Chewing gum in class? That'll be detention AND a fine

Should schools be able to charge fines for misbehavior?


  • Total voters
    69
The kids are already being punished enough by being required to go to these temporary youth detention facilities.
 
The kids are already being punished enough by being required to go to these temporary youth detention facilities.

Yessir.

I hate how people try to justify this absurd draconian nonsense on children. Young people are supposed to have confidence instilled in them that they can do what they set their mind to. I have a hard time believing that disciplinarian fuddy-duddies who wish to fine children for chewing gum or not sitting up straight are going to accomplish this. This will only teach them (however accurate it may be) to see the world as run by unimaginative squares with a chip on their shoulder.
 
Yessir.

I hate how people try to justify this absurd draconian nonsense on children. Young people are supposed to have confidence instilled in them that they can do what they set their mind to. I have a hard time believing that disciplinarian fuddy-duddies who wish to fine children for chewing gum or not sitting up straight are going to accomplish this. This will only teach them (however accurate it may be) to see the world as run by unimaginative squares with a chip on their shoulder.

I am not saying I agree with you, but your post just screams for this song as a backdrop. Saying basically the same thing...


Link to video.
 
Maybe in Canadian classrooms you can't, or you lack the skillz. In here, at least half of the class is stealth-chewing and maybe 1 or 2 are caught during the whole day. Then they are ordered to spit it out into the trashbin and when they return to their seat, ta-daa, new one.

Sounds like your teachers are pretty bad.
 
When I was working at a school - my first civilian job, so I was understandably a bit of a fish out of water even if I was wearing green much of the time - I was taken under the wing of one of the very experienced science teachers, who essentially taught me everything I know about the fine points of working with children and young people. He had a practise of informing his classes that he was allowed by law to keep them 15 minutes after school for a detention. At one point, a student said 'but sir, I take a bus home, so I'd have to stay longer if you gave me a detention, which would be against the law' - to which he said that he would give the lad a lift home. And he did! Woe betide anyone who missed his detentions - he's the nicest man around but terrified the kids on the rare occasions that he was angry.

Why didn't that kid try to get detention everyday? would have saved a bundle in busfare.
 
School buses are free for students anyway.

We don't have special school buses (Well not where I live) in England, kids get on the bus with everyone else, it is cheaper for kids though.
 
We don't have special school buses (Well not where I live) in England, kids get on the bus with everyone else, it is cheaper for kids though.

They often get free bus passes - exactly the same one that I now have for my age, ironically!

Young people are supposed to have confidence instilled in them that they can do what they set their mind to.

There's a line between that and deluding them and bringing them up arrogant - ever see Death of a Salesman?
 
Cheap babysitting - parents should be happy.

Also school is merely a means of keeping teenage boys off of the street during the day, you're deluding yourselves if you think otherwise. This extended babysitting service is entirely beneficial, with no negative consequences whatsoever.

There's a line between that and deluding them and bringing them up arrogant - ever see Death of a Salesman?

You mean read death of a salesman I hope - modern day renditions probably cut out anything they deem "un-American".

As for the screen play: it is about a man who was tricked by the American elite into slaving for them in the fruitless pursuit of wealth and status. Little did he know that nepotism is the only true path to advancement. He kills himself at the end, due him believing that the bankers would honour his life insurance - but alas he was mistaken.
 
You mean read death of a salesman I hope - modern day renditions probably cut out anything they deem "un-American".

It's definitely first and foremost a play, and the one I saw over here didn't (the whole damned play is un-American!) - the point was that the son's life is essentially ruined because his father brought him up to believe that he was the best thing since sliced bread, which effectively made him unable to work under anybody or take anyone's orders.
 
It's definitely first and foremost a play, and the one I saw over here didn't (the whole damned play is un-American!) - the point was that the son's life is essentially ruined because his father brought him up to believe that he was the best thing since sliced bread, which effectively made him unable to work under anybody or take anyone's orders.

This is just wrong. The "play" is about Biff rejecting his father's (Willy's) vision of what a "successful" man is.

Willy believes that a successful man is someone who is rich and popular (a dream he thinks can be reached by being a salesman). He is so fixated on this ideal that he's completely oblivious to how awful a salesman he is. Nevertheless, he lies to himself and his family, convincing them that he's a great salesman. His two sons both look up to him and strive to emulate him. Eventually his elder son, Biff, has a crisis and realises that his father was BSing him all along. He's unsure of what to do - on the one hand he knows that the path his father has set him on is a lie, but on the other hand he doesn't want to earn his fathers ire, as that would sever his connection to his mother and break his family apart. The story is about Biff's struggle over what to do - reject his fathers poor advice and make his own way in the world, or accept the advice and doom him to the same kind of life as his unsuccessful father.

There's nothing at all about Biff being "unable to work under others". Biff works on a farm - a job which he both enjoys and is capable at. It's only the situations that his father pushes him into that he finds hard to adapt to - and that's simply because Biff isn't cut out for them. The moral you should take away from the play is that you shouldn't base your career choice around some ideal vision of success you have - you should base it on the reality of what you enjoy, what you're good at, etc.

The fact that you didn't know this stuff tells me that the "play" you saw cut out anything remotely anti-American. Modern American media is known for inserting patriotic jingoism into everything they touch.
 
The kids are already being punished enough by being required to go to these temporary youth detention facilities.

Yessir.

I hate how people try to justify this absurd draconian nonsense on children. .

Absolutely. We need to remind these "children" (so-called) that they're just as expendable as every other prole, and that they need to get back to work.

:lol::lol: I'm sorry your teachers were boring.

It isn't hard to justify this...this method of discipline, when applied correctly, doesn't stifle creativity or cause kids to live in fear. These schools are actually freer and safer, because neither students nor teachers have to worry about major discipline problems. There are very few fights at the Nobel schools, and classroom disruptions are minimal, compared to the CPS schools with the same populations.

You can hug kids and tell them they're special all they want...but if you're in 9th grade and you read at a 4th grade level, you need drastic action.
 
Absolutely. We need to remind these "children" (so-called) that they're just as expendable as every other prole, and that they need to get back to work.

Good job putting words into my mouth there without even bothering to address the article... or at least the point I was getting at.

You might be shocked to learn that I agree with your desired outcome while disagreeing with you on the methods for getting there. There is an absolute necessity for free thinking citizens if we want our society to continue on in a form at least somewhat recognizable to how it is now.

You can put quotes around the word "children" all you want. But children are not born with fully formed minds. Critical thinking does not just happen spontaneously- you have to exercise your brain to get there.

But instead of raising children up to where they can become free thinking adults we don't demand anything from them. We tell them that they are special and lul them into a state of perpetual self-centered immaturity where they don't have to ever really engage their brain. And just like that you have a person who is enslaved by their own mediocrity and narcissism and doesn't even know it.
 
While I like the idea of holding back children due to disciplinary issues, I'm not sold on the fees thing. It's not like the children understand the economics, etc. of this, so it's really aimed more at the parents and as an alternative source of revenue for the schools.

So I should pick the not-sure option, but I wanted to be the first to say it would hurt Obama politically. :)

And this is precisely why I support it. This kind of thing should be aimed at the parents. If so, then maybe it will get parents to wake up and actually be parents again, instead of expecting the schools to instill morality into children. A school's job is to educate our children, not teach them right from wrong. That is a parent's job, and if the child misbehaves in school, then clearly the parents have failed and should be held accoutable.
 
I would understand these measurements, but only for drastic measures. Charging a student, or honestly just giving a detention, for something as minor as chewing gum or not sitting up straight is overkill. If the teacher has to correct a student every day of every week after a while something should be done, but I feel that a first time occurence should be treated leniently. I would not mind fines for some major offences, but for most things mentioned here, it's uncalled for.
 
I would understand these measurements, but only for drastic measures. Charging a student, or honestly just giving a detention, for something as minor as chewing gum or not sitting up straight is overkill. If the teacher has to correct a student every day of every week after a while something should be done, but I feel that a first time occurence should be treated leniently. I would not mind fines for some major offences, but for most things mentioned here, it's uncalled for.

First time offenses are treated leniently. A child has to misbehave 4 times in a two week period before they incur a detention with a $5 fee. So this means warnings for the first 3 offenses before any punishment.
 
First time offenses are treated leniently. A child has to misbehave 4 times in a two week period before they incur a detention with a $5 fee. So this means warnings for the first 3 offenses before any punishment.

Well... I can't exactly sit up straight without pain, at least not for more than a few minutes at a time. So if 4 different teachers got after me for that within a few days, that would be $5 there.
 
Back
Top Bottom