School’s in, for Autumn and Winter and Spring

Normaali

Viikko 39


 

Motion: THB that the underaged should right now be put in their place at school by joint adult action
Role: Minister (govt.)


”Kids today are in school to foster/educate adults; whereas adults in school today aren’t there to foster/educate kids,” or, so said one commentator on the feedback pages of a national tabloid, concerning the sordid state of underage/teenage education in our country. There may be a grain of truth to this observation; at least I dug it on that level. Kids are unruly, AD/HD-infested, directionless, smart, conscious of their rights, sadistic, world-weary and so on. All of this presents an obstacle to those who would like to make them learn something for real.

Pacifying schools should be important. We need an educated workforce, who have the following virtues:
– skills in self-expression and foreign languages
– general sophistication and
– knowledge on manners and the etiquette
Unruly kids undermine all of this severely. They are effectively doing away with those very years when they would be physically able to learn, for example, Swedish, French and math. As a result, if we’ll do nothing, we will be at the receiving end for young adults who are ready-made fodder for collecting disability paychecks and sickness pension.

If this situation goes on for a longer time, teaching may become a profession that will lose out on talent and become a haven for those whose main talent is in crowd control (policemen) or discipline (soldiers, officers). Schools should be able to do their own policing without resorting to the actual police and military forces.

I would like to introduce the concept of Blunt Resistance. That would mean this:
”Physical contact between people would be allowed on school grounds, unless it is delivered at the point of some sharp object or projectile such as knife, gun (bullet), ruler or brass knuckles.”
In other words, each person would be allowed to shove/push some other person as a necesssary evil that moments of friction in education cause. Teachers could, if things reached the boiling point, push teachers, students students, teachers students and students teachers. These infractions would not lead to disciplinary measures (but some moments of tumult and a calming down in most cases). The exceptions would be said use of pointed instruments, more severe violence, use of explosives (not the use of expletives) or repeat offending in terms of disruptive or disturbing behaviour.

Then, the duty of the dean or principal or rector would be to mete out the kind of justice which seems to have been phased out of Education: Expulsion. In the  past, it was customary to read about someone having been expelled from this or that school once or twice or thrice. In this new expulsionary model, teachers could as well be subject to the threat of suspension instead of expulsion. In their case, it would lead to financial consequences: they would need to hire a substitute teaching fellow to carry out what the pupils or students would otherwise miss out on. Their wages for that time concerned would go to the sub, and they’d be in charge of mentoring him or her.

As to the young offenders, their spending some time, maybe a week or so, in their parents’ house would have the desired effect of making those parents acutely aware of how useless/insensitive their offspring can really be, for it is likely that the erroneous behaviour of those said kids would somehow not be invisible at home either. I.e. they would not take the trash out, vacuum-clean their room or seek out some temporary job.

We could mend three problems with this approach:
– Bring peace to besieged schools under stress for those, who deserve it the most (diligent studentry/faculty)
– Help ease the job-drought of teachers-to-be and young seminarians
– Put contemptuous and over-protective parents in their right corner.

Report this, if you can.


Puheen kesto: 5 min 20 sek
Arvio: * * *. Puheessa on luja vauhti ja vähän yläkierrettä. Lievä kokeellisuus ei ole silti pelkästään hyvästä. Puheen hahmottelemat kaksi toimenpidettä rikkovat harmonista kokonaisvaikutelmaa. III puhuja voi esittää ne edellyttäen, että hän on sopinut tästä I puhujan kanssa, eikä sooloile omin päin. Toimenpiteillä on kuitenkin sellainen sävy, joka on tyypillisempää kokeellisille väittelyille luokkahuoneessa kuin varsinaiselle politiikalle parlamentin täysistuntosalissa. Edellisellä areenalla tämän tyyppiset ehdotukset kuulostavat tutuilta, siinä missä jälkimmäisellä ne kuulostaisivat vierailta.

Advertisements

Vastaa

Täytä tietosi alle tai klikkaa kuvaketta kirjautuaksesi sisään:

WordPress.com-logo

Olet kommentoimassa WordPress.com -tilin nimissä. Log Out / Muuta )

Twitter-kuva

Olet kommentoimassa Twitter -tilin nimissä. Log Out / Muuta )

Facebook-kuva

Olet kommentoimassa Facebook -tilin nimissä. Log Out / Muuta )

Google+ photo

Olet kommentoimassa Google+ -tilin nimissä. Log Out / Muuta )

Muodostetaan yhteyttä palveluun %s