This article is infuriating. They're effectively trying to social engineer these kids to prevent a few side effects that are crucial in their development.
Why is it that we think that kids are somehow meaner now than they were at any other point?
To play devil's advocate for a moment, only addressing the point of bullying:
While you and yours may have the support structure and innate tendency to become stronger as a result of early-childhood bullying, I think the schools' argument is that the potential harm in a student being bullied to the point they hurt their future educations/careers is greater than the potential good of bullying for those who can withstand it.
Social fortitude is like any other aspect of development in that some children will obtain it sooner than others. Those that get there first become the popular kids and the kids that simply don't care. Those that don't arrange themselves into ``safe'' cliques or take what the other children say to heart and believe that they are stupid/ugly/weak and will never be able to change. If the parents are not available, the school would need to be able to provide individual support to nurture these kids to the point where they can stand up for themselves. This is difficult in public schools, so the alternative they are using is to encourage all the children to spend time together.
Now, devil's advocate aside, since I believe I can provide the type of supporting atmosphere that will help a kid toughen up, I would likely not send my child to a school like this. However, faced with the problem of unreliable parental involvement, I can somewhat understand the school position.
It's not that we think they are meaner, it's that we think they can't handle anybody being mean to them. I'm beginning to believe the biggest crisis in America is middle school administrators (ok, maybe a touch of hyperbole...).
Comments
This article is infuriating. They're effectively trying to social engineer these kids to prevent a few side effects that are crucial in their development.
Why is it that we think that kids are somehow meaner now than they were at any other point?
To play devil's advocate for a moment, only addressing the point of bullying:
While you and yours may have the support structure and innate tendency to become stronger as a result of early-childhood bullying, I think the schools' argument is that the potential harm in a student being bullied to the point they hurt their future educations/careers is greater than the potential good of bullying for those who can withstand it.
Social fortitude is like any other aspect of development in that some children will obtain it sooner than others. Those that get there first become the popular kids and the kids that simply don't care. Those that don't arrange themselves into ``safe'' cliques or take what the other children say to heart and believe that they are stupid/ugly/weak and will never be able to change. If the parents are not available, the school would need to be able to provide individual support to nurture these kids to the point where they can stand up for themselves. This is difficult in public schools, so the alternative they are using is to encourage all the children to spend time together.
Now, devil's advocate aside, since I believe I can provide the type of supporting atmosphere that will help a kid toughen up, I would likely not send my child to a school like this. However, faced with the problem of unreliable parental involvement, I can somewhat understand the school position.
It's not that we think they are meaner, it's that we think they can't handle anybody being mean to them. I'm beginning to believe the biggest crisis in America is middle school administrators (ok, maybe a touch of hyperbole...).