Schools "programming" children

[LilJoe44]

This is an editorial I am working on. Would love some input....

-------
Remember*books like 1984, or movies like "The Manchurian Candidate"?* If any of those escape your memory, surely you remember the famous Superbowl commercial that first introduced the Macintosh computer.* These all depicted societies or villainous plots that were the result of brain washing or human programming.* While not so long ago the idea of mind control was strictly left to science fiction writers, it is slowly becoming reality in public schools.

A school recently posted an opening for a new position of Behavior Services Coordinator.* "This individual is responsible for collaborating with the District BCBA to support the management and oversight of student programming."* I do not believe that I am alone in saying that I cringe when I hear that schools are actively "programming" children.* Let me be clear, in no way do I share the concern some people express when they claim public schools are "indoctrinating" students with certain political beliefs.* The ultimate goal of the "programming" I refer to is something desirable for everyone, good behavior.* It is the method through which we are trying to attain the good behavior that concerns me, as it should others.

When programming kids to behave well, we are no longer interested in teaching them right and wrong, but rather training them like dogs that salivate at the sound of a bell.* Schools are trying to mold student behavior by ignoring unwanted behavior and rewarding even the simplest of wanted behavior.* How simple you may ask?* In some instances*I have heard it argued that we should reward some students for something as simple as bringing a pencil to class.*

The theory of psychology behind this approach is called behaviorism, more commonly referred to in schools as Applied Behavior Analysis (ABA).* The belief is that if "good" behavior is rewarded consistently, and bad behavior ignored, the "good" behavior will become automatic over time while the bad behavior becomes extinct.* While teaching behavior in the same way we teach a dog new tricks may bring about desirable affects in the short term, the way ABA deals with behavior faces one major obstacle- human nature.* In its purest form, ABA does not acknowledge the existence of human nature.* To ignore human nature , and by extension the concept of free will, is to ignore the very essence of what separates us, adults and children alike, from the rest of the animal world.* Time after time I see this approach to behavior fail children, and to a larger extent our society as a whole, because regardless of age, we all have an inherent ability to choose our own paths in life.* While the success of ABA relies on a belief that the behavior of children is not a result of self reasoning, everything I see and believe suggests otherwise.* Children of all ages possess a clear ability to reason.* Children are smart enough to consciously make the connection between rewards and giving adults the behavior they want.* As long as*students desire the rewards they receive, they will give adults what they want.* And while a period of time may exist where a child seems to automatically behave the way we want despite the diminishment of rewards, it is inevitable that sometime in the future they will recognize the absence of a reward.* At that moment, each individual will be left on his own to decide what is more important- the material rewards they received for not misbehaving, or the satisfaction one feels when they do the right thing?* If we continue to follow the approach of ABA, I fear we will find too many children stuck in an endless cycle of bad behavior and good behavior, all contingent on what rewards we can offer them over time.* Alas, where does that leave children as they grow older, where no system exists to monitor and reward their behavior?

As the father of a 4.5 year old and a 2 year old, I want to encourage parents across the state to take a critical look at how certain programs in our schools are being run.* We already have a special education system that is shrouded in secrecy, with Behavior programs rapidly building a similar smokescreen.* I urge parents and other concerned citizens to question school administrators and school board members about these behavior programs.* Contact your state legislators and ask them to find out more about these programs.* How did it come about that this controversial psychological theory would be the leading thought driving our behavior programs?* We deserve an open and honest debate about the way in which we teach our children to behave.* It is time to end the monopoly that ABA holds over behavioral programming in schools, and look at how to best teach our children acceptable behavior in a way that doesn’t just keep than out of trouble in school, but also provides teaching that will last for them throughout a life time, we beyond the structured life of education.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

While I don't entirely disagree with your opinion that we need to punish bad behavior--to me, the real problem is a lack of comsequences that students actually seem to put stock in--rather than just reward good behavior (though I highly doubt that the majority of schools actually "ignore" bad behavior, there just aren't punishments that inspire good behavior); I think most schools do both, which is fine.

As to the content and rhetoric, your article could use more examples of what you're talking about to give it more credibility. The only example I saw was a vague one about pencils. Aside from that, it seems like a bunch of unsubstantiated opinions and vague comments on "human nature." I'm not sure what audience you're writing to. If you want this published in your local newspaper I'm sure there won't be a problem, but I'd you're looking for a more esteemed publisher, they're going to want something with a little more weight, I think.

[LitNetIsGreat]

Bringing up children is not rocket science, but it might as well be for it seems is as if we have just landed from planet Zog and have no idea how to control behaviour in schools. Educationalists behind school policy, leap from one fad notion to the next and, it seems, totally disregard any form of common sense.

Instead of laying down clear expectations and boundaries and following those through with fair punishments, as well as rewarding good behaviour for those who deserve it, policy will instead constantly shift and change to meet the latest fad educationalist ideas. This is coupled with endless excuses for poor behaviour, where the focus is not on the student, but on the teacher, society or some ridiculous semi-invented medical excuse - "oppositional defiant disorder" anyone? - all of which only leads to complete chaos. The problem lies not in trying out new policies or ideas, for we should be always open to new ideas, the problem lies in doing that and totally abandoning any notion of common sense at the same time. This has been the norm for a number of years. It is from which the massive behavioural issues are so painfully evident. Instead, the notion of fair punishments for the breaking of boundaries is all but completely obsolete, something of a dinosaur notion, where to even use the word in a school is to receive a black mark against your name forever. We have poor behaviour in schools and we only have ourselves to blame for it.

.........

One issue I have with your article is your faith in the free will of children - or rather you could attempt to unpack your meaning here. I'm not sure of your point. Young children are especially guided by their peers and classmates, they copy other children's behaviour to a extensive degree.

One thing is for sure if poor behaviour is left unchallenged it will certainly be picked up by the rest of them. This can even cause deep resentment, mixed messages and strong feelings of unfairness in those children who do the right thing time and time again. So if a policy is to ignore bad behaviour I say good luck with that because they are going to need it.

[tonywalt]

Bringing up children is not rocket science, but it might as well be for it seems is as if we have just landed from planet Zog and have no idea how to control behaviour in schools. Educationalists behind school policy, leap from one fad notion to the next and, it seems, totally disregard any form of common sense.

Instead of laying down clear expectations and boundaries and following those through with fair punishments, as well as rewarding good behaviour for those who deserve it, policy will instead constantly shift and change to meet the latest fad educationalist ideas. This is coupled with endless excuses for poor behaviour, where the focus is not on the student, but on the teacher, society or some ridiculous semi-invented medical excuse - "oppositional defiant disorder" anyone? - all of which only leads to complete chaos. The problem lies not in trying out new policies or ideas, for we should be always open to new ideas, the problem lies in doing that and totally abandoning any notion of common sense at the same time. This has been the norm for a number of years. It is from which the massive behavioural issues are so painfully evident. Instead, the notion of fair punishments for the breaking of boundaries is all but completely obsolete, something of a dinosaur notion, where to even use the word in a school is to receive a black mark against your name forever. We have poor behaviour in schools and we only have ourselves to blame for it.

.........

One issue I have with your article is your faith in the free will of children - or rather you could attempt to unpack your meaning here. I'm not sure of your point. Young children are especially guided by their peers and classmates, they copy other children's behaviour to a extensive degree.

One thing is for sure if poor behaviour is left unchallenged it will certainly be picked up by the rest of them. This can even cause deep resentment, mixed messages and strong feelings of unfairness in those children who do the right thing time and time again. So if a policy is to ignore bad behaviour I say good luck with that because they are going to need it.

Here Here Neely. On the Island the government schools are much more likely to resort to ever changing studies and methods, which do not work. The private schools on the other hand have a more traditonal, tried and tested policies. This has created and continues to create and ever widening gap between the quality of students graduating. When interviewing ''school leavers' for starter positions this is glaringly obvious.

[Jack of Hearts]

Of course schools are programming children. When you drop your fecking kid off at school, you're essentially saying "Here. Raise this for eight hours."

As far as teaching children right and wrong, what do you call "rewarding good behavior" and "punishing bad behavior" a la behaviorism style (a pretty defunct theory, as you hopefully know). That's just morality with incentive. It doesn't "go away" in lieu of some REAL morality. It IS morality. Protip: In almost any bible, god (or gods) does it too. In the US we call it the judeo-christian ethic.

This image you present of the individual just deciding for themselves, sans sway of circumstance or upbringing or previous conditioning, is just dandy. Like Narnia.




J

[JuniperWoolf]

Of course schools are programming children. When you drop your fecking kid off at school, you're essentially saying "Here. Raise this for eight hours."

Haha, that's true. This is exactly why in Canada it's illegal to tell your students your political and religious beliefs, although you can discuss the issues; in terms of politics that's actually what Social Studies is literally for. They're just supposed to be objective, but it'd be hard to do that in a completely objective way and indeed when I was a student we could usually tell which side of the line our teachers fell on (they did try to be objective, but after a few years talking to these people you get to know them pretty well). I agree with the government making laws limiting teachers' divulgence to their students because you see these people more often than you do your own parents, they're providing you with the majority of your information about the world. If a teacher were willing and legally able to he would probably be able to convince hundreds of kids every year to vote how he votes once they turn eighteen. That's too much power.

As far as programing student's actual behaviour and interaction like they're robots or something, it's kind of a moot point if a school "does not acknowledge the existence of human nature" - you can't just override human nature (well, you can, but not permanently and you'd have to take it pretty far - completely cutting them off from their peers for example). Like Jack said, behaviourism is kind of dead nowadays.

[Patrick_Bateman]

I am by no means religious but I believe that the proliferation of bad behaviour in schools and a lack of morality and pity among youngsters today is due in large part to the declining religosity, or at least the absence of a God-fearing mental state, in society. I firmly believe that spiritual fervour is innate in all of us to widely varying degrees (whether people or conscious of it or not.) I also steadfastly believe that ethics are strongly governed by a belief in a God or Supreme Being. We do the right thing not because of, or at least not solely due to, a well-developed superego, but because we feel subject to a God-like entity who looks upon, and judges us based on how we behave. Otherwise who are we answerable to when we do the right and ethical thing and yet no-one is around to see us?
We can gain an advantage by acting in a corrupt or self-serving manner when left on our own in certain situations but some of us don't. Like I said before I believe this is not solely due to our conscience. I think Voltaire was perfectly accurate when he said that if God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him. (although for a different reason than he intended when he wrote these words.)

So I believe that along with punishing bad behaviour it is necessary to cease this marginalisation of the spiritual and the steady march towards an atheistic western world.
I think it speaks volumes that in large parts of Europe we have a young generation who grow to be hedonistic self-centred 'individuals' concerned with their own interests. Europe is a continent that has a high number of young offenders when compared to the likes of peaceful and stable Asian and African countries. And I'm certain the problems with behaviour experienced in western classrooms are largely unheard of in the east. Now of course you can't attribute that solely to differences in religious attitudes; you also have to consider the gulf between culture, family values, social mores etc, but I do believe that the pronounced faiths of these eastern communities is a factor in the better behaviour of their younger generation.

[Paulclem]

There's a lot of youth bashing on this forum, but I think part of the problem is nothing to do with woolly ideas about the absence of a God-fearing mental state, but a lack of experience dealing with kids, along with poor support from the management team.

As a teacher, I knew teachers who had no problems whatsoever in dealing with and teaching kids well. They had built up a reputation and an expectation of good behaviour within the school. It was something to do with the pupils' expectations of the teacher, as well as the confidence the teacher carried. It wasn't just about the teacher though. I know several excellent teacher with very strong discipline who transferred to different schools and had a terrible time as they had to re-establish themselves.

I think it's more about good leadership, presenting a clear expectation to the kids and supporting new teachers while they establish themselves as these good terachers. (That's why newly qualified teachers and supply teachers often have a hard time. It's not only that they're inexperinced, but it seems as though they are the weak members in a herd of staff that should together present a supportive face).

Beyond this it's about management, primarily by the Head. Why do super heads succeed? Because they can manage their staff. Too often we have poor Heads, (Principles in the US), who do not manage well.

As for the kids, do you know what it was like in the 60's and 70's? Bloody awful is one way I'd describe it, and I did relatively well at school. We were taught by incompetent teachers - who hardly knew any teaching methods - in a boring fashion, boring subjects delivered often in the dullest of ways. Why did we take it? Because we didn't know any better. Now, of course, in Adult Education where I now work, I, and all my colleagues, meet people who had this bloody awful time at school, and who are still suffering the economic and social effects of a poor education. I don't know how many people who have told me how they were humiliated at school.

We now have better teaching with a better range of subjects that can be delivered in much more interesting ways. And the kids are exacting. The kids are more confident, and want good teaching.

I'm not talking about the ones that have problems, end up being excluded or who display violent tendencies in schools. It's a myth that teachers should be able to cope with kids with often very complex social problems from difficult backgrounds. How can they? They are trained teachers, not social workers. Those kids need something else that the school cannot, but is expected, to supply. It's one area where we haven't much improved. I also suspect that it is this category of kid that gets highlighted and is taken as representative of all the other kids in school. Most of the kids are, and will be fine, just like they were when we were at school despite the crap teaching.

[Patrick_Bateman]

Well aside from the fact you disregarded my opinion in such a cavalier way, (great practice for a teacher) I do believe that it has an effect on children's behaviour. However it's important to remember that child discipline begins at home. Behaviour is learned first of all from the parents and family and then from friends and other adult authorities (eg teachers)

It's important, first and foremost, that parents inculcate in their children the ideas of right and wrong and educate them in correctness of behaviour in a social setting. Teachers jobs should be to reinforce this behaviour and discipline not instill it themselves in their the pupils.

[Jack of Hearts]

Well aside from the fact you disregarded my opinion in such a cavalier way, (great practice for a teacher) I do believe that it has an effect on children's behaviour. However it's important to remember that child discipline begins at home. Behaviour is learned first of all from the parents and family and then from friends and other adult authorities (eg teachers)

It's important, first and foremost, that parents inculcate in their children the ideas of right and wrong and educate them in correctness of behaviour in a social setting. Teachers jobs should be to reinforce this behaviour and discipline not instill it themselves in their the pupils.

Totally disagree about the morality statement. But undoubtedly teaching cjildren how to be social in the context of a given culture would be advantageous.

For illustration, consider teaching a child to say "Bless you." whrn someone sneezes. It's the difference between believing that a god will actually bless somebody, or that thete is a god to do so... and just being polite.

Even then, this reader thinks that socialization is less necessary the more that an agent has a developed inward sense of the 'other' preternaturally.











J

[Scheherazade]

~

R e m i n d e r

Please do not personalise your arguments.

Posts containing personal/inflammatory comments will be removed without further notice.

~

[OrphanPip]

I am by no means religious but I believe that the proliferation of bad behaviour in schools and a lack of morality and pity among youngsters today is due in large part to the declining religosity, or at least the absence of a God-fearing mental state, in society. I firmly believe that spiritual fervour is innate in all of us to widely varying degrees (whether people or conscious of it or not.) I also steadfastly believe that ethics are strongly governed by a belief in a God or Supreme Being. We do the right thing not because of, or at least not solely due to, a well-developed superego, but because we feel subject to a God-like entity who looks upon, and judges us based on how we behave. Otherwise who are we answerable to when we do the right and ethical thing and yet no-one is around to see us?
We can gain an advantage by acting in a corrupt or self-serving manner when left on our own in certain situations but some of us don't. Like I said before I believe this is not solely due to our conscience. I think Voltaire was perfectly accurate when he said that if God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him. (although for a different reason than he intended when he wrote these words.)

So I believe that along with punishing bad behaviour it is necessary to cease this marginalisation of the spiritual and the steady march towards an atheistic western world.
I think it speaks volumes that in large parts of Europe we have a young generation who grow to be hedonistic self-centred 'individuals' concerned with their own interests. Europe is a continent that has a high number of young offenders when compared to the likes of peaceful and stable Asian and African countries. And I'm certain the problems with behaviour experienced in western classrooms are largely unheard of in the east. Now of course you can't attribute that solely to differences in religious attitudes; you also have to consider the gulf between culture, family values, social mores etc, but I do believe that the pronounced faiths of these eastern communities is a factor in the better behaviour of their younger generation.

If that were true, why would the most atheistic developed societies, like Japan and the Scandinavian countries, also seem to have some of the most effective education systems? Likewise, relatively more religious countries, like the USA do not seem to do particularly well in comparison. Moreover, the worse performers often come from groups that tend to be more religiously oriented than the higher performing groups.

[Paulclem]

Well aside from the fact you disregarded my opinion in such a cavalier way, (great practice for a teacher) I do believe that it has an effect on children's behaviour. However it's important to remember that child discipline begins at home. Behaviour is learned first of all from the parents and family and then from friends and other adult authorities (eg teachers)

It's important, first and foremost, that parents inculcate in their children the ideas of right and wrong and educate them in correctness of behaviour in a social setting. Teachers jobs should be to reinforce this behaviour and discipline not instill it themselves in their the pupils.

I agree with you about parents setting the discipline at home, though you didn't mention this in your original post. It does not really equate with your assertion about the importance of a supreme being though.

the relatively large number of individuals with nominal or no religious affiliations has led commentators to variously describe the UK as a multi-faith,[9] secularised,[10] or post-Christian society.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religio...United_Kingdom

So if we're talking about a post secular society, your point about the morality of a supreme being seems out of date. I would agree with your idea about Christian morality based upon the idea of God if it were relevant, but it is not. You can't suddenly revert to a former moral system when that's not the references for morality in many/ most households however our state institutions try to project the UK as Christian.

The problem is when parents do not set the moral tone at home, and teachers then are uncertain what to reinforce. In fact I think it's impossible for a teacher to second guess what the prevailing attitudes at home are. I think the reality is that school morality/ behaviour is different to home. It has to be with such a wide range of kids from all different backgrounds - religious, secular, second language, class etc. When a school is badly run, there's no prevailing discipline, and everyone is worse off for it - particularly the kids. When a school is well run, the discipline is based upon respect, hard work, ambition, achievement etc. These are secular aspects, and I really feel that religion has no place in school except as a comparative subject. I still hear my daughter, who is at school now, talking about the Christian teacher who teaches RE badly because they are uninformed about other religions despite it being a multi-ethnic school.

I've now regarded it, and would like to be considered a Roundhead rather than a cavalier.

[Gladys]

It's important, first and foremost, that parents inculcate in their children the ideas of right and wrong and educate them in correctness of behaviour in a social setting. Teachers jobs should be to reinforce this behaviour and discipline not instill it themselves in their the pupils.

Parents are all important, whether for infants or twenty-year-olds. But ideas of right and wrong seems to gloss over that authentic and individual spirit which should form the cornerstone of morality. Children do best when they are shown something of the big picture, and go on to synthesize morality for themselves. Bible stories sometimes excel at providing a vivid moral panorama - the life of King David, for instance.

Of course schools are programming children. When you drop your fecking kid off at school, you're essentially saying "Here. Raise this for eight hours."

As far as teaching children right and wrong, what do you call "rewarding good behavior" and "punishing bad behavior" a la behaviorism style (a pretty defunct theory, as you hopefully know). That's just morality with incentive. It doesn't "go away" in lieu of some REAL morality. It IS morality. Protip: In almost any bible, god (or gods) does it too. In the US we call it the judeo-christian ethic.

A more desirable morality stems from appreciating how intimately you are connected with your neighbours - whether parents, siblings, fellow students, teachers or principals - and understanding that your future resonates with theirs. And that you can only live in the instant: the future is a mirage, the past a dream. I am also much in sympathy with Paulclem's first post.

[Patrick_Bateman]

I agree with you about parents setting the discipline at home, though you didn't mention this in your original post. It does not really equate with your assertion about the importance of a supreme being though.

the relatively large number of individuals with nominal or no religious affiliations has led commentators to variously describe the UK as a multi-faith,[9] secularised,[10] or post-Christian society.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religio...United_Kingdom

So if we're talking about a post secular society, your point about the morality of a supreme being seems out of date. I would agree with your idea about Christian morality based upon the idea of God if it were relevant, but it is not. You can't suddenly revert to a former moral system when that's not the references for morality in many/ most households however our state institutions try to project the UK as Christian.

The problem is when parents do not set the moral tone at home, and teachers then are uncertain what to reinforce. In fact I think it's impossible for a teacher to second guess what the prevailing attitudes at home are. I think the reality is that school morality/ behaviour is different to home. It has to be with such a wide range of kids from all different backgrounds - religious, secular, second language, class etc. When a school is badly run, there's no prevailing discipline, and everyone is worse off for it - particularly the kids. When a school is well run, the discipline is based upon respect, hard work, ambition, achievement etc. These are secular aspects, and I really feel that religion has no place in school except as a comparative subject. I still hear my daughter, who is at school now, talking about the Christian teacher who teaches RE badly because they are uninformed about other religions despite it being a multi-ethnic school.

I've now regarded it, and would like to be considered a Roundhead rather than a cavalier.

Touché. I thought I was a bit too defensive with my reply so I'm glad you didn't take offence.

My ideas on ethics are not based necessarily on the need for an existence of a newfound devoutly religious communities, but more to do with the re-emergence of the belief in a Supreme Being; whether that be a personal God or a God that is one and the same with the Universe as a whole, in the pantheistic sense.
I don't think adherence to the practices and doctrines of organised religion are what we need to return to, but I do believe that the supernatural apex of all Abrahamic religions, that being God, is something that needs to become more significant in people's lives. Now this does not mean that I believe people need to believe in and revere a God in order to be ethical and live virtuous lives, although it is consistent with my views that it would certainly help achieve that, I simply think that the spirituality that we are all born with needs to be kept aflame and not weeded out by these secular and atheistic terrorists. I believe that Man is born good, and that his innate spirituality is a reinforcer of this.