Bad education

[Shrykull]

I was watching a few movies on the educational system and education in general, particularly high school, made me wonder a few things?

Ever seen Teachers before? In that movie it's about a lawyer suing a school because a student there graduated, but still couldn't read or write. The school was passing kids just to pass them, even if they didn't learn the material presented. Does this really happen? I never went to an inner city school, but In the towns I've lived in, rural bedroom communities you wouldn't graduate first grade if you didn't know to read or write! Plus, how could a student like this possibly go to college being illiterate? Have they ever tried to make a national mandate that you must know how to read and write to pass first grade? And enforce it of course.

In dangerous minds this was somewhat the case also, she teaches a class of misfits, mostly kids that seem to be able to read and write (they can read the stuff she writes on the board) however, they are wracked with mostly behavioral problems. They do a lot of things that never would have been allowed at the high school I went to, such as constantly talking, having radio's in class (sometimes even playing them) getting up during class and walking around,etc. Made me wonder what would happen if they tried to enforce the same discipline they did at my high school? Would it work? I don't know the specifics of these kids education, what they had and hadn't been taught, but I suspect they might have been there because teachers simply "let it slide" and passed them without them learning the required material.

Finally, I saw the principal. In that movie he says that most of the students there have already been expelled from somewhere else. Are there any schools like this, not reform schools, but just "hell" schools, a place to dump the expelees from other schools? I thought that high school's serve a community, they aren't a place to put bad kids from other schools.

I know someone who went to a reform/disciplinary school in New York state, called the Academy at Ivy Ridge. http://www.academyivyridge.com/ He says that they were allowed to use physical discipline there against the kids, that your parents sign a waver giving them permission to do so. He said he saw kids hit and brought to the ground there. When I asked him what the most violent thing they ever did to a kid there, he told me about one time when a counselor took a kid with glasses, put out his leg, and threw him over it towards the ground, smashing his glasses into his face.

I kind of thought this was strange that they were allowed to hit and discipline the kids there in this way, I've seen some shows on prison boot camps and they are not allowed to lay a hand on the inmates in them, they don't hit you in regular boot camps anymore either, marines and whatnot.

[Raw Shark]

Finally, I saw the principal. In that movie he says that most of the students there have already been expelled from somewhere else. Are there any schools like this, not reform schools, but just "hell" schools, a place to dump the expelees from other schools? I thought that high school's serve a community, they aren't a place to put bad kids from other schools.

There are no public schools that serve this purpose officially to the best of my knowledge, but sometimes the school in the region that is already the worst (usually because of insufficient funding) ends up filling the role unofficially depending on how the state deals with reenrollment after expulsion.

He says that they were allowed to use physical discipline there against the kids, that your parents sign a waver giving them permission to do so. *snip* I kind of thought this was strange that they were allowed to hit and discipline the kids there in this way, I've seen some shows on prison boot camps and they are not allowed to lay a hand on the inmates in them, they don't hit you in regular boot camps anymore either, marines and whatnot.

Bolding mine. Convicts and Marines still have some civil rights, but fewer than an ordinary citizen. If a kid's parents sign the waiver they can authorize any treatment that the state would let them carry out personally, which in some states (informally) includes a good beat-down for mouthing off.

[Johonebesus]

There are different levels of illiteracy. It is possible to be able to read signs and simple newspaper articles without being able to read complex prose or understand complicated forms. It is also possible to be able to read well enough yet be unable to compose intelligible paragraphs.


Many universities are reporting an increasing problem with incoming freshmen who lack basic reading and writing skills. Obviously they aren't completely illiterate, but they are unable to analyze what they read or write even simple essays or reports. More and more colleges are forced to dumb down English 101 courses just to get students to what was once a basic high-school level of literacy.

[The Spartan]

There are different levels of illiteracy. It is possible to be able to read signs and simple newspaper articles without being able to read complex prose or understand complicated forms. It is also possible to be able to read well enough yet be unable to compose intelligible paragraphs.


Many universities are reporting an increasing problem with incoming freshmen who lack basic reading and writing skills. Obviously they aren't completely illiterate, but they are unable to analyze what they read or write even simple essays or reports. More and more colleges are forced to dumb down English 101 courses just to get students to what was once a basic high-school level of literacy.

I don't even know how to process this. I was considered to be reading at a college level by the time I went to junior high. I know not everyone is going to be that far above what is considered to be the norm but how can you even get into college without those kinds of basic skills?

And it's worse with math. Society seems to have an understanding for those that can't do math. Kids can't read? Declare war on illiteracy and then fail miserably at it. A kid can't pass algebra? "Oh he's just not good a math." For fuck's sake I had someone in one of my freshman humanities courses at college who was bitching about having to drop algebra for the third time. What's even more amusing about that is that he still thought he'd be able to transfer to A&M to become an engineer. (That university didn't have a full-on engineering program, just a miniature one to support the hydrology department.)

[Turin]

Many universities are reporting an increasing problem with incoming freshmen who lack basic reading and writing skills. Obviously they aren't completely illiterate, but they are unable to analyze what they read or write even simple essays or reports. More and more colleges are forced to dumb down English 101 courses just to get students to what was once a basic high-school level of literacy.

This isn't all that new, either. When I first went to college (12 years ago), I worked as a tutor and undergrad TA for both writing and math. On the math side, I was primarily working with the students who were really "borderline" -- the ones that were taking and failing Mathematics for Business and the like. But on the writing side I was working with students who were used to getting A's and B's in high school, but who came to college only barely capable of stringing a couple of coherent sentences together. That these kids got into college without being able to write is frightening.

And it's worse with math. Society seems to have an understanding for those that can't do math. Kids can't read? Declare war on illiteracy and then fail miserably at it. A kid can't pass algebra? "Oh he's just not good a math."

And that attitude passes on to the kids, too. The kid hears that and they start believing it, and then they don't think they can ever be good at math. Or worse, they think that if they're doing okay in life without it, it must not be important.

[Darth Wong]

A teacher with happy students and a high pass/fail ratio is often assumed to be a good teacher, thanks to the power of shitty logic. Conversely, people will be very unhappy with a strict teacher whose students are unhappy and who has a low pass/fail ratio. Even if the students deserve to fail, any teacher who actually fails them cannot escape some sort of associative guilt.

[Shrykull]

I wonder how much universities go into detail about what high school kids have been taught. Sure, you can get good grades, but how do you know they aren't just passing them just to pass them? Two people that went to my high school while I was there got into Harvard. And Massachusetts 4 year colleges require that a student knows Algebra 1, Algebra 2 and Geometry to get into one.

Just I wonder what the application process is like for someone applying to an ivy league school, it must be a lot more detailed than what grades they got in their subjects, actually what they studied, etc. Is this what the SAT's are supposed to discern?

[Block]

A teacher with happy students and a high pass/fail ratio is often assumed to be a good teacher, thanks to the power of shitty logic. Conversely, people will be very unhappy with a strict teacher whose students are unhappy and who has a low pass/fail ratio. Even if the students deserve to fail, any teacher who actually fails them cannot escape some sort of associative guilt.

That is because a LARGE part of a teacher's job is to find a way to make the material into something the students can relate to, understand and learn. So if a lot of their students deserve to fail, it's at least partially their fault.

[Solauren]

Really? It's the teachers fault?

So, if a teacher ends up stuck with a class of kids who's parents don't give a shit about there child's education, tries there ass off in class, and it doesn't stick to the kids, and the parents are not helping, it's there fault?

Please, explain your logic on that.

[Soontir C'boath]

When the students stubbornly don't give a chance to learn the material in the first place, talk in class, daydream, or nap, and are fine with getting the passing grade of 65 (or whatever it is at your locality), it's pretty hard to reach out and get them to do better. I've seen students at my high school who don't turn in their homework, do shit in tests, and around the end of the semester, are begging to do some extra credit just to get a 65 in the class. It's fucking ridiculous. It's really not far off that schools have become daycare centers.

There is a school in Queens that takes in the really, really, shitty and bitchy delinquents from other schools but I've since forgot what it was called.

[Darth Wong]

A teacher with happy students and a high pass/fail ratio is often assumed to be a good teacher, thanks to the power of shitty logic. Conversely, people will be very unhappy with a strict teacher whose students are unhappy and who has a low pass/fail ratio. Even if the students deserve to fail, any teacher who actually fails them cannot escape some sort of associative guilt.

That is because a LARGE part of a teacher's job is to find a way to make the material into something the students can relate to, understand and learn. So if a lot of their students deserve to fail, it's at least partially their fault.

So if a Grade 11 math teacher gets a class full of students who breezed through Grade 10 math thanks to a negligent teacher despite not even understanding negative numbers or basic algebra, it's his fault if the students can't learn two grades worth of math in one year, or get bad marks on his tests?

[Parallax]

I'm a teacher in Australia. Primary school. I teach ten year olds.

I have one student in my class who can't cope with 4th grade stuff and he'll still go on to 5th Grade next year. He can't get meaning from text or explain what the text was about.

Why? Repeating 4th won't help him apparently, so departmental policy states, and will instead ruin what remains of his self confidence and make him worse off. As his teacher, I have pretty much no say whether he advances or not - it's a high up school and departmental decision.

If a student has to repeat a grade, so I've found, it requires huge amounts of justification. Student needs a case file, references, examples of work, agreement from the parents, school heirachy and so on.

On other points...
In an ideal world, there would be no 'hell schools' but they simply do exist. Facilities mean that schools can only take so many students (you need people to teach them, rooms to keep them, etc). Parents naturally wish to send their children to those schools with newer facilities and teachers that are regarded as 'better' (though how parents know such thing is a huge load of bullshit in itself - here's a hint; simple word of mouth and published standardised test results are NO way to tell).

That leaves older schools left with those students that miss out. Or simply those schools that are built in lower socio-economic areas. You look at a public school built in a well-to-do area as opposed to one surrounded by housing commission homes and you'll see a LOT of difference. Yes, I've worked in both. That in itself is a savage circle, teachers don't want to teach in the 'scummy' areas of town - they want to teach in newly built classrooms with proper heating and air conditioning. The 'good' teachers get such appointments while the 'bad' ones get whatever jobs are left over.

Discipline in schools is a joke. And that is really the fault of parents and society in general. Parents are of the general belief that their kids can do no wrong and if the child had to be disciplined then it had to be the teacher's fault. This has gone on to such an extent that Teachers aren't even allowed to touch kids, not even to separate them if they're fighting. If they do, they can lose their jobs. Of course, if they don't and a student gets injured then they can be found negligent of fulfilling their 'duty of care' and lose their jobs anyhow.
Go figure.

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

I think there are some problems with the "new pedagogy" we are taught in school. Sometimes, the information is vague and difficult to apply, so when it is applied, it comes out fucked up.

For instance, in some of my studies, I was reading about something called "New Math" where teachers were abandoning practical, drill for "critical thinking." The problem was that their idea of critical thinking was give the kid a workbook with some vague shit, let him struggle, and wait for him to get it. The Jr. High in my town employed this "New Math" when I was tutoring there. I was shocked.

There were no normal textbooks as I knew them as a kid, no practice "problems" with answers you could reverse engineer to figure out the process, and no examples with steps. It was about 40 pages long, filled with pictures and word problems that asked you to figure stuff out. I don't know how anyone can learn that way. They don't even combine this with the typical Constructivist emphasis on real-world applications, examples, and comprehensive explanations. It's more time consuming and even more confusing to learn now. Behaviourism seems dead and daemonized in almost all my methods courses.

In English, they are even abandoning teaching kids grammar and spelling. This has gone on for a while though. At Northern Burlington (where I went), we learned grammar for about 1 year. I learned more English grammar in my elective German classes than I did in all of middle and high school English. In my literacy classes at University, the professor is trying to tell me they don't think it's good practice to use spelling exams and drills.


As for math, I did far better in the same classes in University than I did in Highschool: the textbook and teacher we had were just better, and I had more time to devote to the topic because I was missing the bullshit filler classes that absorbed my time. Now that I am older, I also grew to find it more important. As a kid, your priorities are messed up.

[Stark]

I think it's ironic that if you pointed out that declining results and standards are a result of parent's attitudes, you'd get all kinds of grief. This seems similar to the way women with kids magically get super-knowledge about children and can not be questioned with regards to it. Dropping education standards bother me almost as much as the other major problems facing society - it's a classic sign of a culture in decline. Entitlement is a bad thing.

[Darth Wong]

I think it's ironic that if you pointed out that declining results and standards are a result of parent's attitudes, you'd get all kinds of grief. This seems similar to the way women with kids magically get super-knowledge about children and can not be questioned with regards to it. Dropping education standards bother me almost as much as the other major problems facing society - it's a classic sign of a culture in decline. Entitlement is a bad thing.

It's a classic sign of populism run amok. It's not as if people thought more highly of education in the old days; the "I don't need no education, I learned at the school of hard knocks" was even more prevalent back then. The difference was that felt a certain deference to professionals back then, in any field. Be it science, medicine, law, education, etc. You didn't walk into a doctor's office and demand a certain kind of medication; you let him tell you what you needed. You didn't march into a school and tell them what they're doing wrong. You didn't rant at scientists that they didn't know their own jobs.

The really sad thing is that people think "consumerizing" the education system will improve it. As if privatizing the education system and making it more of a consumer product would actually solve these problems, when much of the problem comes from the customer base already.

[Karza]

I think it's ironic that if you pointed out that declining results and standards are a result of parent's attitudes, you'd get all kinds of grief. This seems similar to the way women with kids magically get super-knowledge about children and can not be questioned with regards to it. Dropping education standards bother me almost as much as the other major problems facing society - it's a classic sign of a culture in decline. Entitlement is a bad thing.

And there's another lovely thing about it: Such attitudes seep to the students themselves as well, especially when they become teenagers, so that eventually you have parents who don't understand the situation or care about it, and students who actively exploit the whole thing to get off with as little work as possible. The situation was like that in my high school for example. Moron students and moron parents collectively blaming our math teacher for their kids getting shitty grades. You can only imagine the dishonest pissing and moaning that resulted from one math test where out of 25 participants, 2 got 8, one got 6, and the rest were pretty much equally divided between 4 and 5 (highschool tests are graded 4-10 over here, 5 being the lowest passing grade).

"Oh no, our little sweethearts couldn't possibly be lazy, stupid fuckers who did their homework maybe once during the course! It must be the teacher's fault!"

[Edi]

I don't know how it is now, but when I was in school (grades 1-9) it was that if you got a 4 in any one subject (scale 4-10), you got assigned summer work that you had to complete to pass the grade. Get two 4s and you automatically had tp resit that grade until you got good enough marks to pass.

I'm afraid the standards have been relaxed since then and if they have, it's a bad thing. But parental input was not asked for in those cases. Parents were notified that the kid was doing badly and encouraged to try to do something about it, but if the kids failed, they failed and tough shit. If there was to be any relief of that, it was the parents' job to go higher up the hierarchy to the education department, where in all likelihood they would be told to fuck off.

As Mike said, populism and consumerism in education is just a fucking bad idea nad wrong. So is too much choice too early on when the kids are not equipped to make that kind of decisions.

[The_Saint]

Sometimes I feel lucky that I grew up with parents who felt that a fifties educational system served them fine so they'd 'feed me the same'. I most definitely never got away with the *my darling could never fail* attitude... though I think it's become far more prevalent over the past 15 years. In fact I think it's part of a complete societal change over the same period. In the four years I was at high school I witnessed a massive reversal in peer attitudes, when I started grade 7 you were the lowest of the low, every grade was above you and the teachers above that. by the time I was in grade ten the lower grades seemed to have gained an attitude, teachers couldn't control them, elder kids would get in trouble for fighting self defence.. there was a general attitude that they (younger kids) could get away with whatever they wanted because as a society they had all responsibility removed from them. If they get in trouble their parents bail them out, if they attack someone, the victim gets removed for their protection.

I remember that a concept along the lines of "New Math" was trialled for an oh so short period of time before it was realised that unless kids were forced to do something that produced visible results then they just did nothing.

I've found the most visible example of the failing of modern schooling is when the computers fail at the supermarket and the "check-out chick" (usually girls 16-17yo) are having issues doing the basic addition of a carton of milk ($1.40), loaf of bread ($1.95) and a newspaper ($1.10).

I got bailed up by a woman campaigning in town a few weeks ago, trying to drum up support for some anti-smacking-your-kid rally. Her argument was that smacking (as a punishment) emotionally injured the child, hampered their upbringing, caused emotional issues later in life. When asked my thoughts I mentioned that I'd been smacked as a kid and thought myself as emotionally well balanced.. and that I thought a lot of kids today who weren't so 'balanced' probably hadn't had the punishment's they required. I'm sure there's a moral to that tale somewhere... anyway... I think modern society's rules are going down the toilet. Oddly enough where I live (in Australia) we write this off as an "Americanisation" of our ways of life (read that as you will).

[Master_Baerne]

Consider: Until the last 50 years or so, it was acceptable, even encouraged, for a parent to beat their child. It was even looked on as a courtesy to the child, hence all the allusions in period literature to being raised "By 'and" as a good thing. Within the last 50 years, matters have been reversed.

I believe that this is because it's no longer necessary. Until recently, most of the population of the US were either factory workers or farmers, both of which are painful, grueling professions. Having a tolerance for pain would be a great asset. Since we (the US) don't do much physical labor anymore, perhaps the pain-tolerance is not as important?

[ray245]

Isn't there a standard nation wide exams in the US to ensure if people can or cannot make it?

Like the british GCSE or the GCE 'o' and 'A' levels.

[The_Saint]

My opinion of smacking isn't based off of pain.... It's simple punishment.

There's yelling "shut up" at a kid... which can be ignored and just embarrass' the parent which the kid can then prey upon....

or you can give the kid a "clip round the ears" ... I bet the average kid will shut their trap right quick and will be a lot more hesitant to repeat it.

Due to modern social etiquette of bundling kids up into padded cells so that nothing can harm your darling little kiddies laws get put in place to prevent the "quick clip round the ears"... parents use less effective punishment => eg yelling at the kids, which they can ignore and use to their own means... punishment proves ineffective.. possibly the minor punishment gets more severe and turns to abuse... kids are more like to ignore any minor punishment and turn away from their parents/peers, suddenly you have child that is everything you were trying to avoid in the first place. Except now the parents (in a lot of cases) think that as they followed the modern social conventions that they've done nothing wrong and that it is something/someone else's fault that their darling is failing school.

It's happening everywhere in life in this modern age, no one particular area is a major problem.. yet. As a society we are devolving ourselves of responsibility. A local park removed a traction engine that was used as play equipment, others have had trees removed all for the sake of removing cause for litigation. Someone trips over a broken footpath and the first thought isn't to try and touch it up, push some tiles back into place, tamp the dirt down, mark the problem... but to sue the council because you weren't looking where you were going.

I know I jumped a bit off topic there... but I think it's all part of the same inherent problem. As a society, in the "western world" we are taking less responsibility for ourselves, and, in the case of just passing school kids to move them through the system, when we're actively trying to rid ourselves of responsibility for ourselves... how can we be expected to take responsibility for others??

[Melchior]

When asked my thoughts I mentioned that I'd been smacked as a kid and thought myself as emotionally well balanced.. and that I thought a lot of kids today who weren't so 'balanced' probably hadn't had the punishment's they required.

Totally spurious argument, by the way; anecdotal evidence at best, supported by baseless assumptions.

[Darth Wong]

I'd been smacked as a kid and thought myself as emotionally well balanced..

You honestly can't see the flaw in this logic?

My opinion of smacking isn't based off of pain.... It's simple punishment.

... in a form which happens to be based on pain.

There's yelling "shut up" at a kid... which can be ignored and just embarrass' the parent which the kid can then prey upon....

or you can give the kid a "clip round the ears" ... I bet the average kid will shut their trap right quick and will be a lot more hesitant to repeat it.

Tell me, have you ever encountered a dog whose owner frequently beats it? Are such dogs better-adjusted, or worse-adjusted? Why do we treat our kids worse than we treat dogs?

Due to modern social etiquette of bundling kids up into padded cells so that nothing can harm your darling little kiddies laws get put in place to prevent the "quick clip round the ears"... parents use less effective punishment => eg yelling at the kids, which they can ignore and use to their own means... punishment proves ineffective.. possibly the minor punishment gets more severe and turns to abuse... kids are more like to ignore any minor punishment and turn away from their parents/peers, suddenly you have child that is everything you were trying to avoid in the first place. Except now the parents (in a lot of cases) think that as they followed the modern social conventions that they've done nothing wrong and that it is something/someone else's fault that their darling is failing school.

Ah yes, so there is no middle ground between smacking your kids around and just uselessly scolding them, right? You wrack your brain and you honestly cannot find any other alternative, right? There's just NO OTHER OPTION as far as you're concerned?

It's happening everywhere in life in this modern age, no one particular area is a major problem.. yet. As a society we are devolving ourselves of responsibility. A local park removed a traction engine that was used as play equipment, others have had trees removed all for the sake of removing cause for litigation. Someone trips over a broken footpath and the first thought isn't to try and touch it up, push some tiles back into place, tamp the dirt down, mark the problem... but to sue the council because you weren't looking where you were going.

Do you understand the concept of negligence?

I know I jumped a bit off topic there... but I think it's all part of the same inherent problem. As a society, in the "western world" we are taking less responsibility for ourselves, and, in the case of just passing school kids to move them through the system, when we're actively trying to rid ourselves of responsibility for ourselves... how can we be expected to take responsibility for others??

So in order to take responsibility for ourselves, we must avoid taking responsibility for others, ie- neuter the legal concept of negligence? How the fuck does that work?

[Shrykull]

I got hit as a kid sometimes. There came a point where my parents stopped using it and got very lax and went way in the other direction.

I've heard all sort of parents try to relate the message of the benefits of physical discipline. I just finished a 13 month program in school. I was the only guy in the class. The rest were all married women in their early 20's to early 30's roughly. One of them was talking about that "she had the right to hit her kids." And how it made her a better moral person in life. And another who talked about how her mom threatened her with a switch once.

And another was an immigrant from the Dominican Republic, in which I guess physical discipline is more prevalent. She harped loudly about the benefits of physical discipline, citing an example where a kid with a mother from that country in the US stole a piece of candy in a store , the woman hit him 50 times for it. I don't remember the whole story, but someone called the police on her and she got off for some reason. She also cited there that even if you are over 18 in that country your parents can still hit you.

I wanted to speak up, but I thought I'd get hammered by them since they were highly in favor of it. I could bring up some studies, but they would say since it worked on them, that it's "horseshit" and that these studies would be hard pressed to prove anything, because there could be other factors, in which these kids turned out wrong.

As for as legality goes, physical discipline isn't illegal in most countries. In Norway it is. In a country like Kenya it is highly encouraged. In the US, spanking is acceptable, though there are some things that cross the line. You can hit you kid with a belt, a switch, or hairbrush but not a frying pan or metal object on the buttocks, or anywhere else. Nor can you pull them by the hair. I worked with an EMT who said, it's not just his business, but his DUTY to report abuse if he sees it, or a battered child.

But, what if you had a kid who was totally disrespectful and abusive and other punishments failed. Suppose you have a 16 year old who tells you to fuck off when you catch him and his friends smoking pot or drinking beer in his room. And when you try to ground him by taking away his car and his privileges, he totally ignores your punishment and goes out anyway. In such a case could you call the police on him for something like this? At worst, perhaps the kid even hits YOU when you do something to make him angry. If you can't, what else could you do? [/i]

[Darth Wong]

As for as legality goes, physical discipline isn't illegal in most countries. In Norway it is. In a country like Kenya it is highly encouraged. In the US, spanking is acceptable, though there are some things that cross the line. You can hit you kid with a belt, a switch, or hairbrush but not a frying pan or metal object on the buttocks, or anywhere else. Nor can you pull them by the hair. I worked with an EMT who said, it's not just his business, but his DUTY to report abuse if he sees it, or a battered child.

Rhetorical question: if you look at the countries which are most approving of physical violence against kids, are they better countries?

But, what if you had a kid who was totally disrespectful and abusive and other punishments failed. Suppose you have a 16 year old who tells you to fuck off when you catch him and his friends smoking pot or drinking beer in his room.

By the time kids get to that point, it's obvious they've already been raised wrong and it's too late to do anything about it. But since there's no evidence whatsoever that violence reduces the likelihood of that kind of behaviour (and in fact there is some evidence that it increases it), that doesn't prove anything.

And when you try to ground him by taking away his car and his privileges, he totally ignores your punishment and goes out anyway. In such a case could you call the police on him for something like this? At worst, perhaps the kid even hits YOU when you do something to make him angry. If you can't, what else could you do?

If the kid hits you at that age, charge him with assault and kick him out of the house.

Here's the trick: people who advocate beating their kids tend to do so because they feel that their own kids are so unruly that beatings are the only way to keep them in line. This does not disprove the studies showing that violence tends to produce maladjusted children; it actually supports it because these parents have obviously beaten the kid in the past and look at the result: a child so unruly that the parents now use its terrible behaviour as proof that they need to beat their kids!