5 ms·

> what school did you go to Nice enough to have a few decent AP classes, bad enough that we walked through metal detectors. But my assessment is even more colo

> what school did you go to Nice enough to have a few decent AP classes, bad enough that we walked through metal detectors. But my assessment is even more colored by the dozens of schools I've volunteered in. What kind of school did you go to? > Because church groups and extracurricular sports teams and home schools all have a stake in protecting the kids What about unstructured socializing? Or are you suggesting that children should spend the first 18 years of their life under constant adult supervision? Basically, my point is this: whenever there are weapons and drugs in the school, there are a lot more of those same weapons and drugs outside of school. So either you have to keep a constant eye on the kids and and strictly control the social group until they leave for college, or else these problems are more pronounced outside of school than inside of school. > School shootings, stabbings and drug dealings happen every day, and no one gets fired, no one gets in trouble, no one gets sued Nothing you're saying here is factually accurate. School shooters typically kill themselves or are killed. School officials (teachers, etc.) are often themselves killed during school shootings. Complaining that those officials aren't posthumously fired seems... crazy. Families effected by school shootings do sue. And people definitely get in trouble all the time for dealing drugs and bringing weapons to school. Which is why both are far more common outside of school.

pavel_lishin 10y ago
> What about unstructured socializing? I disagree with vivekd on many points, but I don't think that schools offer many more unstructured opportunities for socialization than their examples. They get a few minutes in the hallway, and then maybe lunch, and then extracurricular activities - which he's already suggesting anyway.
- throwaway729 10y ago
  Yes, I'm not making that argument. My argument is only that you aren't going to avoid "bullying, sex, drugs, weapons" by avoiding school -- at least not without being overbearing. I.e., if you rule out all unstructured socializing, then avoiding school might be an effective way to avoid "bullying, sex, drugs, weapons". But if you don't rule out unstructured socializing, then ruling out school isn't going to help much.
  - pavel_lishin 10y ago
    Oh, I see, I completely misunderstood your point. My bad.
  - vivekd 10y ago
    I think public schools foster an environment of sex, bullying, drugs and weapons by getting large groups of children together and offering very little supervision. I don't think those kinds of environments could exist outside of modern schools. Yes giving kids alone time is fine, but leaving a large group of kids together under the supervision of very few adults and repeating this 5 days a week for several years is going to have some effect.
    - throwaway729 10y ago
      And I think that opinion is both unsubstantiated and incorrect, especially wrt drugs and sex. Do you have any data backing this assertion?
      - vivekd 10y ago
        There is some evidence: For example this study shows that home schooled children are significantly less likely to drink or do drugs https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4652803/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4652803/ but I will admit that studies comparing home school children to public school children are too few and far between to draw meaningful scientific conclusions. Also the large numbers of religious homeschoolers throws the numbers off. I'm just relying on reasoning. A child who spends most of their time being raised by their parents is in a much better position to avoid negative outcomes than those raised by a paid supervisor, no matter how well qualified. Love makes a difference, parents love their children, teachers, while no doubt caring, don't have the same love and definitely lack the resources to provide the same individualized attention. Further, public school, due to powerful teachers unions and parent counsels are anything but meritocracies. The good teachers are not always the ones that thrive and rise to the top.
        10y ago
AnimalMuppet 10y ago
> School shooters typically kill themselves or are killed. Mass shooters, yes. Two kids exchanging fire in the parking lot? Not so much. Note well: When I was in school, we never had a shooting, so my statement is unsupported by firsthand evidence.
- throwaway729 10y ago
  > Two kids exchanging fire in the parking lot? Not so much. Uh, no. Discharging fire arms at or around a school is taken incredibly seriously pretty much universally. Doing something like this would be more than enough for hard jail time. This happened at my school while I was in high school (late at night, and had nothing to do with school -- it was just a shooting that by pure chance happened to take place right next to the school -- neither of the people involved were from the community or even school aged). There was a huge police investigation and the shooter was caught within days of the shooting. e: If you think "two kids exchanging fire in the parking lot" is an example of tolerated behavior at schools, you should take it as an indication that you have a wildly inaccurate mental model of what schools are like.
  - AnimalMuppet 10y ago
    Tolerated? No. You'd have to figure out who did it, though. (Maybe it's easier now. Back in my day, there weren't a lot of security cameras...)

pavel_lishin 10y ago

> What about unstructured socializing? I disagree with vivekd on many points, but I don't think that schools offer many more unstructured opportunities for socialization than their examples. They get a few minutes in the hallway, and then maybe lunch, and then extracurricular activities - which he's already suggesting anyway.

throwaway729 10y ago
Yes, I'm not making that argument. My argument is only that you aren't going to avoid "bullying, sex, drugs, weapons" by avoiding school -- at least not without being overbearing. I.e., if you rule out all unstructured socializing, then avoiding school might be an effective way to avoid "bullying, sex, drugs, weapons". But if you don't rule out unstructured socializing, then ruling out school isn't going to help much.
- pavel_lishin 10y ago
  Oh, I see, I completely misunderstood your point. My bad.
- vivekd 10y ago
  I think public schools foster an environment of sex, bullying, drugs and weapons by getting large groups of children together and offering very little supervision. I don't think those kinds of environments could exist outside of modern schools. Yes giving kids alone time is fine, but leaving a large group of kids together under the supervision of very few adults and repeating this 5 days a week for several years is going to have some effect.
  - throwaway729 10y ago
    And I think that opinion is both unsubstantiated and incorrect, especially wrt drugs and sex. Do you have any data backing this assertion?
    - vivekd 10y ago
      There is some evidence: For example this study shows that home schooled children are significantly less likely to drink or do drugs https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4652803/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4652803/ but I will admit that studies comparing home school children to public school children are too few and far between to draw meaningful scientific conclusions. Also the large numbers of religious homeschoolers throws the numbers off. I'm just relying on reasoning. A child who spends most of their time being raised by their parents is in a much better position to avoid negative outcomes than those raised by a paid supervisor, no matter how well qualified. Love makes a difference, parents love their children, teachers, while no doubt caring, don't have the same love and definitely lack the resources to provide the same individualized attention. Further, public school, due to powerful teachers unions and parent counsels are anything but meritocracies. The good teachers are not always the ones that thrive and rise to the top.
      - 10y ago

AnimalMuppet 10y ago

> School shooters typically kill themselves or are killed. Mass shooters, yes. Two kids exchanging fire in the parking lot? Not so much. Note well: When I was in school, we never had a shooting, so my statement is unsupported by firsthand evidence.

throwaway729 10y ago
> Two kids exchanging fire in the parking lot? Not so much. Uh, no. Discharging fire arms at or around a school is taken incredibly seriously pretty much universally. Doing something like this would be more than enough for hard jail time. This happened at my school while I was in high school (late at night, and had nothing to do with school -- it was just a shooting that by pure chance happened to take place right next to the school -- neither of the people involved were from the community or even school aged). There was a huge police investigation and the shooter was caught within days of the shooting. e: If you think "two kids exchanging fire in the parking lot" is an example of tolerated behavior at schools, you should take it as an indication that you have a wildly inaccurate mental model of what schools are like.
- AnimalMuppet 10y ago
  Tolerated? No. You'd have to figure out who did it, though. (Maybe it's easier now. Back in my day, there weren't a lot of security cameras...)