One is that the teachers have been stripped off all powers. Just today I was reading some article from hacker news where the teacher was complaining that all kids from the latest freshman year gave her/him the finger when they were asked to show their hall pass.
Other side of the argument is that if teachers are empowered, then it is documented sufficiently that some teachers (not all) absolutely abuse their power and exploit/harm kids in even worse ways.
I dont know whats the solution. I hope I come out more wise from someones comment here.
If my hunch that bullies are products of abuse or otherwise need psychological help is true then trying to identify and help bullies and their victims could help.
Like in every similar position (e.g. sports trainers, preachers, band leaders, ...) teachers are both powerless and powerful at the same time. If the student has respect for them/their role the power can be real, if we are talking about students who question the rules (and have parents that don't care/actively support the breaking of them) teachers are powerless.
Is a babysitter powerful? Towards an adult no, towards the child yes. Towards a certain type of child, no.
And "dealing with it" can make the students situation worse in some cases
They are also completely unable to deal with stuff like dyslexia, ADHD, or other mental issues - meanwhile we have a push for "inclusive schooling"...
Ever seen a kid clearly bully another kid, like call him names then push him down and the teacher comes over and says 'cut it out you two, now get up and shake hands'.
When I saw that (not long after it was released) I thought how well that captured the spirit of many school interactions, where bullies would blame their victim and the teachers would fall for it.
No bullying was necessary.
I lacked experience in coping with the resulting intense emotions and didn't trust any adults enough to talk about it.
I do agree that bullying is probably the worst culprit.
I'd still support it, because with video evidence there is no they said vs they said. There is just the truth.
There's also no more wiggle room for mistakes or minor deviance. Policies that normalize and enforce non-punishment for non-serious offenses must also be put in place to prevent the abuses of that system.
How about exactly and only that? You go to school, sit in your assigned stall for the day isolated from all other stalls by a locking mechanism, and assigned to lunch periods according to your history and the other kids histories.
(Sounds a lot like administrative segregation in a prison…)
Infact, social media (which has a lot to do with cameras and technology) is often a factor in alienation and bullying.
So I agree, cameras everywhere is not a viable solution. After all, someone would need to view and review those videos! And then what? Punish the bullies, leading them deeper into conflict with the school system?
Read more about it on the web. Zero tolerance is something management / administration created to not have to do their job. The world is nuanced and each case has to be judged on its own merit. I do not support slapping a zero tolerance "policy" (not really a policy, more like a copout).
> Cameras - everywhere - except individual, single occupancy enforced, stalls.
Will you place an actual human outside each such stall to guarantee there is ever only one person inside?
The problem with bullying is not just that someone can beat you up, but that if you try to complain, the bully can say "actually, he attacked me" or "no, we were just playing" or something like that, and the teacher will be like "wtf, I have no idea what actually happened, so just shake hands and be friends again, okay?" And you know you get beaten up tomorrow again. What an improvement it would be to have a place where, if you get beaten up, at least the camera will record that you were the victim.
Bingo.
There's a lot of dubious research that shows that the quality of education is not related to the student-to-teacher ratio. It flies against common sense, but people in power like to give it credence, since it's budget-friendly. The funny thing is that education budgets in the US are already very large. I don't know how the money is spent, but it's not spent on lowering that ratio.
If people need a proof that fewer students per teacher result in better outcomes, they just need to compare public and private schools.
Even deeper bingo.
In the first order, it's absurd how much better you can make your performance at a task look if you get to not count the times you dropped the hard cases.
For a second-order effect, the students who cause problems degrade the educational effectiveness of the entire classroom, so eliminating them improves performance for the rest of the students.
Unfortunately (for public schools re. their comparisons to private schools), our society demands that a cursory attempt be made to provide educational opportunities for _all_ of the children.
> There could be a number of explanations for these findings. Families spending time together during a period of fear and uncertainty may have generated important mental health benefits for teenagers. Moreover, increased communication between parents and teenagers, as well as increased monitoring (both of behaviors and psychological health) may have yielded important psychological gains for teenagers. In addition, the absence of in-person schooling could have helped teenagers avoid negative peer effects of in-person bullying. Or, it may be that reductions in pressures associated with high-stakes exams, athletics, or romantic relationships may have reduced triggers for suicide ideation. In the final section of this paper, we empirically explore a few potential channels.
As someone who has gone to public school, I know the answer is bullying.
The authors were careful to point out that they do not advocate shutting down in person schooling because it can also offer positive mental health benefits. But you have to wonder, between teachers, guidance counselors, and administrators, you would think someone would notice some bullying behavior. Could it be that collectively the adults tasked with overseeing children are, understaffed, unempowered, ignorant, complicit, or do the facilitate or lead this behavior?