Noelveiga said:
SakSak said:
No, but kids on a sugar rush after eating candy, crisps and such tend to be hyperactive, unable to concentrate on a single subject for long and more disruptive to the class. When the sugar rush does end, it takes the mood and behaviour to the other extreme: they become lethargic, moody, tired and easily irritated.
Fun fact? The sugar rush is a myth.
http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2747/does-giving-sweets-to-kids-produce-a-sugar-rush
Fun fact, you are wrong.
"Sugar, fed in a sudden dose to the body, reacts in a similar manner to that of an overflowing reservoir, particularly when it is eaten without the fiber and minerals and other nutrients which are with sugars in their natural state.
When we eat a candy bar (or cookie, cake, pie, chocolate), the glucose (one of many sugars) level rises quickly in the blood. This prompts the rapid release of insulin from the pancreas. The insulin takes the glucose to the cell through insulin receptors and utilizes it in one of three places: 1) about 50% is used for immediate energy (as in the huge turbines of the dam); 2) about 10% is stored in the muscle and liver as glycogen (like the water in the reservoir) and 3) approximately 40% is stored as fats?triglycerides and cholesterol (like a spillover from the dam which could create a dangerous situation). (1) (This becomes important as we discuss the epidemic of obesity and diabetes in a later article)."
"
Simply put, sugar causes the body to release insulin and stress hormones, which ?flood? the body. And unfortunately, in sugar consumption, the flooding never ends. If the refined sugar is not followed by a meal (with slow release of glucose from complex carbohydrates), the insulin will drop the blood glucose level too low. This prompts the adrenal gland to release the stress hormones (cortisol, which is our natural steroid and adrenaline) to the muscles and liver, which in turn release glucose from glycogen to raise the blood sugar level. (2) Sometimes the low blood glucose causes "hypoglycemia" symptoms which are superficially relieved by eating more refined sugar. Both glycogen release and new sugar intake raise the blood glucose. If it increases it too high or too fast, we see a subsequent release of insulin and the cycle goes on."
http://www.myfavoriteezines.com/articles/carbohydrates-sugar-pros-cons.html
"EFFECT OF SUGAR ON NEUROLOGICAL PROCESSES ...One of the keys to orderly brain function is glutamic acid, and this compound is found in many vegetables. When sugar is consumed, the bacteria in the intestines, which manufacture B vitamin complexes, begin to die-these bacteria normally thrive in a symbiotic relationship with the human body.
When the B vitamin complex level declines, the glutamic acid (normally transformed into "go" "no-go" directive neural enzymes by the B vitamins) is not processed and sleepiness occurs, as well as a decreased ability for short-term memory function and numerical calculative abilities. The removal of B vitamins when foods are "processed" makes the situation even more tenuous. "
http://macrobiotics.co.uk/sugar.htm
If rules have a point, if they have a meaning and a reason to exist, then the repercussion must be already present.Punishment is the short term repercussion of a long-term detrimental behaviour. That is, if something will come back to bite you in the ass when you're 40, punishment gives you a measure of that in the present so you can relate.
Then please explain to me, that if we remove law-based administered punishment from say... murder, what that in-built, already present repercussion is?
What is that repercussion for theft? For insider stock-trading? Cannibalism?
I'm sorry, but I just fail to see how your principle would apply to any of these crimes.
But the first repercussion of being irresponsible must be the outcome of that irresponsibility, if at all possible.[/qutoe]
Agreed. But if that is not possible, it must come from somewhere else.
[qutoe]The second best outcome is an explanation of the benefit of following the rule in question. Punishment is a distant third.
This so much yes. I agree completely. The child must know why he is punished. And as far as I can tell, this is the case here and elsewhere. Teachers say 'For breaking the window, for destroying other's property, you will stay in detention today. We will call your parents about this.'
In this case, eating poorly will have long-term repercussions, and the school can't teach it by itself, parents must cooperate. So what you need to do is, yes, provide a rule and explain it and enforce it, but always with a connection to the real life repercussion, not to the arbitrary punishment established by the system, which is pointless by itself.
Yes. But, if the child is incapable of understanding the real-life punishment or there isn't one, a punishment established by the system must take place instead.
Now, this is bull. Authority has no part here. Kids must not follow "authority". They must learn to analyze their environment and make educated calls about their own behaviour. Authority only leads to chaos when the people enforcing it are removed from the picture. Responsibility is not "following authority", but understanding a situation and being empathic of other people's needs.
Somewhat agreed. But if only that were the case. Some people never develop that responsibility, some never follow that empathy. Those with responsibility understand why those people in authority do some of the things they do. For those who do not have that responsibility, respect of the authority keeps them somewhat in check.
And you are the one who brought authority into this in the first place, when you said 'you create discipline based on fear of authority rather than on responsibility.'
I'm simply saying that if that responsibility is not there, authority must take it's place until that responsibility and empathy is there.
And here's another problem with your view on the matter. If the school decides that it will educate through punishment and parents then disagree with the morality the school is trying to arbitrarily impose, the compound message is that the school is a foreign body of arbitrary authority that can be sidestepped. Parents and teachers must work together, which is why teachers must not overstep their boundaries.
Agreed to a point. But the problem is that some parents are incapable of that co-operation, just as some teachers do not use that co-operation enough.
I'm not proposing an ideology of rearing children with fear and punishment, I'm saying that there must be visible repercussions for breaking the rules repeatedly. The reasons for these rules and the reason for punishment should be explained, so that the misbehaviour is not repeated. Once there is enough accumulated information, wisdom and reward for good behaviour, the rules no longer get broken; not because of fear of punishment, but because they and the reasons behind them are understood and respected. But until that happens, order must be kept via some methods. Otherwise the result is anarchy, if the scale is expanded.
What I see you proposing is that punishment for bad behaviour is entirely unnecessary, that rules established by the system are arbitary and that there should be no repercussions for breaking those rules.
This I do not agree with.
If teachers show a conflicting ideology with the parents, that creates a weak spot in the perception of authority.
And yet you said that authority has no place in this.
Yes, there is that. But then it becomes the fault of the parents for not making their kids understand the rules and for undermining them by their own example, behaviour and teaching. The parents should be wise enoug to understand the reasons behind the rules, that they are not arbitary, or at least mature enough to not show their displeasure in front of their children.
School, particularly primary school, is a stage in which kids start realizing that their parent's vision on the world is not absolute. Some of the teacher's insight will conflict with parents and broaden the views of the children. It is very important that in this process the school does not come across as the authoritative police state imposing random rules but rather the provider of new perspectives.
I agree. Which is why they should make sure the children are informed why the rules are not arbitary. Explain to them the biology behind healthy and non-healthy diets. Explain to them the development of the mind, the stages accompanying such development. Explain to them the reason behind laws, behind governmental systems.
When the rules are no longer seen as arbitary, the system no longer looks authorative or needlessly restrictive even if punishments for breaking the rules need to be handed out.
You drop the stuff, give good reasons and let the kids compare it with the education they receive at home. Impose it, and their parents will become their allies against the abusive school. Of course at this stage parents and kids will take the same side against the school, which is why this stupid, confrontational attitude must be avoided.
And yet, if the well is poisoned in advance [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoning_the_well], the child will be incapable of taking the viewpoint of the school administrators or teachers.
The truth of the matter is, if the education received at home over the years is at odds with the education received at school, the home education tends to take precedent. If for all his life little Timmy is told the teachers are morons and the school rules are arbitary and that his actions have no repercussions or repercussions only at school (which doesn't matter anyway, because the teachers are morons), then little Timmy will believe that. When the school teaches something to the contrary, perhaps unwittingly implying that Timmys dad did not do the best possible job in rearing Timmy, that belief of school being filled with jerks comes forward as a knee-jerk like reflex.
The school and the parents must work together. If they disagree, the child will take the side of the parent, the side with no repercussions or the side they have taken always before.
And if the school does not receive that support, they are doomed to fail. But the school must take the needs of the many into account. Warning examples and all that, I know of cases where the punishment for a student was waived due to special circumnstances. Next time it something that had to involve the home happened, the parents demanded the school waive the punishment for their child also: after all, their little Sammy is special and a good kid who has just been tempted into bad company by negliglient teachers and irresponsible peers.
As you can guess, that did not end too well. It gave the students the idea that rules are not meant to be followed, that cool kids ignore them and 'fuck the system and the teachers too. I'll rape them after school on a dark alley, that'll show em not to mess with me.' (straight out of the mouth of a 11-year old I happened to meet upon delivering an urgent message to a teacher friend of mine)
Again, it's not about authority, but about responsibility. Big, big difference.
But notice how your father did uphold the authority of the teacher. Certainly, you were mature enough to understand the message he wanted to impart, others either do not have such good parents or lack the responsibility and maturity to understand that teaching.
What would you propose happen to them? The punishment be waived? Would you rather, in hindsight, have removed the punishment from the entirety of the class?
Tell me, if you were the teacher in that situation, what would you have done? Give the punishment as your teacher did, or let everyone go scott free?
Wnd what if the prank had caused some serious damage or danger? Would that have changed the situation? (I'm assuming it was relatively harmless)
In my mind the teachers did exactly the right thing, as did your dad. Punishment was given for breaking the rules. Everyone stayed silent, so they became accomplises of sorts. The teacher rightfully implementet the punishment to everyone, because he had no way of knowing which individuals had done it.
You dad did not call the teacher a moron, he did not tell you that he would take care of it and that you did not have to do the extra work. He sounds like a great parent. A rarity. And notice what that implies.
As a curiosity, have you ever asked him what he would have done in that situation, had it been him in front of the class that day?
And as a final note, notice how it was your dad, at your home who imparted that particular lesson of responsibility. It was not at school, it was not by the class teacher. And in my mind, it shouldn't have been either. Schools are there to educate, to impart knowledge and as a secondary consideration, raise children. It is the responsibility of the parents to see their little Timmy or Kathy grows up responsible, kind and considerate.
To expect that from the school, in addition to everything else, is expecting too much with too little.
