you, but we don't all want or need that style. If that works so well then teachers should be allowed to hit, after all, then you're teaching. Sorry, to me kids aren't horses to be broken. That's aversion therapy. Eliminating privileges is enough for me, most of the time.
QuoteSorry, to me kids aren't horses to be broken.
Ha I was thinkin along these lines readin earlier......but horses are just like people...you can BREAK them and they will never really be worth a s(*& for anything...oh they'll do what they are told but that's about it and they are gonna resent the hell out of you...or you can "gentle" and train them with kindness and positive reinforcement and have somethin to be proud of when you get done and they will go with you into hell if need be.
Don't even jump on me about spare the rod spoil the child yall I KNOW what I'm talkin about.......
I wish everybody would treat horses that well. I think Narvous does. But I think he may be an exception.
Maybe the term "it takes a village to raise a child" was a sound-byte during some Presidency, but it's not a new concept at all.
Steve; My point was that everyone who touches a child's life in a positive way is part of that "village". No, you are not raising your friend's kids, but the fact that you're there helping them through tough times and celebrating their joys makes you part of that village! You should be proud to admit it! No, you may not actually discipline them or force your own morals on them, but how you act, speak, treat those kids is just as important. I'm not letting you get away with arguing this point! I remember when you posted the sad news about their baby, and all the posts after that about how much you were helping the family out. Be proud that you are such a strong pillar for them and their kids! :)
As for the argument that other people posted about this same village concept... that's why I live in a small town and get to know people. I would be saddened to learn that if my kids were acting out or misbehaving and no one spoke out to them about it. No, I don't expect you to force your morals (or your hand) on them, but kids will be kids and will try and get away with things when parents aren't looking. When I was a kid, the townspeople and friends did this for my parents... even if it was to just call them and let them know what they saw happening up-town. In my opinion, that's what's wrong with the big cities today; no one cares about anyone except themselves and are afraid of getting in trouble (or sued) for helping or correcting a child. No, I don't believe teachers have the responsibility to raise my kids, either, but since they'll be spending 7 hours a day with them, I would appreciate if they did expect my children to follow the rules and have manners... and discipline them if they act out! And I will back those teachers 100%, even if I only agree with them 90%. Again, back to respecting authority.
Everyone complains these days that kids have no respect... we've discussed this many times on the Forum... not respecting the flag, not respecting adults, not respecting their country. Many of you flat out said you'd grab the hat off a young man's head if he still had his hat on during the Anthem. If that were my son, I'd tell you "thank you" for helping teach my child the respect of the flag. Maybe that's just me... because that's the way I was raised... and the way I plan to raise my children, too. I do not want to contribute to the moral downslide of this country and the lack of manners that seem to be taken for granted. I refuse to sit back and just accept it! But as a parent, I won't be able to be everywhere all the time...I need a "village". I'm asking you to be my "village".
Oh MOST people do Diane, you just hear more about the ones who don't :P I wasn't just talkin about horses tho.
And I ain't gonna say I never spanked my boys butts when I was a young parent, but it don't take long to find out it REALLY doesn't work. By the time Ashley came along I had enough experience to know better.
Any kid worth their salt is gonna TRY things that aren't "right" and get into trouble...but if you raise em right with the basics they aren't gonna STAY on the wrong side....bout one little di-do and they figure out it ain't as cool as they thought it was gonna be and havin to pay for their mistakes themselves the FIRST time generally shows em it ain't all that profitable either LOL
Tobina I was typin at the same time you were and you said it..........GOOD job.
Quote from: Diane Amberg on September 11, 2009, 08:48:50 AM
Steve, you apparently used your discipline well for you, but we don't all want or need that style. If that works so well then teachers should be allowed to hit, after all, then you're teaching. Sorry, to me kids aren't horses to be broken. That's aversion therapy. Eliminating privileges is enough for me, most of the time.
And that is my point. You don't like my style and i don't like everyone elses style so morals teaching and disclipine is not a village job.
I must make a note on your story, I have never advocated beating a child. Correction in the form of a spanking is not beating on a child. And again, i said that I reserve corporal punishment for defiance and rebellion. IF you use distraction and don't address the two behaviors, you won't get it under control. And if you don't get those two behaviors under control before their 7, you won't get them under control after age 7.
Again using spanking is not beating a child. :) its also not adversion therapy. When you administer a spanking, your goal is not to beat but to get past the anger, and the rebellion and bring forth a contrite heart.
When you get there, you have set a learning mode that will be reinforced with the fact that you love them and show them you love them, but don't love the behavior. When their young they understand its not good to get spanked, but when their older, they will understand why they were spanked.
:)
We won't agree on this, but you are certainly entitled to your opinion. Unfortunately "spanking " is a subjective word. One man's beating could be an other's spanking. Spanking is indeed a form of aversion therapy. You are hoping the child will stop the behavior to avoid being spanked again. Time outs and other alternatives do the same thing but without the physical punishment. How do you think preschool and day care teachers handle the little ones? They don't hit and they manage behavior modification very well. That's where a lot of the group dynamics and sharing and manners and such start. It re enforces what the teacher hopes has been begun at home. Very little ones are naturally very self centered, It's a perfectly normal inborn survival skill. But as they get older they have to be taught to get along with others and that there are rules that apply to everyone. Kids do want and understand rules and limits. That's why they tattle on each other. ( help! my k key just blew up!) I just don't think hitting (spanking) a child to make them stop hitting their brother makes any sense at all. Just an example.
Here's my opinion again...
I do agree with Steve on this one; spanking should be left up to the parents ONLY; this is not a "village" activity. And I also agree with Diane; spanking should be done at the parents' discretion and their own moral beliefs. You can argue morals on here all day and night (and some of you do), but each person has their own opinion of what "morals" are and how to enforce them with children... you're not going to change someone else's opinion.
But again, discipline and moral teachings are not the ONLY responsibility of the "village". Like I've tried so hard to compliment Steve on; supporting children, teaching them things they can't learn in school, giving them advice, reinforcing their parents' manners, and showing them respect is all part of helping to raise children, even if you don't realize it (or want to admit it... COME ON STEVE, just say it... "Thanks, and you're right!" ;D ) :angel:
Anyway, we've veered well off the path of the original post (big surprise). :police:
That's OK Tobina, I think the original thread has run it's natural course and is finished.
This was a column from a conservative writer that was on Arcamax Politics this morning. I thought it interesting.
A Perfect Storm of Idiocy
Joe Conason
The wild furor over President Obama's speech to the nation's schoolchildren raises many questions, but there is only one that really matters. How did America surrender its political discourse -- not to mention the news cycle -- to the most unreasonable and unstable elements of the far right?
Not so many years ago, nobody would have imagined that a bland presidential address to young students, urging them to remain in school, study hard and nurture their aspirations for success, could engender a raging national controversy. Nobody would have believed that such an ordinary event could excite suspicions among a significant part of the population that the chief executive is "indoctrinating" their children into a "socialist ideology," or that the fate of the republic depended on parents keeping their innocents away from the classrooms, lest they hear his words. And nobody would have believed that the resulting wave of paranoia, supercharged by talk radio and cable television, could actually grip the attention of the public when real issues demand action.
When the nation's first African-American president proposes to urge children, and in particular those children who regard him as a role model, to behave wisely and avoid self-destructive behavior, liberals and conservatives alike ought to be expected to applaud him. Indeed, conservatives especially should be clapping loudly, since they have so often bemoaned the cultural barriers to advancement faced by poor and minority students.
So why have the idols of the right, notably Glenn Beck of Fox News Channel, instead seized this moment to stir anger and fear among Republican parents by claiming that the president intends harm to their kids? Why did many Republican leaders, notably the party chairman of Florida, echo the craziness? (And why would any parent take advice from Beck, a college dropout and recovering alcoholic?)
While many Obama critics advertise themselves as "libertarians" who distrust any message from Big Brother in Washington, that healthy skepticism cannot be the reason for the current outcry -- because two of the past three Republican presidents spoke directly to the nation's schoolchildren without provoking any significant reaction at all.
In the fall of 1991, President George Herbert Walker Bush delivered a speech in a classroom that was broadcast live nationwide by the Pubic Broadcasting System, Mutual Broadcasting and NBC Radio Network. The blanket media coverage was arranged by the Education Department (which gave rise to a few grumpy remarks by Democrats in Congress that were duly noted but mostly ignored by the press).
"Thanks for allowing me to visit your classroom to talk to you and all these students," he said politely to the teacher who was hosting him, "and millions more in classrooms all across the country." He went on to tell his audience: "Make your teachers work hard. Tell them you want a first-class education. Tell them that you're here to learn. Block out the kids who think it's not cool to be smart. I can't understand for the life of me what's so great about being stupid."
His predecessor, Ronald Reagan, addressed students directly on at least two occasions -- once in a broadcast speech in 1988 and once in a session with high-school students at the White House in 1986. Both times, the Gipper seized the chance to promote his own policies, with particular attention to cutting taxes and his "vision of economic freedom." In fact, Reagan's remarks were entirely political, if not partisan. He did precisely what the right has wrongly attacked Obama for doing -- but that was a message that conservatives like to hear, so they didn't object to the "indoctrination" of students at the public's expense.
The irony of this tempest of idiocy is that the same blowhards who constantly slander and slur President Obama were telling us, not too long ago, that criticizing the commander in chief during wartime was tantamount to treason. But of course, they are patriots of political convenience -- with no allegiance to anything except their own power and their extreme ideology.
========
Joe Conason writes for the New York Observer
the distrust of the American public was well earned by the last 3 administrations including this one.
Why should the American public trust government when our forefathers countless number of times warned against trusting government and advised us to always be vigilant in keeping government restrained.
I would be interested to know how many of you that have children in school, preview their textbooks? Or did you when you had children in school? If so, did you prepare responses to anything you did not agree with? Do you preview their Weekly Reader? You know, the little newspaper they get in class once a week. (They still do don't they?). How many read it when they were in school?
Quote from: sixdogsmom on September 11, 2009, 03:28:55 PM
I would be interested to know how many of you that have children in school, preview their textbooks?
Yes i did. Every year. In fact, i previewed what the "board" was trying to get in before they planned their curriculum. If i saw anything objectionable, i brought it up to the attention of other parents in our church and other churches, and we all as a group went in and made our objections known. Since most of the school teachers attended our church, a whole lot of textbooks got tossed.
Second thing i worked on for years and finally gave up on because the teachers union had more money to throw against me was to get every student in school a laptop, and put all of their textbooks on disk. The excuse i got was not enough money but i went in and proved there was enough by showing where no textbook costs, eliminate school lockers which is both a problem with hiding contraband and wasted money and space. Just the school lockers alone paid for half the laptops, and the savings on having a textbook for every kid was astronomical and would have paid not only for the rest of the laptops but also the curriculum on dvd's and the licensing to distribute to every student. THis of course would necessitate networking in the school for the computers and that was also covered in the savings.
But noooo. The Teachers unions were against it, the super was against it, too many people were against it. The reason the teachers unions were against it, and this is from friends of mine that were teachers there was because every teacher would have to qualify on a computer. BIG Woop. IF their teaching in this day and age, they should be qualified on a computer.
QuoteOr did you when you had children in school? If so, did you prepare responses to anything you did not agree with?
You bet.
QuoteDo you preview their Weekly Reader? You know, the little newspaper they get in class once a week. (They still do don't they?). How many read it when they were in school?
I don't know if they do now. They didn't when my boys were in school.
I always and still do with Ashley keep up with what they are learning and fill in the rest of the story. I didn't like people tellin me what I could or couldn't learn when I was a kid and I still don't. I think censorship is a retarded concept.
I am kinda lost here. I don't think there should be "censorship" of reading material. Teachers go to college and the professor teaches them that a particular book is not truthful and/or accurate. The teacher goes out into the community and teaches at a school where he/she discusses the books to be used in the school. A book is introduced and the teacher remembers from the college professor that this book is not accurate. So the teacher informs the school board and the parents that this book is no good and refuses to teach from it. My belief is that the teacher should stand up in front of the class with that book in hand and say, "What I am teaching you in this class is to my knowledge accurate and true information. This book I am holding does not, in my opinion, relay accurate and true information, but you should be able to read it and judge for yourselves." That, to me, is teaching. The teacher is not only teaching what he believes to be accurate information, but is giving the student a chance to form his own opinion.
I am probably going to hear it from all you teachers, but my mother was a teacher and I went to college to become one, although I never did.
One of my favorite teachers was a high school physics teacher. Physics is a pretty much cut and dried subject as in, this is the way it is and the way it works, no other explanation fits. This teacher taught us the concept of "what if" so we could actually see what it was that worked or didn't work. By teaching this way, he made us think more rather than just write down what he said was true and leave it at that.
Okay, slap my hand now.
Larryj
Ahem, Ok Larry here it comes! I agree with you! Depending on the age of the kids and the material to be taught, critical thinking is so important. For the little guys who are still learning how to learn, the material has to be more concrete. But for High School and on, depending on how old the books are and what the subject is, why not? Some things have to be updated as more is learned anyway. The atomic chart sure isn't any longer what I had in school. I think some of what would help was the way we did it in my t elementary schools Text book publishers often dropped off new texts to be reviewed. Every few years, when we changed books anyway, our textbook committee would meet. (I was on it.) It was made up of teachers and a few parents and we would discuss the new offerings. We had all had a chance to take them home before the meeting. We'd discuss what we liked and disliked about each book and chose from that.