Hacker News Reader

Comment by RappingBoomer | Hacker News Reader

i left teaching in 2 years, and I wanted to leave it pretty much as soon as i started...took me 2 years to get out...what a mess... my day was full of personal conflict...not something I ever enjoyed...but I did grow as a person, but it was certainly not a pleasant process... the main problems? Inability to punish students, lack of respect...back in my day, if we disrespected the teacher, we got licks in front of the classroom... also, kids don't read that much anymore, making it hard to teach them

View on HN

Not sure why I'm sharing these stories, but...they are amusing.

My father, 84 years old, remembers his elementary school teacher kicking him full-force on his flank (for fooling around with his buddies). Probably not the best approach, but he remembers it to this day.

He also remembers students being forced to kneel on hardened kernels of corn as punishment.

And I was repeatedly told when I was in elementary school, "If you were stupid enough to go home and complain to your parents that your teacher beat you, you just got beaten twice as hard."

kids these days...

They’re not amusing, they’re horrible. The fact that these stories are re-told just goes to show how traumatising they were as experiences for those involved.

Not all painful memories or memories of pain have to be catastrophised into "trauma". Some can be simply instructive ("hot surface hurts") without needing to go into provoking an irrational response.

How can you have any pudding if you don't eat your meat?

How were we to know they'd go home to their fat psychopathic wives to be beaten within and inch of their lives?

one other problem is that the classes are not separated as to ability anymore...now in each classroom you are going to have one or more kids who have mental issues and who will wind up in prison, maybe for most of their adult lives...think about that--you have to ride herd on kids who are future lifer convicts...you can tell that these people will be in prison from an early age...they are really messed up...from birth, most likely...these kids are angry at the world because they do not fit in...and they take it out on the teacher...a lovely situation...the teachers warn each other about these kids...you can spot them fairly easily...naively, society believes you can get them on your side...you think we don't try? It does not work, long term...these kids fail at everything and cannot succeed at anything...

That's very disappointing to read.

Imagine you are the kid which will end in prison. Wouldn't you feel betrayed from society if society can already see that you will end in prison and is doing nothing against it?

You can we haven't accepted the right answer though: more money for education.

Smaller classes, more support, proper trained psychologist

most teachers will tell you the truth--it's there from birth, and basically incurable

I mean...I'm kinda glad you got out of the profession...

I think it’s become tragically obvious that a whole lot of children are born to parents who should’ve never had children and have no business being parents. These children end up dumped on educators with zero support at home, and so little social system support we could also say it’s zero.

This isn’t nature versus nurture per se (although I believe the data does show some ability and intelligence is genetic/inherent), but that it takes a lot for a human child to succeed unless they’re at the higher end of the bell curve (and even then it’s no guarantee).

yeah, I understand your meaning, but you fail to understand the situation...did you read the article? NO ONE can do the job...

The United States already has below average class sizes, and spends 37% more per student than the average.

There is some evidence that large class sizes produce better results, and it would seem that whatever the US spends its education money on isn't working, because our students test much lower than our investment would predict.

[0] https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator/cmd

The schools with the most future prisoners are already highly funded. Psychologists cant do anything for people stupid enough to end up in prison.

I was a bad kid growing up. I ended up at a pilot program consisting of about 14 kids, mostly more screwed up than me, and about 3 psychiatrists and 5 support counselors. It did basically nothing for the kids. The thing that helped me the most was my parents moving away and putting me in normal school in a different state and peer pressure helping me be normal.

> more support

Mostly outside of education. The US spends a lot on education and gets poor results for the investment because it also spends on lot on institutionalizing racism and reinforcing socioeconomic insecurity in the working class, which creates a lot for the education system to work against.

Sounds like the system dodged a bullet, but would be improved if it could have ejected you in less than 2 years. Bemoaning the lack of beatings and then making an analogy between your pupils and livestock? Nice.

lol...did you read the article? It's the same all over...i was the rule, not the exception

I didn't think they were bemoaning a lack of beatings. It sounded like they were talking about how they don't have tools to discipline students. Stuff like some schools doing away with detention, etc. Then they put in their experience of corporal punishment growing up.

Going to public schools in KY, I look back at how we were grouped by horse families (e.g. thoroughbreds were gifted, clydesdales the laborers) based on academic achievement. Teachers could easily and openly identify which type of student by asking which family they belonged to, and students being entirely unaware of the joke unless they were aware of different types of horses and their applications.

I can't tell if your teachers were reading their Huxley or not. I guess it's slightly more obscure than just labeling kids Alpha to Epsilon.

> back in my day, if we disrespected the teacher, we got licks in front of the classroom

The evidence that physical violence as punishment against children is counterproductive and harmful to their development is pretty overwhelming (and the evidence that it is harmful for those who merely witness and are under pervasive threat of it rather than actually punished with it is also strong.)

Promoting abuse of children just because you were raised in an environment where abuse was normalized (and one where that might have been excusable as nonculpable ignorance because the evidence of harm was not as compelling as it has since become) does little but demonstrate what the phrase “cycle of abuse” means.

Far from overwhelming. I thought so too, but that's largely from the correlation between poor quality households and use of severe physical abuse, as well as bucketing all corporal punishment from spanking to bashing them with closed fists.

Studies that separated measured corporal punishment from outright abuse found drastically different results.

Elaborate? Where can I find further reading?

Something like this, though I haven't touched this in a while

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7992110/

I had this debate with a friend a year ago, and when we dug into the literature, it was certainly rather mixed.

Can you provide more data?

Not being able to beat kids is not something new. It is something that existed for decades and over a generation.

Zero punishment is quite new. We are seeing the results of the first generation raised in such an environment.

We were well down this path when I graduated in '99, and went full steam ahead during my kid's primary school career. You either escaped to a (private or suburban) school not full of juvenile delinquents who had parents that still cared, or you simply gave up on having your child have an actual education.

The inner city school I had to attend in 1998 was more or less a daycare even back then, and the anecdotes I hear today have only gone further in that direction.

Young people are better behaved now then at periods you talk about. Drugs abuse goes down. Young people commit less violent crime. They drink less alcohol. They even get pregnant less often.

Young people now literally behave better wherever you look. The generation that grew in 90ties just was not better behaved.

> The generation that grew in 90ties just was not better behaved.

I'm not talking about better behaved. I'm talking about better behaved in school, or you got expelled very quickly. That left others who were there to learn (or at least not to be disruptive) move forward in peace. I have no opinion on if kids were better behaved outside the classroom - likely not, having grown up during that time.

A single kid can ruin an entire semester for 40 kids in the classroom. I've personally watched it happen, and there was nothing the teacher could do. Averages don't matter in this situation - only outliers do.

I'd go back to a "rougher" generation that learns to behave when appropriate (and those that don't learn, get removed) any day of the week over what we currently have in the average urban public school system.

Edit: Heck, I got suspended from a couple classes in high school due to attendance issues. Rightfully so since I was holding back other students on group projects and the like. Today that would be utterly unheard of in that same school system.

Except that, it does not seem to be the case. There is absolutely nothing to suggest kids were better behaved in schools. The rougher generation did not behaved better where appropriate. Even issues I mentioned were about them misbehaving when not appropriate.

You just idealize own generation, that is all. Which is odd, because at the time superpredators panic was going on and people fretted.

> You just idealize own generation, that is all. Which is odd, because at the time superpredators panic was going on and people fretted.

I still believe we're talking about entirely different things. One of my schools was incredibly rough. If you talked back to a teacher you'd get instantly suspended, and on the third one bounced to alternative schooling. I was one of those kids.

That no longer happens, and was starting to slip when I was due to graduate. These days I've witnessed students literally hurling desks at teachers and smashing windows only to be back in the classroom on Monday.

Yes, I totally agree violence was more in your face in the 90s. The utter disrespect towards teachers and those trying to learn with zero consequences for your actions was simply not there yet, at least in my small section of the world. Perhaps on the coasts and other major cities this was already the norm.

There simply is no mechanism to separate the small percentage of troublemakers from the general student population any longer, much less providing challenges for the high achievers. This drags down standards and morale on a massive fashion, and the results simply speak for themselves.

The "best" school I went to during my illustrious schooling career was an inner city private school where almost all the kids were on 90%+ needs-based scholarships. Selection bias where only the parents who cared enough to jump through the loopholes made that place bearable - so teachers that actually taught stuck around. The difference in attitudes and hope was utterly night and day. Almost entirely because the bottom 10% or so wasn't dragging everyone else down to their behavioural level.

In many districts you can't fail a student (banned), you can't hold them back and you can't discipline.

This does make things harder and disrupts learning for others.

If students can't be held back why do we even test them? Ofc, it is helpful to show them their knowledge, but I think that is quite early... Or to discover where to try to improve process, but I think fear of being held back and losing the group could be reasonable tool to get at least part of the students to learn.

Afaik, it did not worked like that. Repeating grades did not lead to better success, which was one reason for ending it. The age difference between failed kid and younger kids in next class did not made anything easier either.

And kids at the very bottom have better and more support available now. It is not perfect, it often sux and is not available to everybody. I definitely don't mean to say it is somehow super great. But the kids at the bottom with cognitively issues or impulsive control issues have better chance to learn more then used to be normal.

I'm not sure how bumping them up a grade is any better. It's that not just a massive waste of time for everyone involved?

My take on it is they basically give up on them and get them out of the system faster that way.

If the kids failed either way, it's cheaper to make them fail in 12 years than 13 or 14.

When I was growing up you were bumped up still (to stay with age group), but you took basic courses until you were back up to speed, then you were moved to standard, then advanced, then AP. I sucked at AP, but standard / advanced were good. The AP kids must have studied so hard - I bombed those classes when I tried them.

But that also was seen as discriminatory I think because it wasn't that easy to move out of basic etc once you were there so I think they stopped this as well - I think system was called tracking.

Reminds me of this story[1] of Baltimore students repeatedly advanced despite passing essentially no classes.

>According to transcripts, France's son passed only three classes in his four years of high school, earning a 0.13 grade point average. What's worse is that her son's GPA puts him near the top half of this class. He was also late or absent to school 359 days.

https://www.willitsnews.com/2013/01/26/firing-a-tenured-teac...

In SF they've been having kids get A's despite no attendance. And the attendance figures were being fudged as well. Reason was they've had so many subs they don't know who is in class / just give everyone an A.

This is the real issue. Zero repercussions. It also affects the quality of teachers. What stops some teachers from sleepwalking their way through the year if they know their students will move forward regardless of how poorly they’ve been taught.

Spanking is not the same as beating. Words matter.

Spanking is when hit them repeatedly. Beating is when you hit people repeatedly.

The only difference is rituál around it.

Spanking specifically means open-palm slaps on the ass, though. It's done in such a way as to inflict pain without injury (as opposed to beating).

It's a little absurd that this needs to be explained to adults.

It's because the only people conflating the two are deliberately doing so in bad faith to score political points.

Belt spanking is spanking. Paddle spanking is spanking.

It was literally never true that the word would refer to beating a kid by open hand only. The books that teach parents to spank also give advice to use instruments and call it spanking.

Old books that contain spanking use the word beating as synonyms. It started to be used as different word when people started to take issue with it more often.

I agree with you that paddles or switches can be used for "spanking", and that "spanking" is a form of "beating", but still the words are different. "Spanking" strongly implies that it is done to cause pain without serious or permanent injury. "Beating" has no such limitation.

I agree that it is not the right way to discipline a child, but I can recognize this distinction in meaning.

I find this interesting, actually, as a form of argument. The annihilation of semantic categories. It's like argument via Sapir-Whorf.

Spankings are beatings

Sure, would you rather get a spanking from your mother, or a beating from a drug lord or a CIA interrogator at a black site? It's not the same.

This is beyond bad faith. Would you rather get a beating from your mother or a spanking from a drug lord?

>This is beyond bad faith. Would you rather get a beating from your mother or a spanking from a drug lord?

This is in bad faith, a drug lord won't give you a spanking unless it's sexual in nature. I assume you know the difference between a sexual spanking and a beating in the street. Perhaps not. A parent can give a beating, but that is different from a spanking.

I think trying to equivocate a spanking with a beating is intellectually dishonest. If you can't tell the difference in both intent and intensity, I have no idea where you are coming from. You might be against spankings but to argue the words spanking and beating are synonyms is simply wrong, and quite honestly, juvenile in the level of reasoning. As the OP said, words matter.

This might be the all-time worse comment I’ve seen on HN.

That's very dramatic. Maybe if people would stop being so comfortable with meaningless hyperbole such as yours, we'd re-learn how to communicate better.

As a matter of language and connotations, you're right.

I assume people are so appalled by the concept of physical punishment (which, let's be clear, I don't do and barely experienced either), that they don't want to acknowledge... how English works.

"Spanking" implies an open palm or maybe a belt or thin switch, on the rump. It hurts; it may leave a bruise; it may be barbaric -- but it doesn't involve serious injury (say, to internal organs). The point is to inflict pain without serious injury.

"Beating" carries no such connotations of limited harm. It can be done with fists or blunt objects; it can target the face or internal organs like the kidneys; it can be severe enough to lead to death.

This difference in meaning is as much about connotation as denotation, but the connotational differences are very large. You might say that, logically, a spanking is a kind of limited beating, but not all beatings are spankings.

So, as a matter of language, you're right.

> Inability to punish students, lack of respect

It sounds like you leaving the profession was best for everyone involved.

did you read and understand the article?...i got out because I COULD get out...lots of teachers cannot get out or are pushed out before they can find an exit option. You think you understand, but you do not...

I did read the article. It didn’t say anything about teachers inability to punish disrespectful students.

Rather, it said things like this:

> One of the things that students benefit from (diverse educators) is this idea of seeing themselves not only leading classrooms, but also in the curriculum

Do you see the difference? They want to engage students by empowering them. In contrast, you wanted to demand respect through fear of punishment. It’s not hard to imagine why your days were plagued with interpersonal conflict.

My wife also left elementary school teaching shortly after the pandemic. She had a child throw a sizable textbook at her, only missing her head by an inch or so. Felt the air as it wizzed by. She sent the kid to the vice-principal for their grade level. Thirty minutes later the kid was right back in her class, and once again causing disruptions.

They lack any ability or willpower to meaningfully hold students accountable. My wife felt physically unsafe with this student in her room, yet apparently nothing could be done.

   "Inability to punish students, lack of respect"

When I was growing up in Texas, most teachers had a wooden paddle, often prominently displayed. To be spanked by a paddle was called "getting licks". Female teachers would sometimes delegate the paddling to a coach or other male teacher. Most all this that I recall occurred in Junior High (what they now call middle school. Grades 7-9). By high school, "licks" were quite rare, as most students had learned how to behave better by then.

To people today this all sounds barbaric. However, there were far fewer "broken people" coming out of that system than is produced today. That generation was not filled with sociopaths and 'challenged" people -- quite the opposite. It's the system today that produces those. Lack of ability to administer punishment is part of why teachers get so little respect.

The past 2 years was very revealing as to how our modern public schools are failing today. It's embarrassing, and I understand and support the moves many parents are making to private or home schooling.

But the teacher-student violence only normalizes violence in the minds of the victims. Consider that as the practice receded in the US so did the violent crime. I claim it's no coincidence. Yeah, I know, leaded gasoline etc. Whatever. That's my story and I'm sticking to it - violence begets violence.

+1, it’s why the “good guys with guns” stuff doesn’t work; more guns = more shootings, e.g. https://www.businessinsider.com/gun-control-research-conceal...

People will argue this until they’re blue in the face, but pulling a deadly weapon out escalates the situation, when de-escalation would likely lead to a less physically harmful outcome.

> the main problems? Inability to punish students,

Is this some kind of joke? If you want to lead with _that_, I hope you never are put in a position of power over any kid ever again.

What do you see as the alternative to punishment when trying to maintain an environment that students can learn in?

I was generally a good and respectful student, and I was punished on the occasions I misbehaved or was disruptive. I think that punishment was necessary and helpful.

Punishment is not per se problematic, beating as punishment definitely is. Physical violence is too far. Send them to detention or wherever.

I thought they were talking about in general and threw in a personal experience of themselves having corporal punishment. Some schools have done away with detention.

As a child I was punished three times without cause, including once when I was a straightforward victim and had several witnesses; and twice by a teacher who disliked me only because a troublesome family member had been her former student. One of those times I was "convicted" on the word of my bully for something I had not done and my bully regularly did. They tried to get me to admit to things in each case, but even though I denied it throughout, I was still punished.

As a father, I remember the only time my kid got in trouble at school. I received a strongly worded letter from my child's school that my child had been disrespectful to a teacher and that he was going to receive detention. It was like pulling teeth to get them to tell me what my child had actually done that was disrespectful. When asked (in email) they just kept repeating that he was disrespectful and they talked a lot about the teacher's feelings but never told me what my specifically kid had done or said. I wrote them back a last time suggesting I meet with the principal and the teacher in person to discuss the issue. They never replied to me, but I found out through my kid that they dropped the detention. I'd have pressed further, but we were already moving our kid to another school because of other shenanigans and overall low education quality.

I asked my kid for his version of events. He said that he took a test about the field trip they had been on, and he had left the last question "What did you learn?" blank. The teacher suggested he answer the question. My kid said leaving it blank was his answer and the teacher left to check on the other kids. If this bothered the teacher, it wasn't even addressed at the time.

Now, I had a good talk with my kid about the situation and I agree that he shouldn't have left that question blank. (I also sympathized with him because the field trip was the same each year and not exactly information rich. It was overall I think a good learning moment for him.) But this was what hurt the teacher's feelings and she found disrespectful? If the kid refuses to answer the question let his score reflect it. If you're not okay with blank questions, make that a detention-worthy offense. But to bring me your hurt feelings and how my kid was disrespectful... and then to not even be willing to tell me about it? I thought maybe my kid had a tone or was otherwise rude in his delivery of his decision; but if so, they wouldn't tell me about it. And I've talked to my kid about this incident since, and even as an adult he has no idea why the teacher had the reaction she seemed to have had.

Anyway, the point of this is that discipline in schools is mostly unfair, arbitrary, and not clearly effective. In the general case there are no trials, no weighing of the evidence, or anything to protect the student from unfair treatment or abuse.

I don't know what the solution is; parents suck and let their kids get away with murder. But many current parents also experienced such 'guidance' and have no desire to see their kids experience it as well.

"One of those times I was "convicted" on the word of my bully for something I had not done and my bully regularly did. They tried to get me to admit to things in each case, but even though I denied it throughout, I was still punished."

"Anyway, the point of this is that discipline in schools is mostly unfair, arbitrary, and not clearly effective. In the general case there are no trials, no weighing of the evidence, or anything to protect the student from unfair treatment or abuse."

To be fair, the criminal "justice" system works the same way - abuses of power, arbitrary punishments, recidivism, etc. And, you can have a trial if you feel like starting a law suit, but I don't know how much justice one finds there either. Up to 10% of the incarcerated are wrongfully convicted. I think we should be working to fix both systems, but given this it's perhaps better to learn that this is how the system works when the stakes are detention vs prison.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com