From: Lee Corbin (lcorbin@tsoft.com)
Date: Sat Jul 05 2003 - 13:49:10 MDT
John B had written
>> A rather disturbing story published in the UK Guardian...
>> http://education.guardian.co.uk/classroomviolence/story/0,12388,987932,00.html
>> Or go to the observer.guardian.co.uk page and scroll down to "The Last Resort
>> (part one)" Deals with a 'behaviour modification centre' for teens in Jamaica...
>> . . very bad juju, IMO.
Randy comments
> I think we have lost touch with our past and our biological destiny.
> Most cultures used to have a tradition of taking teenagers out of the
> family setting when they start acting up at "a certain age" (such as
> 12-15 years of age).
>
> It varied from culture to culture. One culture might force the
> teenager to go live in a male barracks, where the older males make
> them into men, none too gently.
Well, I don't know about "losing touch with our past"---perhaps.
But stress should probably be placed on *varies from culture to
culture* and we should avoid at all costs the notion that there
has to be one right answer here.
> Another tribe or culture might force him out of the village and into a
> long journey. Young male humans are NOT evolved to be sitting in a
> classroom at 13.
But some young male humans evidently *are* evolved to do just that,
and many others can with a nip from the bottle...er... I mean, with
the help of a little ritalin.
> These are schools for problem kids who hate their parents, who hate
> school, who are getting in trouble with drugs, etc etc etc,
>
> They are places where
> kids are disciplined roughly until they are damned glad to see their
> parents and go back to a safe suburban life . They are the quick,
> cheap and dirty version of military schools, but these schools are
> beyond the reach of western legal systems. From the perspective of a
> former teacher of kids 12-14, this sounds like a very good idea.
I agree. I am sure of this: there are SOME situations in
which our "enlightened" abstract notions of freedom and
worship of individuality are inappropriate. There *have*
to be hell-stories of teenagers bent not only on destroying
their own lives, but the lives of everyone they will come
into contact with.
Now [is it evil for me to anticipate objections?], some will
say that the parents are in no place to judge these intractable
questions about how the life of their kid is turning out or
will turn out. But I have two answers. One is that if not
them, then who? And if they can't exert control over kids at
age 16 then why permit them to send a kid to his room (depriving
him of freedom) and restricting his friends and when he can see
them (denying him freedom of association)?
The second reason is that he who foots the bill should have the
say.
Consider this passage from the article:
When most children first arrive they find it difficult to believe that they have
no alternative but to submit. In shock, frightened and angry, many simply refuse
to obey. This is when they discover the alternative. Guards take them (if
necessary by force) to a small bare room and make them (again by force if
necessary) lie flat on their face, arms by their sides, on the tiled floor.
Watched by a guard, they must remain lying face down, forbidden to speak or move
a muscle except for 10 minutes every hour, when they may sit up and stretch
before resuming the position. Modest meals are brought to them, and at night
they sleep on the floor of the corridor outside under electric light and the
gaze of a guard. At dawn they resume the position.
This is known officially as being 'in OP' - Observation Placement - and more
casually as 'lying on your face'. Any level student can be sent to OP, and it
automatically demotes them to level 1 and zero points. Every 24 hours, students
in OP are reviewed by staff, and only sincere and unconditional contrition will
earn their release. If they are unrepentant? 'Well, they get another 24 hours.'
One boy told me he'd spent six months in OP.
I didn't think this could be true, but it transpired this was not even
exceptional. 'Oh no,' says Kay. 'The record is actually held by a female.' On
and off, she spent 18 months lying on her face.
Now, ahem, I have always been of agreeable disposition---there is not,
truth be told, much of the rebel in me, and I sincerely do admire those
who are ready to stand up against the whole world whenever. But isn't
*this* pathological? Doesn't it seem to indicate that there really is
something deeply, deeply, serious wrong with this girl?
How in the hell could she lay there hour after hour, day after day,
without saying, "Just how stupid could it be for me to have gotten
myself into this situation? Exactly what was so important that this
had to happen?"
(This is not the same as a great martyr standing up for his God, or a
political dissident refusing to divulge the names of other dissidents.)
Even this article, which was written from the perspective of someone
who finds everything about this to be somewhat abhorrent, admitted
that in some cases, the resulting people and their parents are quite
happy about the eventual outcome. Deep waters here, IMO.
(Yes, I *do* realize that this could be and surely *sometimes* is a
too-easy solution, and I remind you of Randy's words, who talked
of many other options.)
Lee
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Jul 05 2003 - 14:00:50 MDT