British Teachers Still Blaming Games for Schoolyard Violence
- Thread starter The Wooster
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I remember doing things like that in the playground when I was a kid. Do you want to know what I had as inspiration? Mostly books, and an active imagination and a fascination for all things morbid and gruesome. I wasn't allowed to play most games. So, uh, yeah.
That said, I won't dispute the tiredness factor. I will say that that's because there's precious little time to play games when you're at school aside from after it, before bed. At least there isn't currently for me, now I'm at College. :/
That said, I won't dispute the tiredness factor. I will say that that's because there's precious little time to play games when you're at school aside from after it, before bed. At least there isn't currently for me, now I'm at College. :/
There is a fairly simple explanation that most of these things boil down. People are morons (both old and youth), that is all there is to it really but no-one wants to admit it, so they try to find scape-goats -films, music, games- anything but their own backyard. One the things to which this quote fits well "Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?"
Better headline: "No One Taking Responsibility for Their Kids."
Here's a thought; if you don't want your kids being babysat by an XBox, DON'T BABYSIT THEM WITH AN XBOX! You're a parent now, you gotta step up because YOU are the only one to blame, YOU are the only one responsible, and YOU cannot shove a TV in their faces just so you can spent 15 more minutes playing ANGRY BIRDS ON YOUR GODDAMN IPAD!
Here's a thought; if you don't want your kids being babysat by an XBox, DON'T BABYSIT THEM WITH AN XBOX! You're a parent now, you gotta step up because YOU are the only one to blame, YOU are the only one responsible, and YOU cannot shove a TV in their faces just so you can spent 15 more minutes playing ANGRY BIRDS ON YOUR GODDAMN IPAD!
Now you see, that's what you get when you use an actual newspaper as a source. I know the Telegraph looks respectable, but that's just to hook people in, otherwise it's pretty much one step up from the Daily Fail.Stabby Joe said:
EDIT:
Actually, I'm going to have to take that back in this case, The Telegraph article does say this:
"Infants are being allowed to stay up until the early hours playing 18-rated games such as Call of Duty and Grand Theft Auto because of a failure by parents to impose greater controls, it is claimed."
in the first Goddamned line. Then it says this, 4th sentence:
"Many parents are failing to adhere to age-restrictions on the most violent games, she adds, raising concerns that children are growing up desensitised to aggression and bloodshed."
So Grey Carter's Headline should be "British Teachers say Parents are Ignoring age restrictions on Games, British press writes an article about it and tacks a load of other crap on the end then the Escapist publishes another sensationalist article based on that with just enough misdirection to stirr up the frothing masses."
A bit long I know but I fell it adequately conveys the situation.
When I was two, I used to take the slipper off my Mothers foot and slap the shit into my Brothers with it - I wasn't playing video games at 2.
When I was 5, on holidays in Spain, I punched my one Brother in the nuts and when he fell the the floor I gave him a massive Chinese burn - I never played any game that did this back in the NES days.
It's down to the parents and children, parents need to stop buying their 7yo's 18+ games if they're evil children who may copy it and top using games as baby sitters.
When I was 5, on holidays in Spain, I punched my one Brother in the nuts and when he fell the the floor I gave him a massive Chinese burn - I never played any game that did this back in the NES days.
It's down to the parents and children, parents need to stop buying their 7yo's 18+ games if they're evil children who may copy it and top using games as baby sitters.
It seems like becoming an adult - or more often a parent - usually comes with the odd side effect of forgetting how shitty childhood was.
I remember one time when I was about ten. Our teacher said if we (as in the class) were trapped on a desert island we'd develop a peaceful society and eventually marry and have kids (mass "EWW!" reaction from the class, naturally).
I knew it was BS then and I hadn't even heard of Golding's Lord of the Flies yet. When I saw the book a few years later I was shocked. Oh my God! An adult who GETS IT!
(Years later looking back on it I realized that the class was composed of twenty-four boys and five girls, so the concept of forming a society of peaceful families was even further out the window than I had initially thought. I also realized, having seen said five girls as they matured, that my "Ew!" reaction to the girls still applied, only for different reasons.)
I remember one time when I was about ten. Our teacher said if we (as in the class) were trapped on a desert island we'd develop a peaceful society and eventually marry and have kids (mass "EWW!" reaction from the class, naturally).
I knew it was BS then and I hadn't even heard of Golding's Lord of the Flies yet. When I saw the book a few years later I was shocked. Oh my God! An adult who GETS IT!
(Years later looking back on it I realized that the class was composed of twenty-four boys and five girls, so the concept of forming a society of peaceful families was even further out the window than I had initially thought. I also realized, having seen said five girls as they matured, that my "Ew!" reaction to the girls still applied, only for different reasons.)
Gotta love the bias against introversion and the ability to find solitary, independent enjoyment. Probably why you have people these days who look actively uncomfortable when alone and not surrounded by friends.
I once read a quote I cannot quite place the person who said it, but it was "Censorship is telling a man he cannot have steak because an infant cannot chew it." Which is to say no one should jump off the deep end because of an issue at a school or two, else it becomes the movie Battle Royal (didn't end well).
In my honest opinion, I believe parents ought to look out for stuff their kids are interested in, whether it's dirt biking, video games, or aggressive book-reading. Blaming the content for existing is a huge excuse that too many people subscribe to. I have to admit that there are one or two mature games I would allow my children to play, because I have played the content and dubbed it 'okay within context' which usually means I'll sit there and watch/play it with them. DO NOT think I am showing off the #1 most gory/whory/despicable game to my kids, probably the most tame M rated one in the bunch.
What I DON'T think a kid below the age of 16ish (depending on individual maturity) should play is something containing ungodly amounts of extremely detailed bodily violence, thrill-killing, glorified violence against women, etc. Mostly because they do not, and cannot understand the story/plotpoints behind it and are more engrossed with "OMG that lady's head flew off! wasn't that cool? I gotta call Jimmy and tell him!" So from my standpoint, the game's content/story/features are wasted on these kids because they only enjoyed the carnage.
So in the end, parents really ought to know what they expose their children to, if they don't believe it is right, don't allow it in your house and your kid can make his/her own decisions when they grow up or if they get a part-time job and spend their own money on it.
edit: Forgot to end up the rant with the disclaimer "I am not trying to argue here, I am here to discuss, if you do not know the difference: Get off of Escapist and get back to your school work, children."
In my honest opinion, I believe parents ought to look out for stuff their kids are interested in, whether it's dirt biking, video games, or aggressive book-reading. Blaming the content for existing is a huge excuse that too many people subscribe to. I have to admit that there are one or two mature games I would allow my children to play, because I have played the content and dubbed it 'okay within context' which usually means I'll sit there and watch/play it with them. DO NOT think I am showing off the #1 most gory/whory/despicable game to my kids, probably the most tame M rated one in the bunch.
What I DON'T think a kid below the age of 16ish (depending on individual maturity) should play is something containing ungodly amounts of extremely detailed bodily violence, thrill-killing, glorified violence against women, etc. Mostly because they do not, and cannot understand the story/plotpoints behind it and are more engrossed with "OMG that lady's head flew off! wasn't that cool? I gotta call Jimmy and tell him!" So from my standpoint, the game's content/story/features are wasted on these kids because they only enjoyed the carnage.
So in the end, parents really ought to know what they expose their children to, if they don't believe it is right, don't allow it in your house and your kid can make his/her own decisions when they grow up or if they get a part-time job and spend their own money on it.
edit: Forgot to end up the rant with the disclaimer "I am not trying to argue here, I am here to discuss, if you do not know the difference: Get off of Escapist and get back to your school work, children."
Sorry, did I somehow personally offend you by pointing out whether the resources are there or not it is a teachers JOB to provide a secure environment for their students?Dastardly said:
You are so far off topic here it's not funny but let's get into it.
"Not sure if you realize this, but it's not "teachers" that do that. We all know the current format of school doesn't work. But we don't have the time or money to campaign for school board, so it's populated by businessmen. Even our SECRETARY OF EDUCATION in the US was never a teacher.
Decisions are made by those businessmen based on what is cheapest, not what is the most educationally sound. And teachers, as educational experts, are tasked with filling in the ever-widening gap between doing a good job, and having the money to do the job. (Hint: Most of the time we say we want more money in education, we're not talking about pay. We're talking about funding for resources.)"
This is not a sourced article from the US so I could care less about YOUR secretary of education. Maybe you should have taken a reading course when learning to be a teacher. I really don't know the situation in the UK but the US's situation is irrelevant here.
"You try to sort it out every single time. Go ahead. Not every case that comes before us is "tiny kid beat up by big kid" or "cool kid picking on nerdy kid." You would be absolutely shocked at how many instances of bullying we do, in fact, prevent... but, of course, you don't hear about them, because they never happened."
Perfection is not warranted. But how about actually trying? I know of several folks related to me in some way who were regular victims of abuse in the schools they were at. In 2 of these cases they had to move to a different school to get away from regular abuser that the school refused to do anything about. If there was a fight both the aggressor and victim were suspended. Punishing the victim of abuse in the name of "zero tolerance" is pathetically lazy. So in order to get to a place of safety in getting the education they actually want under the current system the victim is who has to move. Nice job breaking it hero.
"We would love to. Problem is:
1. Where do we send them? Where's the money for this additional school?
2. Okay, so you want it to be private. You realize that the overwhelming majority of our "problem children" come from homes of low socioeconomic status -- meaning they don't have the money to pay. You can't get blood from a stone, no matter how hard you squeeze.
3. Our funding, as schools, is tied to enrollment. Remove a kid, lose thousands of dollars that were also helping other kids. It's a stupid system, but we didn't create it. We just have to survive in it."
Should I care? They clearly don't. Funding should not be issue when you have a brat who is tying up more resources by abusing students. You are better off without him. As for the economic state of the parents. Let them sort it out. They are raising a hellion. Make it their problem Give them a incentive to FUCKING try.
"I almost agree. Except kids aren't raised at school. That's not our job. Our job is to teach them, not to raise them. (Though, hell, we already feed most of them two of the three meals a day.) By the time a kid is 18, he has spent around 13% of his life in school. That includes bathroom, recess, hallway, and locker, too. Each teacher gets a fraction of that."
I almost agree with you here but I can't quite let you off the hook here. About a quarter of a kid's life is spent at school. That makes it the schools responsibility whether they want it or not. It has to be a team effort or it is doomed to fail.
"Write us a check, or elect someone that will. We'd be happy to do it."
You got plenty of resources already. Try using them more efficiently.
All I saw here was a whole bunch of buck passing. Changing shit starts at the bottom so stop standing around waiting for someone else to do it for you. It starts with you and me. Get cracking.
Kids were violent back in the forties and fifties.RaNDM G said:I got in fights all the time when I was 5. I didn't pick up a controller 'til I was about 7.
Britain can't explain tbat either.
Really? I blame it on frustration over the lack of attractive English school teachers wanting to sleep with students.
This has been going on since before the industrial revolution, I thought teachers were suppost to be smart
FUCKING AD-BASED CAPTCHA - Describe Apple in one word: POISONED CHILD COMMUNIST LABOR
This has been going on since before the industrial revolution, I thought teachers were suppost to be smart
FUCKING AD-BASED CAPTCHA - Describe Apple in one word: POISONED CHILD COMMUNIST LABOR
Hey, man, you brought it up. And it's not that anything you said is "offensive." It's just incorrect.jklinders said:
For starters, no, you can't expect someone to do a job if there are no resources. If I hire you to build me a house, but I don't have any land for you to build it on, how could you even get started?
Ostensibly, yes, it's part of our job to provide a secure environment. And we do, to the best of our realistic ability. Are there outliers? Sure. There are bad people in every line of work. But most of us do quite well with what we're given. If my basement is flooded, and I tell you to clear it out, and all I give you is a spoon, guess what? It'll be pretty impressive if you even get 1/3 of the way done.
It's not. I provided an example of the current problem -- that education is not run by educators, so the decisions aren't being made based on what is educationally sound, but what is financially the cheapest.
It's easy for someone to simply claim we're "not even trying." If a fireman saves 10 people from a burning building, and one dies, the family of that one person probably isn't thinking, "Well, he did his best." But objectively, we can see that he clearly did make every effort. So it is with teachers. For every instance you point to, there are dozens prevented by caring and attentive teachers.
(Now, sometimes the administrators won't do anything to get rid of the kid, because they don't follow the requests of teachers. They're employed by the school board. Many teachers are flat-out told by the principals, "You can't write him up or send him out anymore. Deal with it." Business folks win again.)
I'd honestly like to explain to you the reasoning for this policy. It has nothing to do with "punishing the victim." Here's how fights in school work:
1. Two kids have a fight.
2. A dozen other kids talk it up.
3. Maybe the aggressor gets suspended, and the victim is at school.
4. Some of the bully's friends try to get some kind of "revenge" going (usually away from supervision, like after school somewhere).
5. Other kids start arguing about the fight itself.
6. Other fights happen.
The only way to stop a problem like this is to send both kids home. No fuel, no fire. After a week or two at home (depending on the policy), the goldfish-like minds of most kids have moved onto something else. All of them? Of course not -- but, as you rightly noted, perfection isn't warranted.
For starters, if there's no money, there's no other place to send them. And the school board won't just say, "Eh, we don't need him." So, business folks won't part with the cash either way, and the teacher is stuck having to deal with the kid or find a new job (thus stretching the remaining teachers even thinner until a replacement is found).
Now, I don't disagree that the parents need to be made responsible. But, as noted, you can't get blood from a stone. If they don't have the money, you can take them to court from now until you shit your own liver out in frustration, but they won't be able to pay.
I'm in complete agreement on "making it their problem." What you're suggesting just isn't the way to do that. It's making money their problem, which will only lead them to further neglect the child part of this problem. Instead, parents need to be pulled out of work to come deal with the child right away. They'll lose some money, but not crazy amounts, and that will provide a reason for them to make the kid behave.
But, at the same time, there are unfortunately parents out there who have no idea how to do the job. Just because they're "parents" doesn't mean they know how -- there's no class, no licence, not even a pamphlet they have to read. Learning by trial and error inevitably produces far more error than anything, so that's apparently not the best choice here. There needs to be something to show them how to fix it, and we need to be able to require it. Educate the parent as well as the child.
But we don't have the power to enforce that, and the school board won't do it. Why? Because they are elected by parents, not teachers.
Maybe while I'm taking my reading course, you can review fractions?
13% isn't even almost "a quarter." And, as I've noted, that 13% includes time spent between classes, in the bathroom, at lunch, the whole nine yards. By the way, I padded those numbers to include a year of preschool (not everyone gets that) and at least one after school activity (most don't do those, either). That 13% is on the high side.
Now, I agree it has to be a team effort. The problem is that people are expecting the teachers to do 90% of the work, while getting to make 0% of the decisions. If you're not allowed to make the decision, you shouldn't bear all the responsibility for the consequences, now should you?
Rhetoric, rhetoric, rhetoric. We don't have plenty of resources. We're using them as efficiently as we can, as evidenced by the fact that schools are still standing at all. People just don't like paying taxes, so they'll always assume there's some magical solution that will reduce the cost of doing the job right.
You can sit on the outside and claim there's "a way," but I'm not seeing you pitch any...
Teachers are not at fault. Parents are. Administrators are. And changing shit most certainly does not start at the bottom, or believe me, we'd have changed it by now. Change requires power. Give us some, and we'll give you change. But keep giving what you gave, and you'll keep getting what you got.
I would just like to say, I was looking forward to that reply and you didn't disappoint me. It's always nice to see someone who knows what they are talking about, with actual experience in the field answering people who have only seen school from a child's point of view. Anyway, I'll stop stroking your ego now.Dastardly said:
I would also like to add that determining aggressor and victim isn't always possible to a degree that warrants suspending one but not the other.
Teachers have very little power. It may seem like they do to the well behaved and disciplined children but to the kids who actually realise it they are absolutely nothing. They can't allocate resources, they can't expel a pupil without LEA approval, they can't touch a pupil in any way without getting in shit and the little fuckers know this. In the UK teachers basically have the power to stand in front of a class and talk at them. That's about it. You can shout at them if they get out of hand but if they don't respond to that there is little you can do. If the parents wont discipline them then that's it, unless the LEA lets you give them the boot you can't even expel them, children have to be educated legally so if no other school will take them you are screwed, even suspensions can and will get appealed.
As far as OT goes I've already made my contribution: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/jump/7.362348.14219579