Child Suspended for Crisp Dealing

[Spiner909]

It's real life economics. They should encourage it.

 

[Seanchaidh]

A well-raised child knows he/she does not get everything they want and that this is in fact normal. They know that there are repercussions for breaking the rules and that when they face such repercussions after knowingly breaking those rules they understand it is their own fault, not the fault of the one punishing them.

It is not, in fact, normal to be hauled off to prison or otherwise punished for selling or eating potato chips. A "well-raised" child is often smart enough to know the difference between wise applications of authority and unwise applications of authority. This is the latter.

If parents want their children to always eat healthily, that is their prerogative. It is not the business of the school to confiscate property and punish someone for providing a service to other students unless that service tends to actively disrupt learning.

Children are required to go to and stay in school for a number of hours each weekday. While there, they are told for the majority of the time to sit still and be quiet while some moron talks at them.

Two basic things make something a prison: the degree to which rules restrict freedom and not being allowed to leave. If we're going to require the latter, we'd better be easy with the former. Schools exist to provide a service, not rule over students' lives for several hours.

Yes, schools exist to provide a service. Which by law they are required to do. When the students and their parents make following this law hard or impossible, they have to respond.

This does not meet those criteria. They do not have to respond. They do not have to impose the rule in the first place. It's a stupid rule.

And yet this does not become necessary until someone gives them the false impression that their freedoms are taken away, that somehow as underaged students they had these freedoms to begin with (which they don't, as law states they have to be educated to a minimum standard) and that the teachers in fact are morons.

Minimum standards do not include anything concerning one's proclivity to eat potato chips.

If the parents and siblings have no respect for school and the teachers there, then the disrespect is passed on. Classes become unruly, kids begin to think that instead of thse being the adults that do know better and are there to teach them, they are instead morons who exist only to bore them to death and 'lock them up' for several hours a day.

If all they do is bore them to death and lock them up for several hours each day, that is how they will be perceived: as they are.

It is that kind of attitude, when passed on, that guarantees the bad behaviour and increasing forced response from the school authorities.

Attitudes don't behave like viruses as you suggest. Attitudes form as responses to one's environment. If a school environment is regimented and authoritarian, students will learn to behave like good prisoners.

You say: "Children are required to go to and stay in school for a number of hours each weekday. While there, they are told for the majority of the time to sit still and be quiet while some moron talks at them."

This could be applied to a desk-job as well: be here at 8.00, you can go home at 16.00, you're not allowed to leave the building in between, sign these and these papers, write this and this report, be done before tomorrow.

School is not voluntary. A desk job is. Also, here's a fun fact: many desk jobs don't require you to be at the desk the whole time as long as you perform the tasks that the job entails. The desk is there to help perform the task, not as any kind of confinement device.

In return, you gain a monetary compensation.

In school, the compensation is knowledge. The students, lead by the example of their parents, their siblings and their peers simply do not value that knowledge. They think it useless.

And yet, you do not think of a job as prison, while both restrict your 'freedoms', both require you to stay within a certain area for a certain amount of time, both require you to give respect to those in a higher position, both require you to follow certain rules on penalty of punishment, both give you a compensation and both are necessary.

Actually, many jobs do not restrict freedoms. Many jobs do not require one to stay anywhere for any amount of time, and many do not have a person of a 'higher' position to give respect to.

Jobs are not, in fact, necessary. It is not necessary for a person to be employed by some 'higher' person. That is why it is folly to train everyone to be a perfect little subordinate. Training people to be subordinates and to think like subordinates is what puts people in the position of needing a job where they can be a subordinate. This should not be what we design education for, unless we find it preferable that we retard our entrepreneurship and stagnate our leadership. The authoritarianism that runs rampant in the administration of lower-class schools is part of what prevents social mobility and stifles the creativity and intelligence of otherwise capable young minds. Education should be designed to teach people ways to profitably make decisions and research and judge facts. It should not be designed to teach people only to follow standard procedure without understanding or indeed caring about the propriety of that procedure.

EDIT: As for what makes a prison? "Prison:noun, a building for the confinement of criminals or those awaiting trial." (COED 11th ed.)

Treat students like criminals and you have yourself a perfect match. That is what is happening in this case.

Nothing about restricting freedoms there.

"confinement of"

You should probably just pretend you didn't say that.

 

[MiserableOldGit]

Has he got any Cheetos? Can't find them anywhere anymore...

 

[Pyrolord]

School is like a prison u sell something, anything ur in shit

 

[Wildrow12]

Unauthorized sale of chips? Only one punishment can possibly suit this thug....

20 years inside a Pringles can.

 

[Zacharine]

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.

I'm inclined to ignore this tangent, just because we both are clearly out of our depth. I've referenced second-hand research and you've referenced healthy food nuts pointing at biological processes but failing to document any actual behavioural effect. If we keep it up it's gonna get messy, so we should probably leave it at "agree to disagree".

Yes, one of those sites I quoted was a health-maniac site. The other was not (at least to my knowledge). Your second hand research didn't deal with replacing a meal with sweets and crisps, but rather if having some birtday cake and some cookies at a party will make them more unruly.

I shall link you these, and leave the matter to where it stands on my part. As these are not net-articles, I cannot in any good conscience expect you to read them.

Gailliot, Matthew T.; Baumeister, Roy F. (2007), "The Physiology of Willpower: Linking Blood Glucose to Self-Control", Personal. Soc. Psychol. Rev. 11 (4): 303-27, http://psr.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/11/4/303

Masicampo, E. J.; Baumeister, Roy F. (2008), "Toward a Physiology of Dual-Process Reasoning and Judgment: Lemonade, Willpower, and Expensive Rule-Based Analysis", Psychol. Sci. 19 (3): 255-60, http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/119410443/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0

Gailliot, Matthew T.; Baumeister, Roy F.; DeWall, C. Nathan; Plant, E. Ashby; Brewer, Lauren E.; Schmeichel, Brandon J.; Tice, Dianne M.; Maner, Jon K. (2007), "Self-Control Relies on Glucose as a Limited Energy Source: Willpower is More than a Metaphor", J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 92 (2): 325-36, http://psycnet.apa.org/?fa=main.doiLanding&doi=10.1037/0022-3514.92.2.325

Fairclough, Stephen H.; Houston, Kim (2004), "A metabolic measure of mental effort", Biol. Psychol. 66 (2): 177-90, http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6T4T-4B6CRKN-1&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=4e08abcfd4ae249cb1d290f74cf516c6

That's because it doesn't apply to any crimes.

I'm talking about education here.

And I'm talking about breaking rules here. In society at large, these rules are called laws.

And I hold there ought to be a consequence for breaking either of them. Naturally the consequence must be scaled down to fit the offense. Such as detention, a small amount of extra work or just saying 'I'm sorry' to the offended party.

Perhaps it is a tendency of mine to overgeneralize, but I still hold that a clear consequence must follow a wrongful act. If the consequence is not apparent in the act itself, it must be provided.

Deterrence is one, but also compensation, fairness and safety.

And I hold these apply, scaled down and more on the 'this is wrong and you should learn from this' side of things, to the children as well. I think compensation, fairness and safety to be great things that children should learn.

But that doesn't explain anything, does it? It's some kind of circular logic that only explains that the action is the cause for the punishment and the punishment the only consequence of the action.

But didn't you later ask me to give more credit to the children?

It's not "you're in detention for breaking the window" at all, it's "look, now we have to buy a new window to replace the old one, and that is going to take a few days, during which we'll have a problem with cold, rain and wind".

Which any half-decent teacher will say during the detention and any half-decent parent will make sure they learned when the matter is discussed.

And aren't you the one here expecting the children to understand the results of their actions? I'm sorry, perhaps I'm reading your responses wrongly, but that's what it looks like to me: You are refuting my argument with one you yourself argue against later.

Ah, so the punishment is what we have for dumb children. I disagree. If the kid is incapable of understanding the real life punishment he needs time to learn and reinforcement. If there is no real life punishment, then there is no harm done and he shouldn't be punished at all.

It seems to me we are talking of slightly separate things and reading the following only reinforces that.

I mean, why punish somebody for something that causes no harm? If the harm is caused to somebody else, then that is what the kid needs to understand.

What I'm wondering about is what consequence the act holds for the child that broke the rules or harmed someone. If the child understood that hitting someone else in the face is not nice, he/she wouldn't have done it in the first place.

So if he doesn't understand it, he doesn't understand the repercussion of his punch. That needs to be explained to him and then punished by detention or such, negative reinforcement for bad behaviour if you will. If needing negative reinforcement makes him dumb, then we've all been dumb at some point. And as he/she learns from this and improves from it, positive reinforcement ought to be applied for the good behaviour.

Humans are rigged in such a way to be sympathetic to people they know and identify as equals. If you've taken money from another kid, then you're clearly not thinking of him. Punishment is probably a valid tool, but it won't stop the behaviour in the future. Getting the aggressor to think about the other person will.

We agree. But until such a time the aggressor has learned and if he/she continues this bad behaviour, he should be punished for new attempts/acts along those lines. When they do learn, they will stop doing it and any possible punishment ascribed to the act becomes unnecessary.

Must it? Doesn't it blur the message somewhat? After all, kids have a problem going deep into issues. It is a much simpler system to assimilate if there is an action and a consequence than if there is an action, an arbitrary consequence imposed by a figure of authority, and then a second, direct consequence of the original action. The kid will typically focus on the authoritarian figure only and not learn to make the connection with the other, real consequence.

Most interestingly, at this age the authoritarian consequence can be ignored without much repercussion. After all, these kids are just eating crisps, right? These small scale, low risk scenarios are ideal to teach them about the real life consequences without having to interfere with authority.

Perhaps my views are a bit harsh, I can admit that. But I worry that in this particular case (eating crisps), the inherent consequence is far too long in the taking and does not resolve the situation in the meantime: that he knowingly broke school rule that has reasons for its existance. If the visible, easily understood consequence does not arrive until years later, it is a poor teacher in the present.

In addition, there are choices we do not expect our children to make until they are mature enough, until they can understand the consequences of their actions. If these choices cannot wait until they are mature enough (such as what shall we offer to them as a meal) those choices must be made for them by adults who are able to make them.

These 'authoritarian' decisions can be better received if the parents are in conjunction in explaining the reasonings behind them and breaking them is not hailed an admirable act. Scaled down to appropriate level of course, we cannot expect children to read medical journals or understand the effects of obesity and cholesterol in relation to risks of heart-diseases and long-term effects of possible diabetes.

No, I'm saying that rules imposed by the system must not be arbitrary.

I totally agree. And I've yet to run into one. Some seem like them, but there are always reasons in my experience. In some cases, it simply takes a bit more digging and educating oneself to understand those reasons. Or possibly faulty or outdated reasons. But no rule I've met yet has been arbitary.

If they are, enforcing them sends a mixed signal that does more harm than good.

I agree. But as I said, I've yet to run into an arbitary rule, that had no reasons behind it. Teaching obedience for obediences sake should never be the goal. Instead the message should be that rules are there for a reason and just because someone might not understand those rules at the moment despite them being explained to them does not mean those rules are automatically arbitary. That in fact there are rules the reasoning to which one might not understand anytime soon, but that these rules still apply to them. And that if one disagree with a rule, it is not okay to stop following it, that if there a real problems with the rule or following it, one should take it up with those who make or uphold the rules and see if something can be done to it.

If they are not arbitrary, guidance is more important than punishment, although punishment in some form can help carry the point across. But it is very, very important that the rules are kept limited in number, simple and reasonable. Otherwise, they create aversion instead of responsibility.

I agree somewhat. One problem with this is that for some 5 rules are too much, for others 15 is too much to remember. And some things just aren't simple by nature and some people aren't very good at making things simple and easily understood.

Compound this with the legalese the schools have to contend with (some rules are imposed by law) and legal speak can easily become convoluted for those unaccustomed to it.

Some find it simple to just copy-paste those rules or take them word for word from some other source (like an another school). Yes, the amount of rules should be kept at a minimum and as simple as possible while still encompassing the necessary points. But they rarely are.

You're playing the blame game a lot here, I've noticed.

Because I believe one has to understand the root of a problem to fix it. It is useless to give more resources to teachers if there is no need for them and they would be wasted.

This is a pragmatic issue. If the parents are being idiots about it, then you need a way to deliver the payload through parental idiocy. Otherwise, you'll always be stuck with the same amount of idiotic people obstructing the system. Clearly, presenting the kids with an arbitrary order to follow blindly against the opinion of their own family will not do the trick.

I believe that if the parents are the problem, then one should try to win them over or at least make their best to remove them from being a problem. And if that fails or there are surplus resources, then (or simultaneously) improve upon the delivery. Target the resources to the best effect, fix what can be fixed and improve what needs improving in light of the changes brought about by the previous two.

Give the kids some credit. They're surprisingly permeable to new ideas. Sure, their idiot dads may have the upper hand when it comes to passing on their worldview, but you can introduce some modifications. Then, if you're lucky, the next batch of kids will be more agreeable and you get to introduce an even bigger modification.

And unfortunately it seems that is all one can do. But for me, accepting that somehow the only functional solution is decades in the making, depends on luck and is unsure of success just leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

You can't fix society overnight, but trying may prevent you from improving it at all. Education is very much a game of patience and small victories. Getting all authoritative and moving into "because I say so" territory may be a shortcut towards making one's life easier, but it doesn't help in the long run.

Somewhat true, but personally I refuse to believe education is a game of patience played over several generations of children. What possible changes one has achieved in three or four decades does not help those who came before that. And that there ought to be an immediate consequence for breaking a reasoned rule and that such behaviour should not be encouraged. Moving into 'because I say so' territory does not come into play here.

Or maybe I wouldn't have grown to have the maturity I had if I hadn't been presented with these choices rather than having them imposed on me from some external authority. It's all a bit egg-and-chicken. Education is all about feedback and interaction, after all.

I suppose I can accept that somewhat. But I've just seen far too many bad examples of this gone too wrong to accept it can work on large scale.

The real answer to that is "they wouldn't have pulled the prank on me". They did it because the guy set himself up as an enemy, so the class lashed out (the prank, if I remember right, consisted in saluting him Hitler-like while in a line formation as he walked into the class, then quickly scrambling to their seats before he could register any of the faces, which is pretty damn brilliant, if you ask me).

And if you ask me, that is the kind of stupidity some people never grow out of. Understandable and even somehow not entirely unexpected coming from kids who don't know better, but stupid none the less.

Assuming something similar happened anyway the final outcome wasn't terrible, but I would probably try to reach it in a different, more positive way. How about taking some of their grade out and then giving the extra work as a way to redeem the punishment to get their score back? Giving them an out they have to earn is far better than presenting it as a random punishment.

I can agree with that, with there being an immediate consequence. That would have been a more constructive punishment. I though keep wondering if it would have effected the children who don't give a damn about their score, as long as they pass.

You'd hardly have to do anything in that case. Imagine they throw something at the teacher and they actually draw blood. You can probably scare them so much with that one they'd never think to do it again, if you handle it intelligently.

things And yet, if they understood the consequence of throwing something at the teacher, they wouldn't have done it.

Perhaps I'm just looking at it trough a mirror too much, but if they did do something that caused real harm, the instigators might not be too affect by it. Making the immediate consequence of a bleeding teacher somewhat ineffective tool for educating them better.

Or perhaps you have more confidence at you acting talents in that kind of situation then I have at mine.

Note that the point never was that the teacher was right and I should suck it up, but rather that I was entitled to my position and needed to be prepared to deal with the backlash standing by it would generate.

And I can certainly respect that. But looking from my point of view, you understood that something like that ought not to be done and that there are consequences to your actions and breaking the rules. I doubt everyone at your class did. And you also did receive the punishment, if not the act itself then for the (quite understandable) spartacus act of not naming those who did do it.

It is the responsibility of the parents to see their little Timmy or Kathy grows up responsible, kind and considerate.

Absolutely. Which is why when schools decide to meddle in this particular area they tend to screw up.

Which is why I wonder at the hypocrisy of the increasing amount of parents (at least around here) who assume a laissez-faire stance of child-rearing and then blame the school and overworked teachers for any possible problems and immediately shut their ears whenever the teachers try to call the parents or discuss something with them.

They are places to pass on knowledge. Sometimes, people are lucky and something good rubs off of some remarkable teacher (I could name quite a few without involving family), but when the school system comes to the conclussion that it is now tasked with raising society's children because the parents obviously don't know what they're doing, they typically only make things worse.

I totally agree with this, exept for the last part: "but when the school system comes to the conclusion is forced against its will to the point that it is now tasked with raising society's children because the parents obviously don't know and don't care what they're doing, they typically only make things worse.

Hope this isn't tl;dr for you.

 

[Zacharine]

It is not, in fact, normal to be hauled off to prison or otherwise punished for selling or eating potato chips.

A scaled punishment to fit the problem. He didn't kill anyone or mug someone to hospital. He only sold crisps. And had been warned of it before. Which is why he got suspended.

A "well-raised" child is often smart enough to know the difference between wise applications of authority and unwise applications of authority. This is the latter.

Perhaps it was unwise. But perhaps it was unwise of the child to knowingly tempt said authority as well. Depends on how you look at it.

If parents want their children to always eat healthily, that is their prerogative. It is not the business of the school to confiscate property and punish someone for providing a service to other students unless that service tends to actively disrupt learning.

And I hold it did: it made students ignore proper meals in favor of crisps, with all the consequences that come along with it. He acted as a continued example that the rules of the school supposedly did not apply to him. And it made mockery of the healthy dietary education the school was trying to provide.

This does not meet those criteria. They do not have to respond. They do not have to impose the rule in the first place. It's a stupid rule.

How does this not meet those criteria? As I said above, I hold that his activities were disruptive.

In addition, stupid rule or not, it does not mean the rule can be ignored. If the rule is stupid, then the feelings of the parents and students ought to be brought to the attention of the headmaster/headmistress. It does not matter if one personally agrees with a rule during school or not, they are still to be followed as there are reason behind those rules. Reasons students and/or parents might be unaware of or have misunderstood. Communication is the key, not blatant disregard.

Minimum standards do not include anything concerning one's proclivity to eat potato chips.

No, but I think it does include something about safe, non-disruptive class environment and standards on health education...

If all they do is bore them to death and lock them up for several hours each day, that is how they will be perceived: as they are.

And yet, if they do not act like this, but instead are trying to honestly educate children and said children are simply presupposing an entirely biased opinion?

Attitudes don't behave like viruses as you suggest.

Monkey see, monkey do?

We naturally follow the example, both in behaviour and in attitude, of those we hold in high regard. I am not proposing a virus-like virulent peer-to-peer on-contact spread, but rather that peer-pressure and the attitudes of our parents and older siblings affect us.

Attitudes form as responses to one's environment.

And as a response of ones upbringing.

If a school environment is regimented and authoritarian, students will learn to behave like good prisoners.

And I've yet to see any example of a regimented school - except in military of course.

And if their parents and older siblings keep telling them that the school is authoritarian, of course they will begin to believe it if its repeated often enough. And in my experience the schools are only as authorative as required to fulfill their required purpose, instead preferring to spend energy on said purpose: teaching.

School is not voluntary.

And the student never had the freedom of choice to go there or not. That choice was made by their parents.

A desk job is. Also, here's a fun fact: many desk jobs don't require you to be at the desk the whole time as long as you perform the tasks that the job entails.

And no school I know required the student to stay indoors the whole time, there are recesses. But both are still confined to a set space: one to school grounds, the other to factory, or office building or construction site or whatnot.

The desk is there to help perform the task, not as any kind of confinement device.

Funny, so are school desks.

Actually, many jobs do not restrict freedoms. Many jobs do not require one to stay anywhere for any amount of time, and many do not have a person of a 'higher' position to give respect to.

Yes, many do not. And yet, a great many do. Perhaps this disparity has something to do with the fact that once out of school you are expected to be mature enough to make some decisions for yourself, while at school (specially during lower years) you are not expected to posees the necessary knowledge and maturity to make such choices. Going so far as to legally remove that choice from you until you are of age.

Jobs are not, in fact, necessary.

I'd like you to explain that to my professor of economical studies... He might be quite interested.

As well as my father, seeing as he has yet to win a few million in a lottery...

It is not necessary for a person to be employed by some 'higher' person.

It is, in a modern society. Because not everyone, not even most, can run their own business or be self-employed. The system of being employed to someone else is the only way western civilization can produce nearly enough to meet the demands of lifestyle and allow for the technological march that we currently enjoy.

That is why it is folly to train everyone to be a perfect little subordinate.

Who said anything about training them to be little subordinates?

I only hold that when rules are set, if one continually disregards those rules then a punishment should follow. In schools, this sohuld be accompanied by an explanation of what they did wring and why they are punished. How you jump from this to training little mindless drones is quite frankly mind-baffling.

Education should be designed to teach people ways to profitably make decisions and research and judge facts.

It also should teach them some of those facts. How profitability is linked to general education I can't quite frankly see, I see it is the job of the parents to teach responsible monetary care to children. The school is there to give facts and teach methods for finding and verifying more of those facts. That's it.

It should not be designed to teach people only to follow standard procedure without understanding or indeed caring about the propriety of that procedure.

I agree. But it also should not teach people that completely ignoring that process is the answer if one does not like it.

EDIT: As for what makes a prison? "Prison:noun, a building for the confinement of criminals or those awaiting trial." (COED 11th ed.)

Treat students like criminals and you have yourself a perfect match. That is what is happening in this case.

And yet I cannot see them being stripped of all of their posessions upon entering the school, being used for labour, confined to a room for the entire night, being exposed to a dangerous sub-culture, forced to reactal searches upon even a hint of a suspicion of carrying drugs or spending 24/7 within its walls.

Nothing about restricting freedoms there.

"confinement of"

You should probably just pretend you didn't say that.

I'm sorry, I thought you ment physical confinement to a specific area when you said "the degree to which rules restrict freedom and not being allowed to leave." and ment freedoms like healthcare, universal human rights and so forth with 'freedoms'.

If you didn't mean that, then your entire definition for a prison is 'not being allowed to leave'. And if you did mean it, then my point still stands: Schools do not limit your freedoms regarding healthcare, they actually provide education, they do not limit your freedoms as a human being, they do not limit your rights to clean water or equality.

 

[RN7]

fucking education systems with their health bullshit. If they want to eat something that will eventually kill them in high amounts, let them be. Keep your fucking nose out of it.

 

[Amnestic]

fucking education systems with their health bullshit. If they want to eat something that will eventually kill them in high amounts, let them be. Keep your fucking nose out of it.

Your statement assumes the children understand the possible long-term repercussions of their actions.

I find such an implication amusing.

 

[RN7]

fucking education systems with their health bullshit. If they want to eat something that will eventually kill them in high amounts, let them be. Keep your fucking nose out of it.

Your statement assumes the children understand the possible long-term repercussions of their actions.

I find such an implication amusing.

That's what's so deliciously ironic about it. They don't know they're slowly committing suicide, one. chip. at. a. time.

But on a more serious note, schools should educate children on this, but not automatically restrict junk food.

 

[DarkPanda XIII]

Well, if there was no machine (I didn't read everyone's replies, sorry :<) for thee children, then that's the next best thing, right?

 

[JaredXE]

While it is totally within the rights of the school to decide what food they serve and what they stock in their vending machines, I do believe little Timmy was wrongfully punished because as he is not an employee of the school, he doesn't have to follow those rules.

Hey, if the parents don't want their kids to buy that stuff, then stop giving the kids money to bring to school. Or only enough to cover their school lunch. That way, if the crisps are as marked up as you say, the kids have to decide between a bag or two, or a full meal.

 

[Scrat01]

I'm just saying. I mean, really this is the worse thing that can happen? Selling 'crisps' is the worse a kid can do?