"Scott Weiser" wrote in message
...
A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:

You recommned a SMACK for ADHD students.

No, I recommend appropriate corporal punishment for students who haven't
been taught by their parents to be quiet, respectful and obedient to
authority and who haven't learned to concentrate.

LOL!

How brilliant!

Take kids who have trouble at home and beat them at school!

I didn't say "beat them." But as to discipline, somebody's got to do it,
or
the kids grow up to be criminals. Even young children can distinguish
between unprovoked physical abuse and just punishment for wrongdoing.

Corporal punishment is usually administered in aid of the person
administering it. The myth of the detached robotic corporal punisher dishing
out emotionally detached consequences is just that...a myth.

That'll learn
'em to concentrate!

Most of the time, yes.

Yup, concentrate on revenge. And who they are going to beat in the
schoolyard just like the teacher beat them.

And also that violence is acceptable,

Violence is acceptable, in proper context.

A classroom is not the proper context.

The unlawful violence against me
in junior high school stopped when I stood up to a bully, took my lumps,
and
beat the crap out of him in self-defense after he wantonly attacked me
without warning or provocation. After that fight, I never had another
problem with any of my peers trying to bully me. But, it also taught me
that
it's a really good idea to do everything possible to avoid a fight,
because
even winning a fight *hurts.* I haven't been in a *single* fistfight since
then, including during my tenure as a police officer, where I was always
able to verbally convince people that fighting with me would be a very bad
idea because one way or another, the law was going to win. More than 40
years of successful non-violence directly resulted from one single
incidence
of the lawful and appropriate use of physical force in self-defense.
That's
a lesson that *all* children ought to learn.

When I worked as an EMT in a hospital ER, the people we saw most often
from
bar fights were the *winners.* They usually broke bones in the hand as a
result of the punch that ended the fight, and ended up in a cast.

Consider appropriate corporal punishment, both at home and in schools, as
prophylactic self-defense by society against the inevitable violence
perpetrated by undisciplined children who grow up into undisciplined
adults.

It doesn't work that way. Kids who already have problems end up getting
beaten by their teachers, thus teaching them that violence and aggression is
how the world works, and the message definitely gets passed on.

after all, school
is a good and fine social institution, and they use violence, so it's OK
for
me too!

Context is everything. Moreover, violence is an inherent part of human
nature. Learning to control one's behavior because the painful
consequences
of not doing so is an important lesson to learn, because no matter who you
are, there's always somebody bigger, badder and more violent out there who
can hurt you if you **** them off. Children who don't understand that they
must learn to control their behavior or they may suffer *even worse*
violence are in grave danger.

Teach them not to be violent by hitting them. Interesting. Have you ever
heard about cycles of abuse?

Smacking a child's hand or giving them a swat on the bottom to enforce
obedience is not, contrary to liberal permissive dogma, going to turn them
into psychopathic killers.

Nope. But it will teach them that physical force is an appropriate way to
deal with problems. It will also make them very angry.

Not doing so, however, stands a very good chance
of turning them into uncontrollable, wild, selfish and violent adults who
don't recognize any limitations on their behavior. That fact is perfectly
clear. One needs only look at the decline of civility and the burgeoning
juvenile crime rates to see this.

It is a rather juvenile leap to attribute these problems to a failure of
teachers to beat their students.

I deny that just because a
student is disruptive and unwilling to concentrate or obey, that the
student
is *unable* to concentrate or obey due to some phony, concocted
"diagnosis"
that is little more than a marketing tool for Ritalin.

I agree with you on this point. Drugs are being unbelievably
overprescribed.
By SMACKING the kids is not the answer. Obviously.

Why is it obvious to you? How do you deny thousands of years of corporal
discipline that resulted in generation after generation of rational,
peaceful and well-behaved adults?

LOL. Which generation are we talking about? You mean the generations where
wife-beating was an accepted social practice?

Overcoming "ADHD" is something you *learn* to do, not something you can
be
medicated into. Sometimes children need to be caused to focus, and
corporal
punishment, in appropriate measure, can be an effective tool for
obtaining
obedience and stimulating focus.

Ridiculous. That's the recipe for a volcano that will erupt (internally,
externally, or both). It just teaches the kid that when you have a
problem,
you lash out at it.

Balderdash. The most violent teens on the planet are those who have
*never*
been disciplined.

Not in my considerable experience. Do you have some research to indicate
that violent teens come from peaceful environments? You do realize that
there are disciplined families that have never raised a hand to a child,
right?

Teaching self-control is a necessary part of any child's
upbringing, and teaching a child that authority has teeth, and that
defiance
may have painful consequences is absolutely necessary if the child is to
grow up into a responsible adult.

Being beaten teaches children to beat others. Are you saying that there are
no responsible adults who were not beaten by their parents and teachers? How
silly.

Heck, even the teacher hits me, what's wrong with me
hitting a kid that I don't like?

The answer is quite simple: You are not a teacher, and you do not have any
authority to administer corporal punishment. Even small children are
capable
of distinguishing between punishment administered for wrongful behavior
and
wanton assault.

Actually, you hear those exact words all the time. The teacher does it, so
why shouldn't I?

Most of the time, "ADHD" is nothing more than a sugar high caused by
poor
nutrition and breakfast cereal combined with lax, permissive parenting
that
spills over into the classroom.

There are a proportion of kids diagnosed ADHD who experience a
life-changing
experience with medication.

I'd say *all* of them do. The question is whether or not the changes are
positive or negative. The vast, vast majority of the time, the changes are
demonstrably negative and extremely harmful to the child's future.

With proper medical care this never has to happen.

The dosage needs to be monitored closely with
the intent of reducing it as soon as possible, and the goal of
eliminating
it.

In 90% of the cases, the dosage should be zero.

Could be.

The medication should be combined with strategies for the teacher,
parents, and child. The strategies should be tried first before
medication
is even a consideration.

Yup. And corporal punishment is one of the prime strategies that should be
applied LONG before medication is even considered.

Only if you want a child with even more problems who will end up with even
more medication.


That said, I agree with much of what you say (regarding misdiagnosis and
slapping of labels on kids so they can be dealt with through medications)
but I think your focus on the need for the child to have a smack is way
off.
They need people around them who can set boundaries and help establish
routines and structure that are appropriate.

And how, exactly, do you set "boundaries" with an out-of-control child who
refuses to acknowledge parental (or teacher) authority, no matter what
punishments short of corporal punishment are applied?

I find out what is going on.

And then there's the issue of how you teach a child to stay away from
danger.

You can do this without smacking people.

Telling a two year old that something is "hot" is only marginally useful
until they understand what "hot" means. In my home, we have a wood stove
insert to heat the house. There are no barriers, no guard rails, nothing
to
keep a child from touching the hot stove. And yet not one of the children
has ever suffered a serious burn, because they learn very quickly not to
touch (or even get near) the stove when it's lit. Has there been the
occasional burned finger? Yes. But not more than once per child. Is
allowing
a child to burn his finger so he understands the concept of "hot" violent?
To many parents, probably so, but to us, children have to learn to live in
the real world, which is filled with real perils, which requires that they
be absolutely and reliably obedient to parental commands. Unless we are
willing to let them experiment with dangers that can severely injure or
kill
them, we have to find ways to teach them the painful consequences of
carelessness or disobedience by using techniques that demonstrate the
physical pain involved in doing such things while protecting them from any
real harm. Wrapping children in bunting so as to keep them from any pain
is
a disservice to them. Corporal punishment is the way that rational adults
teach the very real consequences of misbehavior in ways that are
uncomfortable and unpleasant, but harmless.

I never once burned myself on a stove but also was never smacked to learn no
to do so. I have worked with many vulnerable people with limited cognitive
abilities and have never smacked them to help them learn not to burn
themselves on a stove. And none of them ever has.

Thus, when teaching the two year old not to run out in the street, a
bare-butt spanking that makes the consequences of disobedience much more
real, immediate and painful than the abstract concept of "you might get
hit
by a car" is perfectly justifiable, reasonable, rational and effective.

Being beaten by your parent is not a logical consequence to running on the
street. It only teaches that your parent is unstable and lacks the parenting
skills to help you develop boundaries.

Likewise, smacking the back of the hand of a disruptive student who has
refused polite requests to settle down to work is perfectly reasonable
because it is harmless, but it makes the consequences of disobedience more
unpleasant than those of obedience.

It's not harmless at all. I meets the needs of the teacher. It is a strategy
for the weak of mind, and demonstrates a lack of discipline by the person in
authority.

When I was about 4, my dad caught me putting paperclips in the wall
sockets.
I didn't respond to lectures on the subject, so he bought a crank-type
telephone generator and gave me a couple of very unpleasant but harmless
shocks. Then he told me what was in the telephone box was "little
electricity," and that what was in the wall socket was "big electricity."
I
got the message instantly, and never ventured near the wall sockets with a
paperclip again. It was a valuable and well-crafted lesson that made it
absolutely certain I wouldn't be in danger of death.

But, if a parent today did the same thing, he would undoubtedly be
arrested
for "child abuse" merely because he subjected his child to some minor pain
out of concern for his life. So, instead of children who understand the
dangers of AC line voltage and current, we have plastic plugs which any
three year old can remove and a generation of kids at risk for
electrocution.

Oddly enough, I've also never electrocuted myself. But what you are
describing above is quite different from administering a rap on the hand to
bring about classroom compliance.

Sorry, but life is full of danger and pain, and there's nothing wrong with
instilling discipline and obedience through reasonable and appropriate
corporal punishment in order to prevent greater, potentially fatal harm at
a
later time. Never has been, never will be, so long as it's done with the
proper motives and in the proper proportion.

Those are mythical motives and mythical proportions.

And please don't bother trying to forward the specious argument that any
corporal punishment is, or inevitably leads to, genuine physical abuse,
because it's not true. For example, I don't run around the house with a
cattle-prod zapping the two year old every time he disobeys just because
my
father used an electrical shock to reinforce a vital safety lesson.

I'm sure your father and you are special exeptions. It's not like you walk
around with a gun waiting for the day you can shoot someone.