|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
CentralCali
Joined: 17 May 2007
|
 Posted: Sun Dec 02, 2012 6:57 am Post subject: |
 |
|
Look, it's quite simple. My statement is that I do not care what justification the abusive teacher may have thought he had. I don't care what justification you may think he had. The simple fact of the matter is that the teacher is the adult. There is no excuse for him to do what he did. Your "excuses" for his behavior sure look like justification for it. Justification = acceptability for most people I've encountered. There is simply no excuse for the man's behavior. He abused the children.
As for the children, wow, they teased a grown man. They even swatted his legs. Big deal. There are ways to discipline them for that misbehavior that do not include clobbering them. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
John Stamos jr.
Joined: 07 Oct 2012
Location: Namsan
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 02, 2012 7:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
Ridiculous discussion. So much revolving around "control"... "kneeling down"... "punishment"... "respect"... etc. Those are dirty words... and dirty stuff is likely lurking in the subconscious. Better realize it...
Adults shouldn't be hitting kids, especially if they aren't their own kids. Hitting kids with sticks, spanking them, trying to create a situation of control, respect, dominance or what have you... instead of trying to actually work with them on whatever problems they may be having, trying to understand them and not acting on your inner kid impulses yourself by essentially being a bully towards children you dislike... come on, it's simply not going to work the way you want or expect it to. And, your behavior will likely backfire and create more problems in the future. Little Kim is gonna be into some BDSM... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nautilus
Joined: 26 Nov 2005
Location: Je jump, Tu jump, oui jump!
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 02, 2012 8:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
| John Stamos jr. wrote: |
| trying to create a situation of control, respect |
Yes ...its terrible that a teacher would try such a thing.
| Quote: |
| instead of trying to actually work with them on whatever problems they may be having |
Why don't you become a counsellor if thats what interests you?
Look...teachers are here to impart knowledge. To teach subjects. Thats it. Certainly in an esl setting we don't get paid enough or even get the time to be counsellors, parents and psychotherapists on top. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John Stamos jr.
Joined: 07 Oct 2012
Location: Namsan
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 02, 2012 8:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
| nautilus wrote: |
| John Stamos jr. wrote: |
| trying to create a situation of control, respect |
Yes ...its terrible that a teacher would try such a thing. |
I usually agree with you... but, I believe I began that sentence with a capital letter.
| Quote: |
| Why don't you become a counsellor if thats what interests you? |
Also, believe I ended the second one you quoted with a period. It can work both ways. And, often in both your and their favor. You're a hardliner on this issue, fine, but didn't you say you grew up in a CP environment? You can find common ground with children of any age without physically abusing them. It may be difficult for certain people, but I still don't see any justification for hitting kids. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tremault
Joined: 25 Sep 2012
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 02, 2012 9:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
| nautilus wrote: |
The caning was only carried out by the headmaster, not individual teachers. So there had to be an ordered process that ocurred before it took place.
In addition there was generally great respect for adults among the children. (Yeah, my school was not in the US or UK lol).
|
if this kind of system were in place then I would have to say it is sensible and according to the society's rules. I can't really argue against it because it is organised and controlled and most certainly does not result in teachers who think they have the authority to use violent oppression.
| nautilus wrote: |
Better tell that to the police, security guards, soldiers, all the countries currently engaged in wars.
|
in my own country there was recently an investigation into an incident where the police forced a man to the ground and he consequently died. the man was not an instigator of violence and was simply in the wrong place at the wrong time. there is much concern in my society over police brutality and has been one of the founding reasons for some riots that have taken place in London. in short, I don't think police are supposed to use violence to solve issues, physical restraint is necessary at times, but beating somebody with a truncheon or riot shield is not really the answer. wars are different. but even then there are rules of warfare to keep from unnecessary killing or injury.
| nautilus wrote: |
In real life U C there are physical consequences for antisocial behaviour. Either jail time or someone will smash your face in. Isn't it better to prepare kids for the reality of life rather than allow their worst excesses to mushroom?
|
jail sounds reasonable to me. many criminals are taken away from society not only for the safety of society but for their own safety too. in the UK judicial system, I am certain there are no floggings or hangings or any kind of physical punishment for crimes. I'm not sure about the system elsewhere... but some statistics suggested that the states in the US that held the death penalty, had a higher proportion of crimes that would result in the death penalty. not sure what to make of that but I'll just leave it there for people to think about.
| Quote: |
No it was abolished by a very close vote I believe, something like 51% for, 49% against. Not the universal condemnation that some on here pretend.
|
I wasn't aware of that. it seems there is a large difference of opinion and maybe this is more than a teaching issue, it may be a larger societal issue on similar ideals such as capital punishment.
| Quote: |
So teaching = childcare? daycare?
That is a recent interpretation, not the traditional one. Traditionally speaking it is the parents who are responsible for such intimate emotional care.
This might surprise you but the teachers job is..to teach! Yeah. Teach subjects, without unecessary disruption.
Not to be a bouncer, best friend, big brother, coach, psychotherapist, punchbag, surrogate parent, target of violence or frustration, emotional therapist....or any other of the definitions you seem to think. |
the last time i checked, the parents are not present in the classroom. the children are being cared for by the teacher. this does not necessarily mean buying clothes or feeding them etc. but the responsibility of care is right there with the fact the teacher is the only responsible adult supervisor at that moment. the idea that a teacher must teach and nothing else, this is a very short sighted view and might suggest that a teacher could be replaced by a book or a computer screen.
I appreciate your well reasoned post, I can understand the points you bring up but i think this is starting to show a wider issue in human society. I think we are touching on wider issues of human domination vs liberty. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tremault
Joined: 25 Sep 2012
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 02, 2012 9:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
| alongway wrote: |
It does. While I wouldn't suggest teachers go out and start a fight with a student (child is a misnomer at older ages), should the teacher simply stand there and let the student beat them? Does that garner respect in their classroom?
Teacher is trying to discipline the student
student decides they aren't having any of it, smacks the teacher,
teacher just takes it
Yeah, I can see the rest of the students really falling in line behind the teacher after that.
From the video it does look like they were pushing back and forth and she slapped/punched him in the side of the head first, then he went off.
Could you imagine the level of discipline in the class if he'd just walked away after she smacked him in the side of the face like that? It was lose lose for him at that point. He hits her and he's fired, he takes it and walks away after getting beat by a young girl and can never teach again because no student would take him seriously. |
teacher running away scared with his tail inbetween his legs and then coming meekly back at a later time and asking if it is ok to teach them... that would garner the respect of nobody. but why does it have to be that way? why does it have to be black and white?
if such an extreme situation were to arise then there is a real problem and the teacher has a responsibility to solve this problem that has arisen in his job. regardless of whether anyone thinks a teacher ought to be responsible for x,y and z... if an obstacle exists in a persons profession then that person is responsible for solving it.
like a binman. if a cat is sitting on your bin, then maybe the bin man is within his rights to claim that he doesn't have to deal with your bin because he isn't an animal handler.... sorry, that was addressing some other people there, I'll get back on track.
if the student hits the teacher, then the teacher has lots of choices, not just 2.
the teacher could remain in the situation and restrain the student. if that is not possible, attempt to calmly remove the student from the situation.
if that is not possible then try to remove the teacher from the situation. this is not 'running away', this is strategic withdrawal.
a strategic withdrawal is enacted in order to regroup and strategise. consequences may come later. these consequences could take many many forms. removal of privileges etc. i mean, what do you think the students would think if all their desks were removed for the next class? and their seats? there are many many things a teacher can do and be creative with. but most important, the students DO need to realise that there are consequences for their behaviour. but consequences need to be done calmly, and violent retaliation in the moment is not calm and not constructive. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Seoulman69
Joined: 14 Dec 2009
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 02, 2012 8:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| a strategic withdrawal is enacted in order to regroup and strategise. consequences may come later. these consequences could take many many forms. removal of privileges etc. i mean, what do you think the students would think if all their desks were removed for the next class? and their seats? |
So all of the students have their desks and seats removed? That makes no sense. Why does my daughter have no desk or seat because someone else is misbehaving in class? I think the students would think that it's a stupid move. Why are they being punished?
I've read a lot about students having rights. What about the rest of the students right to a decent education? If a student is constantly disrupting a class they need to be punished. The trouble with people these days is they think the world owes them a good life. "What about my rights?" You loose your rights when you break the rules.
The UK and USA are in a worse state now than when CP was being used. The removal of CP is a small part of a society crumbling under the influence of liberalism. The rod has been spared for far too long and now we are reaping a generation of truly spoiled children. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tremault
Joined: 25 Sep 2012
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 02, 2012 9:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Seoulman69 wrote: |
So all of the students have their desks and seats removed? That makes no sense. Why does my daughter have no desk or seat because someone else is misbehaving in class? I think the students would think that it's a stupid move. Why are they being punished?
I've read a lot about students having rights. What about the rest of the students right to a decent education? If a student is constantly disrupting a class they need to be punished. The trouble with people these days is they think the world owes them a good life. "What about my rights?" You loose your rights when you break the rules.
The UK and USA are in a worse state now than when CP was being used. The removal of CP is a small part of a society crumbling under the influence of liberalism. The rod has been spared for far too long and now we are reaping a generation of truly spoiled children. |
the tables and chairs thing was merely a quick example of the kinds of things that could be done. I was demonstrating that a teacher can use creative means to instil the idea of consequences for actions. of course the example I gave would be most suitable when the entire class is getting completely out of hand. I thought that was kind of obvious.
if one student was making a noise and wouldn't shut up, I would instruct the entire class to listen to that student and we can make comments on it. we can base the entire lesson on what that student is doing or saying. the intention would be to make that student feel uncomfortable while at the same time, providing a learning exercise. I'm just giving some ideas here, to make a point.
by the way, if you think liberalism is so bad, then just remember it is liberalism that allows us to choose our own careers to begin with. if liberalism didn't exist do you think you could be a teacher in south Korea?
also, liberalism is not the cause of societal problems. I was brought up with a pretty much hands-off strategy. to put it another way, my parents didn't give a crap about what i did. I didn't grow up as a delinquent. I was respected as one of the most well balanced of the class, asked many times for assistance in difficult tasks and welcomed into most tiers of the caste system you usually find in schools. I never gave the teachers any trouble and was quite friendly with some of the 'cooler' ones. ( you know the ones who would let you listen to music)
this is the result of a liberal upbringing. CP had nothing to do with how i turned out. so let's not pretend it is the only way to attain a peaceful society. there are a lot of other issues at play. it has been suggested that the kids who cause trouble these days are the victims of an oppressive or abusive household. that household becoming abusive as a knock on effect of childhood trauma of the parents. some of which could have been due to improper or excessive CP among other things. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CentralCali
Joined: 17 May 2007
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 02, 2012 9:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Evidently, Seoulman is completely unaware that the US does not have "an education system". That particular country has a fair number of different education sytems, some of which, by the way, legally employ corporal punishment.
Said poster is also apparently unaware that rights are not something one earns. Privileges are earned, rights are inherent (in legal theory, at least). Even the worst-behaving student has a right to an education. The key thing, though, is that if that student is going to misbehave in a violent, dangerous, or illegal fashion, then his education will be provided somewhere else, not in the regular schools.
All of that being said, I do agree that it's wrong to remove the chairs and desks. My objections are two-fold: 1) Group punishment doesn't actually work--it never worked when I was part of a group being punished for someone else's mistake--it just creates more resentment; and 2) there's no way the class would be manageable after the removal of the classroom furniture, it would be a complete free-for-all. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Seoulman69
Joined: 14 Dec 2009
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 02, 2012 10:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
Evidently, Seoulman is completely unaware that the US does not have "an education system". That particular country has a fair number of different education sytems, some of which, by the way, legally employ corporal punishment.
Said poster is also apparently unaware that rights are not something one earns. |
This is exactly what I'm talking about. Ridiculing people who are not US focused. I'll admit my interest in the US educations systems is minimal. It's not exactly the benchmark, is it? But even so, dismissing people over semantics because it doesn't suit your point of view is pretty pathetic.
And this attitude that people have god given rights. Rights should be dependent upon obeying the rules. Rights should be earned but nowadays people prefer to think the world owes them. I have the right to education. Bullshit. Your education is should be dependent on you obeying the rules, not some birth right. I think the self entitlement that people have these days is disgusting. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CentralCali
Joined: 17 May 2007
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 03, 2012 1:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Seoulman69 wrote: |
| This is exactly what I'm talking about. Ridiculing people who are not US focused. |
Actually, I wasn't ridiculing your comment. I was being dismissive of it.
| Quote: |
| I'll admit my interest in the US educations systems is minimal. |
Then you admit your comment was made out of ignorance?
| Quote: |
| It's not exactly the benchmark, is it? |
Actually, it is. There are quite a number of very good public schools. There are also many good private schools. The same is true of the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, Ireland, and many other countries.
| Quote: |
| But even so, dismissing people over semantics because it doesn't suit your point of view is pretty pathetic. |
Semantics? "Right" does not mean "earned privilege".
| Quote: |
| And this attitude that people have god given rights. Rights should be dependent upon obeying the rules. Rights should be earned but nowadays people prefer to think the world owes them. |
"The world owes me" is not the expression of someone asserting their rights. That would be the expression of a spoiled individual who confuses rights with earned privileges. An earned entitlement is not a right, it's merely an earned privilege.
| Quote: |
| I have the right to education. Bullshit. |
In my country, at least, the Supreme Court has declared that every child has a right to an education. Your opinion, regardless of how it's formed, is irrelevant to the fact of the matter in the US: there is a right to an education. Again, one does not have to earn a right. Your opinion is also irrelvant to the issue of the right to education in South Korea--see below.
| Quote: |
| Your education is should be dependent on you obeying the rules, not some birth right. |
I agree that the place and manner of a child's education is dependent upon that child adhering to society's rules. But to completely deny an education to the child is wrong and, as noted above, my country's Supreme Court has already weighed in on that issue.
| Quote: |
| I think the self entitlement that people have these days is disgusting. |
I also think the self-entitlement some people show today is disgusting. But asserting one's rights is not an issue of self-entitlement; it's an issue of law.
Just for fun, I decided to do a quick search of "right to education" and I got a pretty interesting hit for the Wiki. Here is that page for your reading pleasure. If you find the right to education so disgusting, perhaps you should agitate for legislation or constitutional amendment (whichever it takes in your country) to specifically state that there is no such right. Good luck with that, though.
As the issue in this thread began with a teacher in South Korea abusing a student, perhaps (PDF link follows) Article 31 of the Constution of the Republic of Korea will be of interest:
| Quote: |
(1) All citizens shall have an equal right to an education corresponding to their abilities.
(2) All citizens who have children to support shall be responsible at least for their elementary education and other education as provided by Act.
(3) Compulsory education shall be free of charge.
(4) Independence, professionalism and political impartiality of education and the autonomy of institutions of higher learning shall be guaranteed under the conditions as prescribed by Act.
(5) The State shall promote lifelong education .
(6) Fundamental matters pertaining to the educational system, including in-school and lifelong education, administration, finance, and the status of teachers shall be determined by Act. |
Seems to me that in South Korea, the child who was being physically abused by her teacher in the articles and videos provided in this thread has the right to a free education. Her country's Constitution specifically states that. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Seoulman69
Joined: 14 Dec 2009
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 03, 2012 1:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
Actually, I wasn't ridiculing your comment. I was being dismissive of it.
Quote:
I'll admit my interest in the US educations systems is minimal.
Then you admit your comment was made out of ignorance?
Quote:
It's not exactly the benchmark, is it?
Actually, it is. There are quite a number of very good public schools. There are also many good private schools. The same is true of the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, Ireland, and many other countries. |
Which country uses the USA school system (yes I said it again) as a benchmark? You're preaching the gospel of a sinking ship.
| Quote: |
| I agree that the place and manner of a child's education is dependent upon that child adhering to society's rules. But to completely deny an education to the child is wrong and, as noted above, my country's Supreme Court has already weighed in on that issue. |
Where is the Supreme court again? America? Could it be that perhaps American should rethink its stance on education? I'm glad you agree that children receiving an education should adhere to the rules. When the students don't they should be barred from school. It can then be the parents duty to educate them. They still have the right to an education, it's just the state will no longer be responsible for it.
I'm sick of people spouting off about their rights and making everyone else suffer due to their irresponsible attitudes. I'm also sick of the enablers who allow the abuse to continue.
This is another thread that could continue indefinitely. I've stated my point of view so I will leave this thread. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CentralCali
Joined: 17 May 2007
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 03, 2012 2:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Seoulman69 wrote: |
| Which country uses the USA school system (yes I said it again) as a benchmark? |
Those who are not reading comprehension impaired will readily notice that I was obviously referring to the good schools, not the entire nation.
| Quote: |
| You're preaching the gospel of a sinking ship. |
No, I'm actually not. But you can feel free to pretend that no other school district in the world studies or even copies the good stuff from certain American schools. After all, that'll fit your broad-brush quite well, won't it?
| Quote: |
| Where is the Supreme court again? America? |
Since you trotted out the American schools, I felt mentioning what the American Supreme Court had to say on the issue of a right to education is on point for said right in said schools. If you don't want to discuss those schools, don't bring them up.
| Quote: |
| Could it be that perhaps American should rethink its stance on education? |
That's quite a large issue and has a diverse range of informed opinions on how to go about it. Again, you show your ignorance of the matter you brought up.
| Quote: |
| I'm glad you agree that children receiving an education should adhere to the rules. |
I have never said that anyone should not adhere to the rules. To the contrary, I've been pretty vocal on these boards that members of a society should adhere to society's rules.
| Quote: |
| When the students don't they should be barred from school. |
No. Such students should be barred from that school. They should be educated in a suitable facility. If that facility is "juvenile hall" (jail for minors), then so be it.
| Quote: |
| It can then be the parents duty to educate them. |
And if the parents are not able to educate the student, what then? It is the State's responsibility to provide an education. It's the parents' responsibility to not prevent such education. The parents also have the right to put their child in a private school provided that private school meets the State's standards for educating children.
| Quote: |
| They still have the right to an education, it's just the state will no longer be responsible for it. |
Except for that whole thing about the State itself is already resonsible for it. But feel free to agitate for reform of those laws/constitutional provisions/charter of rights articles that state that. I don't think you'll have much luck with it, but you have the right to try. Or do you have to do something special to earn that privilege, in your opinion?
| Quote: |
| I'm sick of people spouting off about their rights and making everyone else suffer due to their irresponsible attitudes. I'm also sick of the enablers who allow the abuse to continue. |
Perhaps your viewing it in a manner not conducive to seeing what's really at hand. How is everyone else suffering when a Korean teacher does not beat the living crud out of an 11-year old girl for not treating him as Heaven's gift to education? How is not walloping a kid in school abuse?
| Quote: |
| This is another thread that could continue indefinitely. I've stated my point of view so I will leave this thread. |
Well, enjoy. One might hope that you read this response. Personally, I don't care if you do or don't. I hope others who may share your (in my opinion, incredibly ill-informed and mistaken) attitude will read this post. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mr. BlackCat
Joined: 30 Nov 2005
Location: Insert witty remark HERE
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 03, 2012 4:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
I'm not sure where I stand on the argument of corporal punishment (probably closer to the do not use side, though) but I think bashing one side of the coin with insults does nothing. It's a legitimate debate, and labeling it as the infantile urge for an adult to beat a child is akin to calling those who get abortions 'baby murderers'. It's much more complex than that.
We're all fooling each other by believing that we can sit down with an 8 year old and have a reasonable discussion about their behaviour and ultimately have them see the errors of their ways. The fact is, kids lack the capacity for high logic. A friend of mine had a kid who always ran into the street, and even after explaining several times the dangers of doing so, the girl continued to do it. Finally, she did what she vowed never to do and spanked the little one, not out of anger but as a last resort. Her daughter never ran into the road again. Sometimes you have to make the consequences worse than the offence if the child can't understand the possible terrible inevitabilities if they don't listen. It's hard for a kid to think abstractly and realize there may be a car, and that car may strike them, and there's this thing called 'death' that's very serious and very permanent. To extrapolate, sometimes the kid can't understand that developing terrible social skills will be a detriment to their futures. Try to hit a grown man in a parking lot when he takes your space because you're a princess who has never been challenged and see what happens then. Or try to whine and cry when the boss tells you to work late. Growing up believing the world owes you something and there are no consequences is just as severe of child abuse as not preparing them to deal with the real world.
Basically, the same argument that states that children are too young to understand their actions can be applied to children being too young to understand the consequences of their actions. Many times other methods can bridge this gap, but perhaps sometimes a quick immediate reaction will provide enough convincing that they will correct it. Both sides tend to exaggerate the other. Corporal punishers will beat any child that looks at them sideways while anti-spankers will have new-age yoga meditations with a toddler. There's a middle ground, and pretending there isn't helps no one.
As I said, it's a complicated issue. But to completely dismiss one side because it sounds outdated is uncalled for. No, children aren't animals but they're not fully functioning adults either. It's a matter of biology. To treat them as either is a fool's errand. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CentralCali
Joined: 17 May 2007
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 03, 2012 5:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Mr. BlackCat wrote: |
| We're all fooling each other by believing that we can sit down with an 8 year old and have a reasonable discussion about their behaviour and ultimately have them see the errors of their ways. |
There may well be a minority, a very small minority who advocate reasoning with the infant, toddler, or 8-year old; however, that is not what opponents of corporal punishment generally advocate: "Sit down and reason with an 8-year old." Your statement is simply an inaccurate description of the issue. There are disciplinarey measures which involve neither corporal punishment nor "reasoning with the 8-year old." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
