** Public Post **
From the Telegraph
Behaviour among schoolchildren is deteriorating as "over-indulgent" parents create a culture of disrespect, according to a study.
By Graeme Paton, Education Editor
Last Updated: 1:25PM GMT 29 Dec 2008
Some children grow up believing they are "irreproachable" because families are preoccupied with their rights rather than responsibilities, it is claimed.
Almost two thirds of teachers said behaviour among primary school pupils had worsened in recent years.
One in five face physical aggression - including hitting, kicking, spitting and destroying property - at least once a week.
Teachers said poor parenting and a "general lack of respect" for authority figures were the two main reasons for declining behaviour among five to 11-year-olds.
The findings - in a study by Channel 4's Dispatches and the NASUWT teachers' union - come just weeks after it emerged more than 4,000 children aged five and under were suspended from school last year.
In today's study, some teachers told how they were confronted by "screaming and shouting" mothers and fathers after attempting to discipline their child.
One said: "It is guaranteed that once a child is reprimanded we will have an irate parent banging on the door the next day demanding to know why and insisting that their child is not to blame."
Another told researchers: "It does come to the point where certain children get away with appalling behaviour just because we don't want the hassle of dealing with certain parents."
One teacher said most problems stemmed from "hugely over-indulged children who think they are the only person in the class".
Some 2,242 members of the NASUWT were surveyed about standards of behaviour in UK primary schools.
The results were analysed by Dr Chris Derrington, senior lecturer in education at Northampton University, for a Dispatches programme shown on Monday, January 5(NOTE: MUST LEAVE THIS IN).
Almost half of teachers said low level disruption occurred daily. This included inappropriate talking, calling out, disturbing others, children jumping out of seats and pupils having difficulty following instructions.
Two-thirds said standards had worsened over the course of their career. Teachers with more than 20 years' experience were most likely to report "significantly more challenging behaviour" now.
The study blamed increasing severity of bad behaviour among a minority of pupils - rather than deteriorating standards among all children.
Some teachers blamed a rise in the number of pupils with diagnosed behavioural problems now being educated in ordinary schools instead of special needs units.
Four in 10 said poor parenting or a lack of respect towards authority was to blame.
"Comments support a popular notion that parents and society have become over child-centred and preoccupied with 'rights' rather than responsibilities," said the report. "There is a view that some children believe they are irreproachable as a result. The two most common attributions are therefore linked as many teachers blame parents for acting as bad role models in the way they interact with teachers and other forms of authority.
"Other respondents alluded to the notion of wider, societal influences such as negative role models in the media, which were felt to fuel a culture of disrespect."
Some teachers said children started school aged five unprepared for formal education.
"Difficulty in following instructions was often linked by respondents to poor listening skills and short attention span," said the report. "Several teachers made reference to the fact that pupils in the early years arrive at school with very poor social skills."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/4014598/Indulgent-par...
Schiesser
Liberty
Et Vous
Then they wonder how are prisons got so overcrowded.
1When my oldest son was still in high school, we were friends with a family whose daughter was a cheerleader at the same school. We even went to church together. When the daughter got caught cheating and was suspended from cheering at the next game, the parents TOOK THEIR ATTORNEY to the principal's office for a little 'meeting.' Needless to say, she cheered at that game. And needless to say, that totally changed my opinion of them.
2Grandpa, they are probably already wondering why they can't get enough teachers, and why they leave the career so soon. England has a significant problem with teachers being assaulted in the classroom.
ccpdm, I hate parents like that. They completely castrate any institutional rules.
3------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money. -- Alexis de Tocqueville
Ayup - parents don't want to raise their kids but they don't want the schools to, either. (I remember when it was the schools' "responsibility" to raise the kids - and we had a fit over that way of thinking.)
4I went to high School in the '50s (no not 1850). That was the time of the rise of Teen gangs. My High school was the home of the "Saints" (to quote John Gotti, one of the toughest gangs around). None of them would even think of laying a hand on a teacher. Those were the days they would put kids into the class they were best able to handle. "O" was honors, "A" was academic (Regents)diploma track, "B" General diploma track, This was for students that were not discipline problems, but were not going for that regents diploma, and then there was the "Y" track, for those students that were just plain screw ups. If you got bounced from there you were sent to a 600 school, that was where they housed the worst delinquents. That way EVERYON got the education they wanted/deserved. Now you have all that mainstreaming Horse crap, and the education slips to the lowest common denominator in that particular class.
5ccpdm, I am so glad that I have not had to see an example such bad paranting first hand. It would have forced me to re-evaluate the friendship as well. When you see paretns act so irresponsibly it just gives a person pause as to how much you really have in common.
On the bright side, I am glad to see that over-indulgence of children is not a child rearing characteristic specific to US parents. It appears that parents really want to be their children's friends and advocates more than they want to be their parents.
6lazybones, I get a daily education e-newsletter and it has a lot of international stories in it, as well as US stuff. Personally, I keep half an eye on goings-on in England and Australia, because IMO many of their trends and ours aren't too far off.
7------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money. -- Alexis de Tocqueville
I've been saying for years that many parents are not parenting their kids. When DH was in school, if he got in trouble at school, he knew he'd get double when he got home. Now days, they do like ccpdm's former friends and bring the attorney to school. What does that teach the kid except "my little angel can never be wrong"?
8I really wonder why this change has happened. Wonder if it is because parents tend to live vicariously through their children now-a-days. So, rather than recognizing the kid needs correction they feel the need to defend themselves.
9lazybones, IMO it's a baby boomer thing.
That generation was largely indulged by their parents, who lived through WWII (and whose grandparents lived through the Great Depression). Because they saw such hardships, they wanted to give their little dumplings the world.
Hence, we got the boomers: largely college-educated, permitted to express themselves as they saw fit (i.e., the student protests of the sixties), with a diminishing sense of traditional morals (Free Love, drug experimentation, etc.) and disrespect for authority of any kind.
The boomers, of course, saw nothing wrong with any of those things, so they raised their children much the same. They added the additional elements of a rising number of broken marriages (with the resulting complications) and the whole idea that you should be a "friend" to your children. Also, because they never wanted to grow up and generally disrespected adults (the phrase was "Never trust anyone over 30"), they don't want to *become* adults. I take no issue with youthful seniors, and improved medical care means we don't age as quickly as we once did, but IMO a lot of these people are simply still avoiding adult responsibilities.
Also, as you say, some regard their children as extensions of themselves, or an opportunity for a "do-over".
Hope this all makes sense. It's early here, and coffee is still brewing.
10------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money. -- Alexis de Tocqueville
In addition to what Lain mentioned, you also had Dr. Spock come out with his take on child-raising. While I agree with some of the things he advocated, I think many people took it too far which has led people to wanting to cushion their kids from all life's tramas.
11skb, what it's teaching them is that they have no accountability. We are in HUGE trouble with an unaccountable generation coming up behind us.
As far as Dr. Spock, I seem to recall that he caught some heat for advocating permissiveness in child rearing and that he refuted something or other in the last (?) version of his book. But I seem to also recall rolling my eyes so far back in my head that I could see myself thinking when I read it. It made no sense. I'll have to do a little research on it later. (Today is my day off so it's movie, nails, etc....)
Okay, totally off subject - has anyone seen Valkryie?
12Laine, I just read recently that the first boomers reached retirement age (65) in 2008. Maybe it was on here.... Grandpa?
13I haven't seen Valkryie yet, but I want to see it.
14ccpdm: I remarked on the boomers reaching retirement age somewhere else here in the last day or two. It was in the news this year, too.
skb: I seem to recall (*years* ago) hearing it said that Dr. Spock's wife said that although he wrote the books, she raised the children.
There was a History channel program on Stauffenberg and Valkyrie, too, a few weeks ago. What I saw of it was interesting, so I have high hopes for the film (despite a distaste for Tom Cruise).
15------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money. -- Alexis de Tocqueville
More on Dr. Spock:
Wikipedia:
Some have seen Spock as the leader in the move toward more permissive parenting in general and have blamed him for what they perceived as being the negative results. Norman Vincent Peale claimed in the late 1960s that "the U.S. was paying the price of two generations that followed the Dr. Spock baby plan of instant gratification of needs." Vice President Spiro Agnew denounced him as the "father of permissiveness," claiming that Spock's child rearing principles encouraged lawlessness among young people in the 1960s.
Political involvement
In 1962, Spock joined The Committee for a Sane Nuclear Policy, otherwise known as SANE. Spock was politically outspoken and active in the movement to end the Vietnam War. In 1968, he and four others (including William Sloane Coffin) were singled[citation needed] out for prosecution by then Attorney General Ramsey Clark on charges of conspiracy to counsel, aid, and abet resistance to the draft. Spock and three of his alleged co-conspirators were convicted, although the five had never been in the same room together. His two-year prison sentence was never served; the case was appealed and in 1969 a federal court set aside his conviction.
In 1967, Spock was to be nominated as Martin Luther King, Jr.'s vice-presidential running mate at the National Conference for New Politics over Labor Day weekend in Chicago. According to William F. Pepper's Orders to Kill, however, the conference was broken up by agents provocateurs working for the government.
Spock was the People's Party candidate in the 1972 United States presidential election with a platform that called for free medical care, the repeal of "victimless crime" laws, including the legalization of abortion, homosexuality, and marijuana, a guaranteed minimum income for families and the immediate withdrawal of all American troops from foreign countries.[6] In the 1970s and 1980s, Spock demonstrated and gave lectures against nuclear weapons and cuts in social welfare programs.
In 1972, Spock, Julius Hobson (his Vice Presidential candidate), Linda Jenness (Socialist Workers Party Presidential candidate), and Socialist Workers Party Vice Presidential candidate Andrew Pulley wrote to Major General Bert A. David, commanding officer of Fort Dix, asking for permission to distribute campaign literature and to hold an election-related campaign meeting. On the basis of Fort Dix regulations 210-26 and 210-27, General David refused the request. Spock, Hobson, Jenness, Pulley, and others then filed a case that ultimately made its way to the United States Supreme Court (424 U.S. 828 -- Greer, Commander, Fort Dix Military Reservation, et al., v. Spock et al), which ruled against the plaintiffs.[7]
16Well, I usually pass on Tom Cruise but am hoping this is a good movie. Let ya know.
17It's partially parent's fault, and the school's fault. The schools are into the feel-good, don't hurt the kid's feelings mode (just ask my husband who's a teacher at the local middle school). While the parents expect the schools to raise their kids, the teachers/school administration refuses to give the students the grades/discipline the students need in order to become good citizens. When the teachers start putting their foot down and give the failing kid an F because they deserve the F,and then standing by that decision, then the schools would do better as well. Don't be afraid to hold kids back because they need to.
18carli, I don't want to generalize, but I *don't* expect the schools to raise my kids.
On the contrary, I am frequently aggravated by the schools' interfering with *my* parental prerogatives. I also feel they (at least locally) schedule things like parent committee meetings during the afternoon at least in part to minimize the number of parents who are able to participate / interfere.
Kudos to your husband! I think middle school must be the hardest level to teach. I considered a career change a few years ago, even took and passed the CBEST, but decided I wasn't patient or tolerant enough to make a good teacher.
19I don't think Carlierae means all parents expect the schools to raise their children - just a GOD AWFUL number of them. Just like I don't assume ALL parents refuse to parent their children. =) I know, I know ... we shouldn't generalize - on either side of the discussion!
Schools schedule things in the afternoon now because most localities don't pay extra for the teachers to be there hours after school is in session. Most teachers grade papers and set up class curriculum on their own time. Overtime is a scarcity.
A lot of localities DO pay their teachers year round - but that means they make less money a month during the school year so they can get paid during the summer break. A lot of school supplies are now bought by the teacher, too. (Have a family member who is a teacher ... opened my eyes!!)
20Schaianne: I didn't intend to make a sweeping assumption, it's just that I've heard that accusation in several places lately. I believe it's a significant misconception.
No disrespect for teachers, I have several in the family (including my daughter, eventually) but they make a reasonable annual wage, at least in my area, and work about 9 months per year. Some put in more time than others, admittedly. I have immense respect for my son's high school band teacher, for instance, who teaches a zero period jazz band class and marching band after school, and does additional things, too, to enhance the program.
They should not have to buy their own supplies, I agree. I don't know when that started, certainly after my time, but they can deduct the cost from their taxes.
They also have better benefits than much of the workforce, even excluding hourly workers (like retail, general office, etc.).
Most professionals have to do some preparation or topical study on their own time. I would not presume to read accounting journals in the office, for instance (unless I were researching a particular topic on request).
When I was a student (centuries ago!), holiday programs and parent meetings, etc., were held in the evenings when parents could actually attend. And that was back in the days when most mothers were stay-at-homes.
I don't think teachers are over-compensated, but I don't believe they are as under-compensated as many of them claim, either. As an old boss of mine used to say, if it was all fun, they wouldn't have to pay people to do it.
21Laine, thanks for the research on Spock. I was going to look it up this evening, so you saved me some time!
22ccpdm, baby boomers, technically are babies born in those years immediately after the end of WWII, fathered by all those returning horny GI's, and equally horney wives. That 2008 number would be the trickle before the start of the floodgates basically 2010-2015.
23I guess a couple of them horny so and so's got an early start. (Why is it that men are horny but women are horney?)
24Because this old fogey can't type and chew gum, ccpdm.
25
26You two are hilarious!!
27Ginger Rogers and Fred Astair, or George Burns and Gracie Allen?
28Ginger and Fred. I'm no Gracie. :pout:
29What? No pout emoticon? Okay then.
30How about George Burns and Ginger Rogers?
31Okay. Just. No. Gracie.
32Say good night, ccpdm.
33Good night, ccpdm.
34Post A Comment
To post comments, please log in or register.