"Judge stops school from expelling girl who refused to wear tracking device"

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

Originally Posted by WESGATORS

You're reading too much into the significance of that one line. I was just making a side note that a lack of participation is less excusable at the local levels.

So????

The justification has already been established. What has not been established is the damage.

you mean, other than violating rights?

Do you really think students should maintain Constitutionally protected rights while getting an education?

Of course I do.

[bluelang]

Wes is absolutely correct. If the parents don't like it, they're free to run for the school board. The kids do not have the legal right to freedom of movement on school grounds - neither do you or I. Random Joe Adult can't show up on school grounds and start eating a picnic lunch.

And someone already pointed it out, but RFID is not the same as GPS. RFID wouldn't do anything once off school grounds.

"Freedom" doesn't mean what most people seem to think it means.

[ChartsandGrafs]

Originally Posted by philnotfil

30 years in the class room, three times teacher of the year in the city of New York, one time teacher of the year in the state of New York (all four of those awards towards the end of his career). I'm going to go with you misread what he wrote rather than that he wasn't a good teacher or lost his ability to reach his audience.

Do you think they would have given him those awards if they had any idea he would end up writing the books he's written and giving the interviews he's given?

[philnotfil]

Originally Posted by ChartsandGrafs

Do you think they would have given him those awards if they had any idea he would end up writing the books he's written and giving the interviews he's given?

Some of them would. Teachers don't like that the institutional nature of schools makes us do those things.

[ChartsandGrafs]

Originally Posted by philnotfil

Some of them would. Teachers don't like that the institutional nature of schools makes us do those things.

Are such awards typically left up to the discretion of fellow teachers and not administrators? It's hard to believe that they'd allow the inmates to run the asylum, so to speak.

[HALLGATOR]

Originally Posted by bluelang

Wes is absolutely correct. If the parents don't like it, they're free to run for the school board. The kids do not have the legal right to freedom of movement on school grounds - neither do you or I. Random Joe Adult can't show up on school grounds and start eating a picnic lunch.

And someone already pointed it out, but RFID is not the same as GPS. RFID wouldn't do anything once off school grounds.

"Freedom" doesn't mean what most people seem to think it means.

The school is not giving up their governing power. They can still dictate where the classes are and where the students can go and not go. However, having a tracking device is stepping across the line imo. I"m a not a person who sees a conspiracy at every turn but once conditioned to wearing one on school grounds for 12+ years of their lives how easy would it be to implement measures outside of the school environ and pass them off as natural extensions.

[bluelang]

Originally Posted by HALLGATOR

The school is not giving up their governing power. They can still dictate where the classes are and where the students can go and not go. However, having a tracking device is stepping across the line imo. I"m a not a person who sees a conspiracy at every turn but once conditioned to wearing one on school grounds for 12+ years of their lives how easy would it be to implement measures outside of the school environ and pass them off as natural extensions.

They have tracking devices now. They're called "teachers" and "hall monitors." And whether you like it or not isn't the question, the question is whether or not it is legal.

It doesn't make anything that happens outside of the school any different. It's not legal for the government to require you to wear a tracking device in your everyday life and it won't suddenly become so because of this.

The real issue here for me is the grounds of the challenge - religious freedom. If ever there were a blatant corroborative misuse of the freedom of religion, this is it.

[ChartsandGrafs]

Originally Posted by bluelang

And whether you like it or not isn't the question, the question is whether or not it is legal.

Slavery was once legal.

Does that somehow mean it was justified or moral?

[HALLGATOR]

Originally Posted by bluelang

They have tracking devices now. They're called "teachers" and "hall monitors." And whether you like it or not isn't the question, the question is whether or not it is legal.

It doesn't make anything that happens outside of the school any different. It's not legal for the government to require you to wear a tracking device in your everyday life and it won't suddenly become so because of this.

The real issue here for me is the grounds of the challenge - religious freedom. If ever there were a blatant corroborative misuse of the freedom of religion, this is it.

If they already have a tracking device then what is the need for one the students wear? As far as my like or dislike the last time I checked this was a discussion board and thus that is my stated opinion. Whether or not it passes the legal test remains to be seen .

[WESGATORS]

Originally Posted by HALLGATOR

In this case there is a certain amount of liberty involved. The school, nor the parents, have the right to imprison the students so these kids do not relinquish all of these rights when they walk in the door. I think you are using rights which have been determined it is necessary to be of a certain age with those where age should not be a determining factor. The right to life is basic and unless a crime committed I don't see where this has been limited nor upheld by courts not to be so. The same goes back to the liberty issue and it seems so far there are those in the judicial branch who believe likewise.

When my child goes to school, he relinquishes most of his basic rights in the name of order to the extent that I believe in the process put in place to educate my child. My child is not free to walk out of the classroom (an age-independent right) at his own whim; if he did, I would expect there to be consequences. This is not an issue of liberty, if it was, the parents could just as easily choose to home school their kids, but when you put your kids in a public school, you are doing so because you believe in the process. That process includes a reduction in rights, necessarily.

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

[WESGATORS]

Originally Posted by MichaelJoeWilliamson

So????

So if it's not important to you, and if I mention it's only a sidenote, why highlight it? Especially when it seems like you agree with it.

Originally Posted by MichaelJoeWilliamson

you mean, other than violating rights?

You can't properly educate children without violating their alleged Constitutional rights. Most kids would rather be somewhere else than in school all day. It is the ability to take their rights away and institute consequences for expressing their freedom that enables them to be properly educated.

Originally Posted by MichaelJoeWilliamson

Of course I do.

That's not possible for reasons I've already detailed. To be properly educated, you must relinquish your rights in the name of order. I don't want my kid being educated in a classroom where other children are free to do what they please including come and go as they please. School is not a place for freedom, it's a place for instruction.

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

[WESGATORS]

Charts/Phil, I've read that, and I don't know how anybody can read that and not see that as very clear and obvious satire. You wouldn't expect me to watch History of the World Part I and assess how I don't think things happen that way. I can break it down by lesson if you like.

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

[philnotfil]

Originally Posted by WESGATORS

Charts/Phil, I've read that, and I don't know how anybody can read that and not see that as very clear and obvious satire. You wouldn't expect me to watch History of the World Part I and assess how I don't think things happen that way. I can break it down by lesson if you like.

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

As a former classroom teacher I can guarantee you that it is not satire. I felt as you do now when I first read it in college. After a couple of years of teaching I had reason to read it again and realized that I was teaching most of those lessons, and that my life would be easier if I would teach all of them. I think that Gatto has a tendency to go too far in his search for root causes. Most teachers apply these lessons out of self defense, not as part of any overarching plot to prepare a population of subordinates. As one of my principals was fond of saying in faculty meetings, you are outnumbered in every class, but you can't let them [the students] know that.

The purpose of institutional education is to educate as many people as possible as efficiently as possible. This takes an uncomfortable (for most children) level of discipline. These lessons make the whole process much easier. I don't think that they are good for the students or the teachers, but sometimes you don't have the time an space to do it any other way.

[WESGATORS]

He speaks (or spoke) as an individual without answers. I have answers for him, but it's clearly too late. If his comments are to be taken seriously, then he wasn't a good teacher. I am fortunate to have had many good teachers in my life. I know because I remember them for very specific reasons, not the least of which being that they stood out from other teachers which weren't as good at what they did (maybe like those described in his essay). The teachers I am referring to led me to have answers to where this individual allegedly struggled.

Just to take one point on this, as I'm still trying to figure out why Charts brought this up on this topic. I'm guessing its in regard to the "class position" lesson or perhaps the "emotional dependency" lesson. Learning requires structure, and the opposite of structure is freedom. That's not to say that you can't find ways to leak in a little bit of freedom into a structured environment or to add structure to a free environment, but they are competing concepts. The more structure that you have, the less freedom you have. There are no two ways around that. The author spoke as a person that didn't know how to handle leveraging the concepts of freedom and structure, that's not an institutional problem, that's an individual problem (and not one that cannot be resolved).

Some people work in a field where they need to be told exactly what to do, and that's how things get done. But teaching is not one of those fields. The author writes as if he's one of those people. (again, I don't believe he intended that to be free of satire, but I'm commenting as if he did)

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

[philnotfil]

Originally Posted by WESGATORS

He speaks (or spoke) as an individual without answers. I have answers for him, but it's clearly too late. If his comments are to be taken seriously, then he wasn't a good teacher. I am fortunate to have had many good teachers in my life. I know because I remember them for very specific reasons, not the least of which being that they stood out from other teachers which weren't as good at what they did (maybe like those described in his essay). The teachers I am referring to led me to have answers to where this individual allegedly struggled.

Just to take one point on this, as I'm still trying to figure out why Charts brought this up on this topic. I'm guessing its in regard to the "class position" lesson or perhaps the "emotional dependency" lesson. Learning requires structure, and the opposite of structure is freedom. That's not to say that you can't find ways to leak in a little bit of freedom into a structured environment or to add structure to a free environment, but they are competing concepts. The more structure that you have, the less freedom you have. There're no two ways around that. The author spoke as a person that didn't know how to handle leveraging the concepts of freedom and structure, that's not an institutional problem, that's an individual problem (and not one that cannot be resolved).

Some people work in a field where they need to be told exactly what to do, and that's how things get done. But teaching is not one of those fields. The author writes as if he's one of those people. (again, I don't believe he intended that to be free of satire, but I'm commenting as if he did)

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

I find it odd that you are disagreeing with Gatto on this particular subject. You clearly recognize the main pillar of his lessons, that institutional education requires structure which necessitates an infringement of freedoms. His lessons are merely the practical manifestation of that thought. The entire essay is nothing but answers to the question, how do we instill into students the discipline required to educate them in an institutional setting?

[WESGATORS]

Originally Posted by philnotfil

I find it odd that you are disagreeing with Gatto on this particular subject.

If he's to be taken seriously, he expresses chaos. But the system is only chaotic when mismanaged (individual flaw, not a flaw in the system). He speaks like someone who is confused about his role and how to properly accomplish his goals.

Originally Posted by philnotfil

You clearly recognize the main pillar of his lessons, that institutional education requires structure which necessitates an infringement of freedoms.

This has been my point all along, but I disagree that there is a necessary detraction that comes from this principle. That is where I suggest he is seeking answers, because what he expresses implies that he doesn't know of a better way of doing things than by teaching these "lessons."

Originally Posted by philnotfil

His lessons are merely the practical manifestation of that thought. The entire essay is nothing but answers to the question, how do we instill into students the discipline required to educate them in an institutional setting?

And this is why I see his essay as satire. His answers are the wrong answers. There are better choices he could be making (as a teacher).

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

[philnotfil]

Originally Posted by WESGATORS

If he's to be taken seriously, he expresses chaos. But the system is only chaotic when mismanaged (individual flaw, not a flaw in the system).

In what ways do you feel he expresses chaos? As I read him, he is putting for several ways for teachers to effectively avoid chaos in institutional education settings.

He speaks like someone who is confused about his role and how to properly accomplish his goals.

As I said before, thirty years in the classroom, three times teacher of the year for the city of New York, and one time teacher of the year for the state of New York. I would submit that he understand his role very well and did a good job of filling it.

This has been my point all along, but I disagree that there is a necessary detraction that comes from this principle. That is where I suggest he is seeking answers, because what he expresses implies that he doesn't know of a better way of doing things than by teaching these "lessons."


And this is why I see his essay as satire. His answers are the wrong answers. There are better choices he could be making (as a teacher).

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

What better ways would you suggest for teachers to be using?

[WESGATORS]

Originally Posted by philnotfil

In what ways do you feel he expresses chaos? As I read him, he is putting for several ways for teachers to effectively avoid chaos in institutional education settings.

For instance, in lesson one, he talks about an inability to present the material in an organized fashion. The lesson is itself titled "confusion." Because he doesn't know how to present it in a less confusing way doesn't make the problem an institutional one. Maybe the topic is not suited for him and/or he's in over his head. Can you give me an example of one of the ways he's offering for teachers to avoid chaos?

Originally Posted by philnotfil

As I said before, thirty years in the classroom, three times teacher of the year for the city of New York, and one time teacher of the year for the state of New York. I would submit that he understand his role very well and did a good job of filling it.

Again, which is why I very clearly see this as satire. All the things he picks on are necessary to a healthy learning environment, his expression (if to be taken seriously) imply an ineptitude with each:

- structure in presenting the material
- structure in the classroom
- knowing when and how to deviate from structure
- behavior management
- assessing and developing self-start skills
- assessing and analyzing the students progress, and consulting with them to help them understand where they are at
- adhering to a schedule

More obvious comments on the satirical nature of the piece:

It is time that we faced the fact squarely that institutional schoolteaching is destructive to children.

School is like starting life with a 12-year jail sentence in which bad habits are the only curriculum truly learned.

The whole thing is riddled with sarcasm.

Originally Posted by philnotfil

What better ways would you suggest for teachers to be using?

Pick a lesson and we can break it down. Short of that, let's assess the class position lesson. First thing that needs to be acknowledged is that the first thing you need to have in order to teach a child is a child present and paying attention. You can't have that if you don't have any structure. No matter whether you are in a public school, private school, or home schooling, this concept holds true. It holds true for anything that you are learning. So we can accept that it is necessary. There are no rational alternatives (feel free to suggest some if you disagree).

These comments, again, very clearly sarcastic to me:

I teach that you must stay in class where you belong. I don't know who decides that
my kids belong there but that's not my business.

He's not really "teaching" this, but let's suppose he was. His focus is all wrong. He should be "teaching" the material and finding ways to capture his audience. That they're required to be there doesn't need to be a focus of the presentation throughout the course of the year. He does know who decides that his kids belong in that classroom, and it is his business. I can't even take that comment seriously...unless, he's expressing that he's been a sham for 30 years, and his positive recognition is completely fraudulent.

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

[philnotfil]

Originally Posted by WESGATORS

For instance, in lesson one, he talks about an inability to present the material in an organized fashion. The lesson is itself titled "confusion." Because he doesn't know how to present it in a less confusing way doesn't make the problem an institutional one. Maybe the topic is not suited for him and/or he's in over his head. Can you give me an example of one of the ways he's offering for teachers to avoid chaos?

He doesn't teach confusion because it is better for the students. He teaches confusion because it is better for the school. If all of the connections between the pieces of information a student has are missing, then teachers don't have to spend classroom time on the intricacies of some of those connections that one student noticed while the rest of the class still hasn't had their brains packed full of the unrelated facts that they need to pass their standardized tests. If nothing in one classroom relates to anything in any other classroom, then the teacher doesn't lose any time helping students understand why this class uses it differently from that class, or how the perspective of that class helps inform what we do in this class. And the teacher gains more time for the core things that the state has decreed that they cover in the 180 days they have to work with. If students are confused about the relationship between a given subject and another subject, or life, they ask fewer questions. There is a reason that young children are awesomely curious and that the longer they are in an institutional educational setting the less curious they become.

Does Mr. Gatto think that this is a good thing? Absolutely not. You should read his retirement letter, published in the Wall Street Journal, it closes with "If you hear of a job where I don’t have to hurt kids to make a living, let me know." Teachers don't do these things because they are good for the kids, teachers do these things because they don't have the time or space to do what is best for the kids, and they are not incentivized to do what is best for the kids, they are incentivized to do what is best for the test scores of the kids.

Again, which is why I very clearly see this as satire. All the things he picks on are necessary to a healthy learning environment, his expression (if to be taken seriously) imply an ineptitude with each:

- structure in presenting the material
- structure in the classroom
- knowing when and how to deviate from structure
- behavior management
- assessing and developing self-start skills
- assessing and analyzing the students progress, and consulting with them to help them understand where they are at
- adhering to a schedule

On the contrary, the lessons show a mastery of these things and how to deal with them within the confines of an institutional school setting.

Pick a lesson and we can break it down. Short of that, let's assess the class position lesson. First thing that needs to be acknowledged is that the first thing you need to have in order to teach a child is a child present and paying attention. You can't have that if you don't have any structure. No matter whether you are in a public school, private school, or home schooling, this concept holds true. It holds true for anything that you are learning. So we can accept that it is necessary. There are no rational alternatives (feel free to suggest some if you disagree).

Which is exactly what he is saying. This is why I have a hard time understanding why you are in such vehement disagreement with him. He is showing how teachers can put into practice the very things you are saying should be happening. Class position is one of the most effective ways of implementing structure in institutional education.

These comments, again, very clearly sarcastic to me:"I teach that you must stay in class where you belong. I don't know who decides that
my kids belong there but that's not my business."

If you had ever lost a fight with an administrator over getting a kid into the class they should be in, instead of the class the administrator has assigned them to, you wouldn't see this as sarcastic, you would see this as sadly true.

He's not really "teaching" this, but let's suppose he was. His focus is all wrong. He should be "teaching" the material and finding ways to capture his audience. That they're required to be there doesn't need to be a focus of the presentation throughout the course of the year. He does know who decides that his kids belong in that classroom, and it is his business. I can't even take that comment seriously...unless, he's expressing that he's been a sham for 30 years, and his positive recognition is completely fraudulent.

Or that he is fed up with a system that doesn't let him actually educate his students, and instead mandates that he merely teaches them. It isn't that his focus is wrong, it is that the structure of schooling makes doing these things the most efficient ways of fulfilling the job requirements.

What is your experience in institutional education, outside of being a student?

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

Originally Posted by WESGATORS

You can't properly educate children without violating their alleged Constitutional rights. Most kids would rather be somewhere else than in school all day. It is the ability to take their rights away and institute consequences for expressing their freedom that enables them to be properly educated.



That's not possible for reasons I've already detailed. To be properly educated, you must relinquish your rights in the name of order. I don't want my kid being educated in a classroom where other children are free to do what they please including come and go as they please. School is not a place for freedom, it's a place for instruction.

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

In this case, it is quite clear that the parents did not want this tracking device. While I agree we restrict the rights of children before they become of age, by-in-large it is the parents get the final word on the matter. Not the state. And certainly not a school bureaucrat

.