America's Gun Violence

tbergs

PJ_Soul said:

mace1229 said:

PJ_Soul said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

PJ_Soul said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

Soul...

It is about what they are required to do by law and district policy. This is the entire point: public schools adhere to different codes than private schools who can mandate higher academic and behavioural rigour.

Administrators haven't failed in these cases- they are bound by public school policies which are weighted heavily in support of poorly behaving kids. While such policies support the 'offender' and ensure they stay in school and receive an education... the cost is significant: school tone and culture suffer, bullying occurs, teachers become exasperated, etc. 

I think I mentioned that my family are educators, both teachers and administrators? I really do know what the deal is Thirty. And MY entire point was also that public schools and private schools have different codes, and that private schools do indeed mandate higher academic and behavioral rigour. Did you think I was arguing otherwise?? That's what I've been saying all along.
But I TOTALLY disagree that Administrators haven't failed in these cases. That's crazy-talk. Some administrators are great... others are absolute fucking crap. The same can be said for those running districts. 

We're getting closer here.

You won't get an argument from me on the variability of administrators at local or district levels, but I still need you to recognize that even the strongest administrators cannot expel kids when they realize it is the right thing to do like private schools can. Instead, the public school administrator must adhere to the progressive discipline model which removes any professional judgement they might have regarding the individual situation.

Kids can act really poorly and never be in too much trouble. They just need to know what the line is... cross it slightly... and operate there. The 'line' generally allows for a lot of poor behaviour that does not require administrative intervention- defiance, confrontation, academic apathy, and general disrespect among other things.

You're making the same argument that I did re the private schools. I never made the claim I think you think I did? My argument was that private schools certainly do have more power in the decision-making. My caveat was only that they don't just expel students willy nilly, like someone kind of suggested, because they have their own, different motivations not to when possible. And I already fully acknowledged that public schools have to adhere to progressive discipline, as they should.

But all in all, I have no clue what we're really debating here anymore, lol!

I've been assaulted twice, my wife once. Those 3 separate instances resulted in only 1 suspension. My wife was flat out told, after being hit by a student, that is part of the job and deal with it. Essentially me too. The only suspension was because it was a larger fight I was breaking up, no one seemed to cared I was hit while breaking it up. I filed a police report, but he was only suspended because he was involved in a larger fight. Not because he assaulted 2 staff members while it was being broken up.
All 3 of those should be immediate expulsion. Assault any staff member and you're gone. But that isn't how it works, and kids know it.

Depends on the school. I know of several instances where assault on a staff member did mean immediate suspension for 1st offense, expulsion for 2nd. It's not like it's illegal to have that rule. It's the administration's decision. And any administrator who doesn't do that is one of the many shitty administrators working in the public school system.

Agreed. Schools who aren't setting clear consequences for continued abusive behavior are failing both the difficult student and everyone who has to continue to deal with it.

I may work at a public college instead of a k-12 school, but any physical act of violence results in an immediate summary suspension of up to 9 days. Within that 9 day period the student cannot have any contact with teachers or be on campus until they have met with an administrator who will then make a decision and set forth the guidelines for their return to class and sanctions in regards to the actual act. A 2nd similar act would almost certainly result in expulsion and they do not get their money back if that happens. The private schools I worked at were similar, but we got a lot more push back because the wealthier parents like to make it a point that they pay our salaries so they think they have some sort of say. Ultimately though, the lawyers handle those if it goes to an appeal. The school just needs to have strong and consistent policies in place so they don't have to worry about claims of discrimination or bias.

PJ_Soul

I obviously base my opinions on facts as well as observations. Not too hard to understand. I'm not bothering to post a bunch of research for you because I'm too lazy to. Most of the fact I base my opinion are rooted in educational psychology, learning outcome research, and educational design, because I work in that area at a university. Also, you must have overlooked my "lol" at the end of my original statement. I didn't make the assertion that the majority of homeschooled kids are not normal, I said something like "homeschooled kids are weird, lol". You took the sentence a bit too literally. But I do take exception to you just disregarding my overall opinion the way you are though. I have access to the same information as you do. You and I have simply drawn different conclusions, and probably have different ideas about how children should be raised in general (I'm pretty old school as far as that goes).
So in conclusion, based on good information, with knowledge of both biased sides as well as some academic facts, and through my own observations and beliefs about what is best for kids in general, I think homeschooling is usually not better than going to school because 1) kids shouldn't spend that much time with their parents or be overseen by them that much, nor should they be prevented from dealing with a bigger variety of adult authority figures and a variety of management/teaching methods, 2) most parents are not really qualified to teach at all compared to most teachers who are professionally educated and trained and experienced, 3) it separates children from their peers too much and necessarily creates a wall between them and their peers because of a lack of shared experiences (yes, even with the homeschooling group activities), 4) depending on the parent, it really can lead to emotional maladjustment (because seriously, let's not pretend that every parent who homeschools has all the best ideas - homeschooling parents can be a lot more fucked up than any teacher is going to be allowed to be at school), and 5) I would be concerned about some parents putting a super coloured, biased spin on some information being taught to them - stuff that wouldn't be allowed to fly in schools for good reasons.

And after all that said, I repeat, as I said in my very first post about it, parents can make their own decisions about this. And I will have my own opinions about it. And that there are exceptions to every rule. Generally, I believe that homeschooling is not usually the best idea for most kids. Sorry you don't like my opinion and doubt my ability to form it adequately, but I'm comfortable with it and figure I'm as qualified as you are to do that.

mace1229

PJ_Soul said:

mace1229 said:

PJ_Soul said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

PJ_Soul said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

Soul...

It is about what they are required to do by law and district policy. This is the entire point: public schools adhere to different codes than private schools who can mandate higher academic and behavioural rigour.

Administrators haven't failed in these cases- they are bound by public school policies which are weighted heavily in support of poorly behaving kids. While such policies support the 'offender' and ensure they stay in school and receive an education... the cost is significant: school tone and culture suffer, bullying occurs, teachers become exasperated, etc. 

I think I mentioned that my family are educators, both teachers and administrators? I really do know what the deal is Thirty. And MY entire point was also that public schools and private schools have different codes, and that private schools do indeed mandate higher academic and behavioral rigour. Did you think I was arguing otherwise?? That's what I've been saying all along.
But I TOTALLY disagree that Administrators haven't failed in these cases. That's crazy-talk. Some administrators are great... others are absolute fucking crap. The same can be said for those running districts. 

We're getting closer here.

You won't get an argument from me on the variability of administrators at local or district levels, but I still need you to recognize that even the strongest administrators cannot expel kids when they realize it is the right thing to do like private schools can. Instead, the public school administrator must adhere to the progressive discipline model which removes any professional judgement they might have regarding the individual situation.

Kids can act really poorly and never be in too much trouble. They just need to know what the line is... cross it slightly... and operate there. The 'line' generally allows for a lot of poor behaviour that does not require administrative intervention- defiance, confrontation, academic apathy, and general disrespect among other things.

You're making the same argument that I did re the private schools. I never made the claim I think you think I did? My argument was that private schools certainly do have more power in the decision-making. My caveat was only that they don't just expel students willy nilly, like someone kind of suggested, because they have their own, different motivations not to when possible. And I already fully acknowledged that public schools have to adhere to progressive discipline, as they should.

But all in all, I have no clue what we're really debating here anymore, lol!

I've been assaulted twice, my wife once. Those 3 separate instances resulted in only 1 suspension. My wife was flat out told, after being hit by a student, that is part of the job and deal with it. Essentially me too. The only suspension was because it was a larger fight I was breaking up, no one seemed to cared I was hit while breaking it up. I filed a police report, but he was only suspended because he was involved in a larger fight. Not because he assaulted 2 staff members while it was being broken up.
All 3 of those should be immediate expulsion. Assault any staff member and you're gone. But that isn't how it works, and kids know it.

Depends on the school. I know of several instances where assault on a staff member did mean immediate suspension for 1st offense, expulsion for 2nd. It's not like it's illegal to have that rule. It's the administration's decision. And any administrator who doesn't do that is one of the many shitty administrators working in the public school system.

Sometimes it is the school board members who decide and determine that policy though, who often really know nothing about school policy. Just some old people who wanted to run for something.

Halifax2TheMax

mace1229 said:

PJ_Soul said:

mace1229 said:

PJ_Soul said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

PJ_Soul said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

Soul...

It is about what they are required to do by law and district policy. This is the entire point: public schools adhere to different codes than private schools who can mandate higher academic and behavioural rigour.

Administrators haven't failed in these cases- they are bound by public school policies which are weighted heavily in support of poorly behaving kids. While such policies support the 'offender' and ensure they stay in school and receive an education... the cost is significant: school tone and culture suffer, bullying occurs, teachers become exasperated, etc. 

I think I mentioned that my family are educators, both teachers and administrators? I really do know what the deal is Thirty. And MY entire point was also that public schools and private schools have different codes, and that private schools do indeed mandate higher academic and behavioral rigour. Did you think I was arguing otherwise?? That's what I've been saying all along.
But I TOTALLY disagree that Administrators haven't failed in these cases. That's crazy-talk. Some administrators are great... others are absolute fucking crap. The same can be said for those running districts. 

We're getting closer here.

You won't get an argument from me on the variability of administrators at local or district levels, but I still need you to recognize that even the strongest administrators cannot expel kids when they realize it is the right thing to do like private schools can. Instead, the public school administrator must adhere to the progressive discipline model which removes any professional judgement they might have regarding the individual situation.

Kids can act really poorly and never be in too much trouble. They just need to know what the line is... cross it slightly... and operate there. The 'line' generally allows for a lot of poor behaviour that does not require administrative intervention- defiance, confrontation, academic apathy, and general disrespect among other things.

You're making the same argument that I did re the private schools. I never made the claim I think you think I did? My argument was that private schools certainly do have more power in the decision-making. My caveat was only that they don't just expel students willy nilly, like someone kind of suggested, because they have their own, different motivations not to when possible. And I already fully acknowledged that public schools have to adhere to progressive discipline, as they should.

But all in all, I have no clue what we're really debating here anymore, lol!

I've been assaulted twice, my wife once. Those 3 separate instances resulted in only 1 suspension. My wife was flat out told, after being hit by a student, that is part of the job and deal with it. Essentially me too. The only suspension was because it was a larger fight I was breaking up, no one seemed to cared I was hit while breaking it up. I filed a police report, but he was only suspended because he was involved in a larger fight. Not because he assaulted 2 staff members while it was being broken up.
All 3 of those should be immediate expulsion. Assault any staff member and you're gone. But that isn't how it works, and kids know it.

Depends on the school. I know of several instances where assault on a staff member did mean immediate suspension for 1st offense, expulsion for 2nd. It's not like it's illegal to have that rule. It's the administration's decision. And any administrator who doesn't do that is one of the many shitty administrators working in the public school system.

Sometimes it is the school board members who decide and determine that policy though, who often really know nothing about school policy. Just some old people who wanted to run for something.

Shame on the voters.

PJ_Soul

mace1229 said:

PJ_Soul said:

mace1229 said:

PJ_Soul said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

PJ_Soul said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

Soul...

It is about what they are required to do by law and district policy. This is the entire point: public schools adhere to different codes than private schools who can mandate higher academic and behavioural rigour.

Administrators haven't failed in these cases- they are bound by public school policies which are weighted heavily in support of poorly behaving kids. While such policies support the 'offender' and ensure they stay in school and receive an education... the cost is significant: school tone and culture suffer, bullying occurs, teachers become exasperated, etc. 

I think I mentioned that my family are educators, both teachers and administrators? I really do know what the deal is Thirty. And MY entire point was also that public schools and private schools have different codes, and that private schools do indeed mandate higher academic and behavioral rigour. Did you think I was arguing otherwise?? That's what I've been saying all along.
But I TOTALLY disagree that Administrators haven't failed in these cases. That's crazy-talk. Some administrators are great... others are absolute fucking crap. The same can be said for those running districts. 

We're getting closer here.

You won't get an argument from me on the variability of administrators at local or district levels, but I still need you to recognize that even the strongest administrators cannot expel kids when they realize it is the right thing to do like private schools can. Instead, the public school administrator must adhere to the progressive discipline model which removes any professional judgement they might have regarding the individual situation.

Kids can act really poorly and never be in too much trouble. They just need to know what the line is... cross it slightly... and operate there. The 'line' generally allows for a lot of poor behaviour that does not require administrative intervention- defiance, confrontation, academic apathy, and general disrespect among other things.

You're making the same argument that I did re the private schools. I never made the claim I think you think I did? My argument was that private schools certainly do have more power in the decision-making. My caveat was only that they don't just expel students willy nilly, like someone kind of suggested, because they have their own, different motivations not to when possible. And I already fully acknowledged that public schools have to adhere to progressive discipline, as they should.

But all in all, I have no clue what we're really debating here anymore, lol!

I've been assaulted twice, my wife once. Those 3 separate instances resulted in only 1 suspension. My wife was flat out told, after being hit by a student, that is part of the job and deal with it. Essentially me too. The only suspension was because it was a larger fight I was breaking up, no one seemed to cared I was hit while breaking it up. I filed a police report, but he was only suspended because he was involved in a larger fight. Not because he assaulted 2 staff members while it was being broken up.
All 3 of those should be immediate expulsion. Assault any staff member and you're gone. But that isn't how it works, and kids know it.

Depends on the school. I know of several instances where assault on a staff member did mean immediate suspension for 1st offense, expulsion for 2nd. It's not like it's illegal to have that rule. It's the administration's decision. And any administrator who doesn't do that is one of the many shitty administrators working in the public school system.

Sometimes it is the school board members who decide and determine that policy though, who often really know nothing about school policy. Just some old people who wanted to run for something.

Sure, that's true too - I was actually kind of grouping them into "administration" tbh. There are plenty of people doing shit wrong when it comes to particular schools and districts! ... Luckily there are some who do shit well too, but not as many as anyone would hope I guess!
You're right about school boards (and park boards, etc etc) just being full of people who to run for something... although if it makes you feel any better, I'm starting to realize that a lot of young people are doing this now, in their attempts to get more involved in politics/get their foot in the door in politics. There may be some hope with the younger generations. I really feel like we're sometimes being held hostage by people who should have retired already. The frickin' baby boomers man... I'm looking forward to them going away in terms of governance. There is something weird going on with them, and it's not working at all (in the general sense - always still a few good apples).

mace1229

Halifax2TheMax said:

mace1229 said:

PJ_Soul said:

mace1229 said:

PJ_Soul said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

PJ_Soul said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

Soul...

It is about what they are required to do by law and district policy. This is the entire point: public schools adhere to different codes than private schools who can mandate higher academic and behavioural rigour.

Administrators haven't failed in these cases- they are bound by public school policies which are weighted heavily in support of poorly behaving kids. While such policies support the 'offender' and ensure they stay in school and receive an education... the cost is significant: school tone and culture suffer, bullying occurs, teachers become exasperated, etc. 

I think I mentioned that my family are educators, both teachers and administrators? I really do know what the deal is Thirty. And MY entire point was also that public schools and private schools have different codes, and that private schools do indeed mandate higher academic and behavioral rigour. Did you think I was arguing otherwise?? That's what I've been saying all along.
But I TOTALLY disagree that Administrators haven't failed in these cases. That's crazy-talk. Some administrators are great... others are absolute fucking crap. The same can be said for those running districts. 

We're getting closer here.

You won't get an argument from me on the variability of administrators at local or district levels, but I still need you to recognize that even the strongest administrators cannot expel kids when they realize it is the right thing to do like private schools can. Instead, the public school administrator must adhere to the progressive discipline model which removes any professional judgement they might have regarding the individual situation.

Kids can act really poorly and never be in too much trouble. They just need to know what the line is... cross it slightly... and operate there. The 'line' generally allows for a lot of poor behaviour that does not require administrative intervention- defiance, confrontation, academic apathy, and general disrespect among other things.

You're making the same argument that I did re the private schools. I never made the claim I think you think I did? My argument was that private schools certainly do have more power in the decision-making. My caveat was only that they don't just expel students willy nilly, like someone kind of suggested, because they have their own, different motivations not to when possible. And I already fully acknowledged that public schools have to adhere to progressive discipline, as they should.

But all in all, I have no clue what we're really debating here anymore, lol!

I've been assaulted twice, my wife once. Those 3 separate instances resulted in only 1 suspension. My wife was flat out told, after being hit by a student, that is part of the job and deal with it. Essentially me too. The only suspension was because it was a larger fight I was breaking up, no one seemed to cared I was hit while breaking it up. I filed a police report, but he was only suspended because he was involved in a larger fight. Not because he assaulted 2 staff members while it was being broken up.
All 3 of those should be immediate expulsion. Assault any staff member and you're gone. But that isn't how it works, and kids know it.

Depends on the school. I know of several instances where assault on a staff member did mean immediate suspension for 1st offense, expulsion for 2nd. It's not like it's illegal to have that rule. It's the administration's decision. And any administrator who doesn't do that is one of the many shitty administrators working in the public school system.

Sometimes it is the school board members who decide and determine that policy though, who often really know nothing about school policy. Just some old people who wanted to run for something.

Shame on the voters.

Well its not like anyone runs a big campaign when running for school board, and sometimes you only have 2 people running for 2 seats. I don't think the board has bad intentions, many have the view of "why expel kids, you should be helping them instead." or the mentality of "if you expel a kid that means you failed him, we won't allow that." They sometimes just don't know any better.

Halifax2TheMax

A step in the right direction. Let the "free" market decide, eh Unsung?

https://www.infowars.com/citigroup-imposes-restrictions-on-client-gun-sales/

And I know its infowars so maybe its an outrage fluff piece?

unsung

All that will do is get people to pay in cash.  It could also force the use of cryptocurrency adoption.  I support this decision.  I support all decisions where big banks phase themselves out and prove how much we don't need them.

It won't stop a single purchase.

mrussel1

unsung said:

All that will do is get people to pay in cash.  It could also force the use of cryptocurrency adoption.  I support this decision.  I support all decisions where big banks phase themselves out and prove how much we don't need them.

It won't stop a single purchase.

Not yet.. but Capital One will soon be joining in.  Trust me on that one.  Then the Bank will be pressured.  Then Barclays, etc.  Pretty soon it will be a cash business.  And not every Cletus has cash on hand. 

mrussel1

Oh yeah, and you're a fool if you think we don't need banks.  Good luck to Americans buying houses and cars with cash.  

Halifax2TheMax

mrussel1 said:

Oh yeah, and you're a fool if you think we don't need banks.  Good luck to Americans buying houses and cars with cash.  

Gold coins.

mrussel1

Halifax2TheMax said:

mrussel1 said:

Oh yeah, and you're a fool if you think we don't need banks.  Good luck to Americans buying houses and cars with cash.  

Gold coins.

He want's to bring back the barter system.  Two tracks of land, a mule with a new plow (made from American steel of course) for that Ford Escort you've got on blocks.  

Halifax2TheMax

mrussel1 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

mrussel1 said:

Oh yeah, and you're a fool if you think we don't need banks.  Good luck to Americans buying houses and cars with cash.  

Gold coins.

He want's to bring back the barter system.  Two tracks of land, a mule with a new plow (made from American steel of course) for that Ford Escort you've got on blocks.  

Daughter for a goat is more like it.

mrussel1

Ha! Very true..

unsung

Not sure if serious or satire.

http://wgntv.com/2018/03/23/students-will-be-armed-with-rocks-in-case-of-school-shooting-superintendent-says/

PJ_Soul

unsung said:

Not sure if serious or satire.

http://wgntv.com/2018/03/23/students-will-be-armed-with-rocks-in-case-of-school-shooting-superintendent-says/

Huh. Well, it's a legit news outlet, so I have to assume it's not satire? .... Well, whatever. Maybe it gives some people peace of mind without turning the school into a police state. I guess I don't see anything wrong with this, even if it does sound a little bit silly. I mean, the chances of a school shooting happening for anyone are still extremely low, so yeah, why not a bucket of rocks if it makes them feel proactive?

Halifax2TheMax

You know what’s serious? This is what is serious:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2018/local/us-school-shootings-history/

This country is fucked.

Only 14 states have laws holding “responsible” gun owners accountable if someone else uses their gun, especially minors. However, rarely are those laws enforced. So much for “responsibility.” 

RiotZact

PJ_Soul said:

unsung said:

Not sure if serious or satire.

http://wgntv.com/2018/03/23/students-will-be-armed-with-rocks-in-case-of-school-shooting-superintendent-says/

Huh. Well, it's a legit news outlet, so I have to assume it's not satire? .... Well, whatever. Maybe it gives some people peace of mind without turning the school into a police state. I guess I don't see anything wrong with this, even if it does sound a little bit silly. I mean, the chances of a school shooting happening for anyone are still extremely low, so yeah, why not a bucket of rocks if it makes them feel proactive?

It might SEEM silly, but think about it. If you’re in a class and you hear the shooter coming down the hallway, you have 20 people ready to throw rocks at his face with 2 or 3 people ready to tackle him, I kind of like those odds, at least as far as only losing a couple lives instead of the whole class. You can’t aim a gun when you’re getting hit in the face with a rock. 

PJ_Soul

RiotZact said:

PJ_Soul said:

unsung said:

Not sure if serious or satire.

http://wgntv.com/2018/03/23/students-will-be-armed-with-rocks-in-case-of-school-shooting-superintendent-says/

Huh. Well, it's a legit news outlet, so I have to assume it's not satire? .... Well, whatever. Maybe it gives some people peace of mind without turning the school into a police state. I guess I don't see anything wrong with this, even if it does sound a little bit silly. I mean, the chances of a school shooting happening for anyone are still extremely low, so yeah, why not a bucket of rocks if it makes them feel proactive?

It might SEEM silly, but think about it. If you’re in a class and you hear the shooter coming down the hallway, you have 20 people ready to throw rocks at his face with 2 or 3 people ready to tackle him, I kind of like those odds, at least as far as only losing a couple lives instead of the whole class. You can’t aim a gun when you’re getting hit in the face with a rock. 

We're talking about little kids here too, right? I don't think anyone other than maybe the teacher would be ready for much of anything, and there certainly wouldn't be 2 or 3 people ready to tackle him when it's a classroom full of 9 year olds. Older high school kids might have the presence of mind for this kind of thing, but even then... Do you want YOUR kid to run straight at and try to tackle a guy who's spraying a room with bullets? I don't think I would.
Anyway, as I said, I think a bucket of rock is a perfectly fine idea, but more for the psychology of the students that it being a really legit defense against the unlikely event of a school shooting in their classroom.

RiotZact

PJ_Soul said:

RiotZact said:

PJ_Soul said:

unsung said:

Not sure if serious or satire.

http://wgntv.com/2018/03/23/students-will-be-armed-with-rocks-in-case-of-school-shooting-superintendent-says/

Huh. Well, it's a legit news outlet, so I have to assume it's not satire? .... Well, whatever. Maybe it gives some people peace of mind without turning the school into a police state. I guess I don't see anything wrong with this, even if it does sound a little bit silly. I mean, the chances of a school shooting happening for anyone are still extremely low, so yeah, why not a bucket of rocks if it makes them feel proactive?

It might SEEM silly, but think about it. If you’re in a class and you hear the shooter coming down the hallway, you have 20 people ready to throw rocks at his face with 2 or 3 people ready to tackle him, I kind of like those odds, at least as far as only losing a couple lives instead of the whole class. You can’t aim a gun when you’re getting hit in the face with a rock. 

We're talking about little kids here too, right? I don't think anyone other than maybe the teacher would be ready for much of anything, and there certainly wouldn't be 2 or 3 people ready to tackle him when it's a classroom full of 9 year olds. Older high school kids might have the presence of mind for this kind of thing, but even then... Do you want YOUR kid to run straight at and try to tackle a guy who's spraying a room with bullets? I don't think I would.
Anyway, as I said, I think a bucket of rock is a perfectly fine idea, but more for the psychology of the students that it being a really legit defense against the unlikely event of a school shooting in their classroom.

Would you want your kid huddled up in a ball waiting to get shot? That’s the situation you’re in if the shooter gets in your classroom, you’re fucked, you have nothing to lose at this point. 

And yes, this would be much harder with little kids, but they can still throw the rocks and let the teacher or any other adults in the room go after him. Again, NOTHING to lose at this point.