RoR: Forum

Post 20

Tuesday, July 8, 2003 - 2:39am

Link

Edit

Right! She said, rolling up her sleeves. Scott - where do I begin?

The main issue I want to deal with is your assumption that children need to be "forced" into learning and that there is a need for "indoctrination" - two words that are blasphemous in my book. I have done a lot of reading on the subject and one theme that constantly comes out is that learning is a natural experience for children and a constant source of joy. From the moment a child is born, it is learning. Learning to focus its eyes, learning to touch, taste and feel, walk and run, talk and respond to its environment. A child has a natural curiosity and constantly asks questions. A child WANTS to learn.

It follows then that school should be a natural extension of a child's learning experience.

So why then do so many children hate school? And hate learning and would prefer to veg in front of the TV or play video games?

My argument is that if a child is raised in an environment where learning is associated with pleasure, where the child's natural curiosity is rewarded and treated with respect, where thinking and debating is encouraged and that forming and voicing one's opinion is important, there is no need to "force" a child to learn or think for itself. Learning no longer becomes something to resist and the desire to learn becomes a natural extension of the self.

I'm with Matthew on this one, that all children really need is guidance. However, in a home school environment, should a child's needs require more technical expertise, then tutoring from a "specialist" could be sought out.

As for your comment: "Allowing kids to study when and how they feel like isn't going to improve their intellectual efficacy."

Obviously, were I to home school, I would have a course outline or "curriculum" to follow. I wouldn't sit my child at a computer and say "Go to it!" or willy nilly say "Right. What do we feel like studying today?" I have a definite aim of preparing my children to pass any "state requirements" to enable them to prepare for whatever path they choose in life. But, more importantly, I plan not to restrict them to what the state deems fit for them to know.

Being able to home school means that children will have the benefit of one-on-one interaction, and can learn at their own pace.

This means that children can be "coached" through material with which they battle or are "weak" and can soar through material that they find easy without being held back by 30 other children.

As for your comment: "What if you have a child, and compulsory education is eliminated? What if your son doesn't like to read, doesnt want to read? What if he likes TV just fine, and doesn't see the point in reading? What if, despite your best efforts, he hasn't started to read by the time he is school age, despite a high IQ (like his father)? What happens if you are laid off from work and cannot send him to school? What if a downturn in the ecomony means you spend almost a year looking for work--no school for your son? No basic skills?"

Parents whether they know it or not, are natural teachers. And, whether they like it or not, their children learn from them. A lot. Children also learn by mimicry and subconciously learn the values and principles espoused by those around them, including their peers. So, as my husband Barry always says, its important to set a good example. That if you, as a parent, are seen to read a lot, seen to discuss issues instead of side tracking them, respect other peoples property, opinions and ideas, then already a good foundation is being laid.

I also believe that forcing children to follow a path they do not want leads only to unhappiness. My two brothers never went on to study after school. In fact, my younger brother dropped out of school to join a technical college. He had a learning disability which was never picked up in school until it was too late. School was an unbearable misery for him. Today he is a successful, highly skilled and sought-after millwright, having achieved his success against incredible odds - one of them battling to learn to read.

I also want to reiterate that having a teaching qualification doesn't make someone a "good" teacher. I've had some real stinkers in my time and "good" teachers were extremely rare.

Also, I don't think home schooling is everyone's cup of tea. But if you've the time, resources, ability, will and passion to home school, (and provided the children are willing and not hankering after school themselves!) you should be able to do so without interference and hindrance.

Post 21

Tuesday, July 8, 2003 - 5:22am

Link

Edit

Oh, and Sam - your comment:

"Education is not about indoctrination, but rather about leading a mind to independent judgement. To do this, you don't seek to fill it with a collection of 'items to remember', or 'list of life principles'. Rather you seek to engage it in a process of discovery & enquiry... of thought. And what's nice is that he/she is already doing that anyway (as she dresses Barbie different today), so you are working with what is there, and working with it in accord with it's nature.
Galt said it right: 'get out of the damn way!' "

A thousand thumbs ups! You sound like a great dad!

In particualr, your phrase "Education is not about indoctrination, but rather about leading a mind to independent judgement." sums up for me what Barry has taken on as his mission - to change forever the nature of education and how we perceive it.

The school system today is archaic, boring and restrictive and is throttling the lifeblood of our young. We cannot afford not to challenge a system that clearly doesn't work.

Post 22

Tuesday, July 8, 2003 - 7:00am

Link

Edit

I agree with everyone who says that the way schools are currently run is just plain wrong. And I agree with Barry that the surest way to ensure inefficiency in an endeavor is to allow the government to molopolize it.

So, where do we REALLY disagree? Very few places, actually. We both agree that a child requires a structured curriculum. I think we both agree that as a child gets older, self-directed study can increase, with the student eventually choosing in which area to specialize.

I disagree with Barry's contention that public schools (and arguments for the necessity of them) are the same as the need for a public post, electricity and telephone systems. Those others are just industries--where profit presents itself, the private sector will respond. Barry doesn't even engage my arguments. People without means, the morally culpable as well as the morally blameless, cannot send their children to school. Uneducated parents will have a hard time educating their children. Society as a whole, and that means each and every one of us individually, benefit from a having at least a minimally-educated populace. I say this with all the love in the world for my parents: but I grew up dirt poor; and my parents are not educated people. They had neither the time nor means to teach me themselves or educate me properly. Perhaps I would have learned to do basic reading and basic math. What then? You doom children to the socio-economic class of their parents by eliminating public-supported schools. That's fine for you upper-crust. For us struggling sons of paupers, the perspective is a bit different. Do you know how hard it has been being the first member of my family to graduate college, get an advanced degree, and earn a living as a proffessional? It has been no picnic, since high school, financing my education myself? If it weren't for public schools and student loan programs, I wouldn't be where I am. I have benefitted from the 'theft'--but you all might do well to read a list of those whose parents came from modest means, though the help of the 'public dole' and went on to make fantastic contributions to the world.

Put another way: Put John Galt, at the height of his physical and mental prowess, in a 20 foot pit, with no means of escape. Put a collectivist slug in the same circumstances. One week later, they are both dead, without some means of climbing out of the pit.

Barry writes:

"The alternative to public schooling is not limited to home schooling. The alternative to any government monopoly is competition -- radical competition between Montessori, Waldorf, Socratic Practice, and an infinite variety of alternative methodologies and curricula."

I agree, completely. I understand that Philadelphia has tried integrating privately-run public schools--and that they are performing terribly. Anyone have more information on this?

Barry writes:

"Atlascott wrote: �Whether home schooled or not, children are indoctrinated into the beliefs of those from whom they learn -- it is inevitable.�

This is simply false, and needs no further comment."

To which Betty replies (indirectly):
"Children also learn by mimicry and subconciously learn the values and principles espoused by those around them, including their peers."

That's my 'indoctrination' point--Betty makes it more clear than I, and my choice of words (indoctrination) certainly sounds sinister.

End of the day is this: I DO need to think about this more, so I thank Betty for writing the article, and for Sam's and kritin's and Barry's comments! I recognize that I am advocating theft from others to remedy my (or someone else's) poor birth situation, which is in direct conflict with my other (Objectivist) values. So you may all be correct. But it hard for me to sentence a future version of myself to factory work for half his life before he can afford to educate himself, at which point it is too late. It seems a tremendous waste of human capital.

Post 23

Tuesday, July 8, 2003 - 7:49am

Link

Edit

Scott, what exactly do you mean by education, anyway? Are you saying that the only way to obtain an education is to go to school?

Yes, children need a structured curriculum; they should have access to a standard knowledge base. As I've said before, a child who is literate, numerate, and still curious is ready to learn anything he needs to know. All he needs is guidance, which may require a boot in the ass to point him in the right direction.

It wasn't the public schools that taught me to read, but my mother -- and she didn't go to college.

Yes, you are advocating theft to remedy accidents of birth, and I could go further and suggest that to advocate such theft presumes that those whom the theft is intended to help (poor families) can't help themselves. However, it would be as rude to put premises in your head as it is to put words in your mouth.

Now, it's not just the "upper crust" that gripes about the public schools. Neither of my parents are wealthy; my father works nights in a supermarket, clawing for every hour of overtime he can. I put myself through college, taking out loans and earning a few small scholarships.

I'm only "middle-class" myself, but that doesn't stop me from wanting to abolish public schooling and raze each and every one of those prisons to the ground.

Post 24

Tuesday, July 8, 2003 - 10:20am

Link

Edit

Matt:

" Scott, what exactly do you mean by education, anyway? Are you saying that the only way to obtain an education is to go to school?"

Me: Education is a broad term. I though what we were discussing was substituting formal education with home schooling. Of course, people can and do learn everywhere they are, and that is, broadly, education.

Matt: "Yes, children need a structured curriculum; they should have access to a standard knowledge base. As I've said before, a child who is literate, numerate, and still curious is ready to learn anything he needs to know. All he needs is guidance, which may require a boot in the ass to point him in the right direction."

Me: "Access to a database is not a 'structured curriculum' And a child interested in learning 'anything he needs to know' is much too narrow. A standard for a child's education, defined by the child as 'anything he needs to know' results in a new age of ignorance. Guidance, more than an occasional boot in the ass, is necessary."

Matt: "It wasn't the public schools that taught me to read, but my mother -- and she didn't go to college."

Ok, great. What about the vast majority who will not be afforded that benefit (being taught to read at home)?

Matt: "Yes, you are advocating theft to remedy accidents of birth, and I could go further and suggest that to advocate such theft presumes that those whom the theft is intended to help (poor families) can't help themselves. However, it would be as rude to put premises in your head as it is to put words in your mouth."

Me: Go ahead, be rude(Im not offended)--that's what I'm saying. A large proportion of the population WOULD NOT get the kind oeducation you and Betty and Barry envision. In these circumstances, a child CANNOT 'help themselves.' At the very time when child psychology councels that learning is most effective, most children would be learning NOTHING, not even a love of learning. I had to work fight and scratch to get where I am WITH a public school education, WITH scholarships and student loans. Without them, I would never have made it here. I would be some minimum wage factory worker. Which is fine; its an honest living. But a tremendous waste of human capital. On a selfish note: I WANT to live in a world where everyone is at least minimally educated. In countries where this isn't the case, the nation can easily fall under the sway of a dictator. See, e.g., the entire Middle east.

Matt: "Now, it's not just the "upper crust" that gripes about the public schools. Neither of my parents are wealthy; my father works nights in a supermarket, clawing for every hour of overtime he can. I put myself through college, taking out loans and earning a few small scholarships...I'm only "middle-class" myself, but that doesn't stop me from wanting to abolish public schooling and raze each and every one of those prisons to the ground."

Me: I'm not upper crust either, and it sickens me what passes for an education in public (and even most private) schools. But I'm not sure I want to throw out the baby with the bathwater. I dont think you can argue that you have been exposed to vastly more information and ideas at school than at home. I'll ask you this: what lessons do you think those schoolyard bullies are going to learn on the street, if not something at least half-way reasonable at school?

Post 25

Tuesday, July 8, 2003 - 11:07am

Link

Edit

Scott, I agree with you WRT the necessity of an educated populace, but I do not think that education justifies theft. Nobody has the right to an education that somebody else has to provide. And if defending individual rights "wastes human capital", then so be it. Individuals are not capital.

Post 26

Tuesday, July 8, 2003 - 11:19am

Link

Edit

I distinctly recall Objectivism stating that if one holds a gun to your head and offers you your life for a price, it is theft. Sure, you've gained something of immense importance: your life. But it's theft all the same.
Now, saying that government funded--and so, funded by compulsory taxation, nowadays--schooling will at least give a child the bare minimum of required knowledge, and therefore benefit all of us as individuals amounts to mass coercion. Basically, what your saying is: "It's in your own interest to publicly educate, otherwise some uneducated drug addict will come along and bash your brains in." Which is equal to a criminal saying: "You'd better give me your wallet, or some random guy is gonna come along and shoot you, or I may shoot you myself."
He may not shoot you if you give him your wallet, so you get to keep your life. But that still doesn't make it a fair trade.

If people feel the need to fund public schools, they should have that option. But saying we should be forced to do it, because in the end it benefits us, sounds vaguely totalitarian/Vlad the Impaler to me. :)

J

Post 27

Tuesday, July 8, 2003 - 1:09pm

Link

Edit

I often come across this argument that children can't help themselves, and if we didn't have public schools many would be left on the streets and it would hurt us all. But it'd still be my choice where I gave my money. I shouldn't be forced to send others' kids to schools.

These same arguments for the kids are made for welfare as a whole, government funded daycare, national health care, the list goes on. But if you follow that logic through (that education is a value which not all children would be exposed to without government intervention and it is to all of our benefits to have an educated society), you can expand on that.

I think that keeping in shape is almost as important as 'exercising your mind'. I mean, not every parent will put their kids in sports. Some of these kids could become the next Michael Jordan! We should have government funded sports programs, and while we're at it, it should be mandatory for all kids to participate. After all, it's not fair that some kids will lose out because their parents fail to send them to soccer. And what a waste that would be! Sure club soccer later on is acceptable, but there's all that lost potential. Also, as a society we will benefit. More kids in sports, less time to make trouble. Also, they'll be more in shape. Less children with diabetes and other diseases associated with weight, therefore it's less money we're wasting on health.

Also, some kids don't eat as well as others. Kids don't choose brocolli over chips, so a government program for supplying all kids with healthy food would be great! 5 meals a day, as decided upon by the government. And it'd also have to be mandatory, as not every parent worries about their kids nutritional intake. We'll again benefit as a society by having healthier, happier members!

-e

Post 28

Tuesday, July 8, 2003 - 2:29pm

Link

Edit

I wouldn't mind paying taxes (uncoerced, haha) for a public school that gave me a good return on my investment. That means do away with the most of the system as we know it now. Scott has good points regarding public schools, I tend to agree that a young kid could use a solid, structured foundation, and it would be a good thing for that to be readily available to all. But I don't like being coerced to pay taxes for stuff that fails me. I'd rather withold my taxes, and not partake in unearned benefits. But I can't do that!

I've been on Barry's site, and have perused his educational materials. If we had more stuff like this in our public schools, they could TITHE me for all I care. I'd be leaving money on their doorstep.

If I saw happy, well-rounded individualist kids skipping out of school, content that the educational style was meeting their particular needs, and little thugs learned very early that force is not an option to get your way, then great!

The problem with public schools is that kids are treated as one big lump of the Same. Individual styles of learning and personality aren't accounted for. Too many good kids fall through the cracks, and my money goes to schools who let them fall.

So until public schools shape up and I'm not forced to pay for their bumbling, I'm with alternative methods of education in any way possible. And if a parent is too poor to afford that alternative, then there are ways a parent can get more involved rather than just leave it up to the schools alone. A strong parent can do wonders.

Post 29

Tuesday, July 8, 2003 - 3:13pm

Link

Edit

Matt, Jeremy and Elizabeth, each in their own way, make it ever more clear that I better check my premises on this issue. I guess I am wrong. But I am afraid of the social implications.

Post 30

Tuesday, July 8, 2003 - 5:48pm

Link

Edit

Scott, we all are afraid of the social implications. If there's one thing I dread, it's a world of illiterates, running the industries and our governments.

You're completely correct that every child must be educated in order to be productive in present-day society, and failing to do so ~may~ create thugs and drug-addicts. However, being forced to pay a toll for a ~possible~ eventuality is tantamount to robbery.

Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be a likely alternative at the moment. Which really blows, because I hate tolerating what I know to be wrong.

J

Post 31

Tuesday, July 8, 2003 - 6:18pm

Link

Edit

Oh yeah, Scott...I agree with you that what Barry Kayton posted on the Yahoo forum about the issue was really good stuff...I suggest everyone check it out.

J

Post 32

Tuesday, July 8, 2003 - 6:56pm

Link

Edit

Betty -

Thanks. I am a great dad :) Thing is, if you are clear on what's important, then it's not that hard. If you too think about things, rather than operate on automatic assumptions it sets up the model. (So I think you sound like you will be a great dad too :) ) When I get some time I'll write something on my experiences.

Barry - right on target!

Scott -

As Betty says, 'a child WANTS to learn.' This is true. I think your concern is that they might not want to learn what you think they should learn. And this is true. Sound like anyone you know? :) This is their independence showing itself, and it is a *good* thing... sacred. But it don't necessarily fit your plans. So what to do? If you choose force, you are valuing conformity (albeit for your 'higher' end). Yet this is counterproductive to your stated end - independence. The alternative is persuasion, or deal-making, or to reconsider the priority of your plans for them.

One other point - it's good to remember that public schooling is only around 100 or so years old across the West. Very young. Schooling is, of course, much older. But the literacy and educational level in, eg, the US, prior to public schools was very high. People were doing it for themselves. As they do.

Post 33

Wednesday, July 9, 2003 - 3:32am

Link

Edit

Scott - I think Barry's forum post eloquently deals with the issues you have raised.

Your point about poverty is a different issue altogether though and worthy of debate on its own.

My grandfather, a Polish immigrant who settled in South Africa on his release from a Russian concentration camp, were he alive today, would be horrified that I am suggesting that the education he worked his butt off to provide for my mother and her brother, was flawed.

For the poor, especially, education is seen as the means to escape the depravity into which they were born, and rightly so. It is a good thing that even today, education is highly valued. So I think much of the resistence to questioning the education system stems from this sentiment. The idea of wresting education from the hands of the state and leaving it up to parents and a competitive market to deal with is simply too scary.

Finally, I just want to add that it is commendable that you had the courage to fight to break the mould into which you were born. Poverty is an immensely cruel fate, but, as you and countless others have proven, even such constraints can be overcome. Many of the world's greatest industries, empires, discoveries and inventions have been founded or achieved by men and women either born into abject poverty or who were un- or poorly-educated. They simply chose not to accept the status quo and carved their own destinies.

I believe that people, no matter what their circumstances, choose the paths they walk - to either lie down and accept their fate or fight to make a better life for themselves. To borrow from Stephen King, they either "get busy living, or get busy dying."
We all know what choice you made.

Post 34

Wednesday, July 9, 2003 - 5:42am

Link

Edit

Scott, I don't like the social implications any more than you do. However, we already have thugs and drug addicts aplenty in this society. The President himself is a lush, and supposedly did cocaine as well. If anything, it may well be the public schools that create the thugs and the druggies. Considering how much sense AR's "The Comprachicos" makes, I wouldn't be at all surprised.

I'm tempted to claim that people in general are more ignorant now than they were before mandatory public schooling, but I don't have the facts at hand to back my claim.

Post 35

Wednesday, July 9, 2003 - 6:18am

Link

Edit

Betty, great article and a terrific discussion here; I posted this on SOLO Yahoo forum... I'll republish it here (in excerpt). I began with some suggestions for further reading:

==========
The sections in CAPITALISM: THE UNKNOWN IDEAL that deal with public education; Murray Rothbard's FOR A NEW LIBERTY and his EDUCATION: FREE AND COMPULSORY; the anthology THE TWELVE YEAR SENTENCE: RADICAL VIEWS OF COMPULSORY SCHOOLING, edited by William F. Rickenbacker; and the anthology EDUCATION IN A FREE SOCIETY, edited by Anne Husted Burleigh.

The government's attempts to destroy non-public educational alternatives is no different than the government grants of monopoly to businesses. In this instance, it grabs its own monopoly, and, historically, it dictates curricula and the inculcation of "civic virtue"---which is merely a euphemism for social conformity. Its long-term embrace of "Progressive" methods of education are roundly criticized by Ayn Rand in her superb essay, "The Comprachicos" in THE NEW LEFT: THE ANTI-INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION.

What must be emphasized here is that all of this is part of one interconnected ~context~ (can you say "dialectics"???): government monopoly of education, advancing government control of domestic and global political economy, the inculcation of conformity, and the undermining of independent thinking. Each of these factors reciprocally reinforces the other. Indeed, they are mutual requisites for the success of statism. Statism requires a docile population, and there is no better way to disarm a populace than by miseducating its children. And I can think of no greater crime committed against the ~poor~ who are ~sentenced~ to this kind of "education" because they can't afford to take their educational business elsewhere. . . .

Now, granted, there was a time when public education was a lot better than it is now. But that's only because there was a time when ~culture~ was a lot better than it is now. That's why this battle is as much cultural, as it is personal and political. All the more reason to end government control of education and of the economy, and to fight for the transformation of the culture.

Malcolm X once said: "If you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem." The ~problem~ with statism is that it makes all of us "part of the problem"---because we are ~embedded~ in this system. We go to government schools, we drive on government roads, we mail our letters through government post offices, we are alternately benefiting from some government privilege or being hurt by some government prohibition or exclusion, we pay government taxes, we die in government wars (not all of which are "defensive"---but that's another issue for another day).

Being part of the solution requires change, therefore, on ~every~ level.

The famous Beatles song goes: "You say you want a revolution. Well, you know, we all want to change the world . . . But when you talk about destruction, don't you know that you can count me out?"

Fortunately, for the advocates of freedom, change is not about nihilistic destruction. It is about ~creation~: the creation of alternative voluntary institutions that supplant the old coercive ones. When the very first institution that children encounter is a compulsory one, teaching them to destroy the efficacy of their own minds, it is no wonder that the rest of the society accepts compulsion and coercion as an appropriate social relation.

I've been saying it for a long time... and I'll say it again---because it seems to get lost in the translation: Objectivists are ~radicals~ --- and the system, from top to bottom, requires a radical ~revolution~.

Nothing less will do.

Whew. There. That felt better.

Cheers,
Chris
===========

Post 36

Wednesday, July 9, 2003 - 6:56am

Link

Edit

"Twelve Year Sentence", eh, Chris? I knew I wasn't the only one who thought of his school years as "doing time". But it's really a thirteen year sentence; you all forgot kindergarten.

I've been reading about the latest foiled "school rampage", and I'm tempted to say that the kid had every right to go in and kick ass.

Post 37

Wednesday, July 9, 2003 - 1:07pm

Link

Edit

I just wrote an article (not sure when it will appear here) on bullies inspired partly from Betty's article and that exact incident. I wouldn't say he had every right to kill people like he was intending, but yes, he had every right to kick some ass. Too bad his father was yet another clueless dolt who did not have enough sense to get his kids out of that environment, or if he couldn't do that, at least support his kids and get more involved.

Post 38

Wednesday, July 9, 2003 - 3:42pm

Link

Edit

Kristin, are you sure he intended to kill? I know he had handguns, shotguns, knives, and swords. But if he fully intended to kill, then why did he let the man whose car he hijacked live? Why didn't he kill the police officer who stopped him? He had the means to do both, yet didn't.

I won't say he had the right to kill, but I don't think he was serious about doing it. Putting myself in his shoes, if I intended a massacre I can think of least three things that he did that I wouldn't do:

One, he left a note. Not that it was a terribly original note; claiming that you're "the anti-christ", or "the neo" or "the one" isn't terribly original.

Two: he left alive witnesses who were aware of his intent -- the driver and the cop. If I was planning a massacre and genuinely believed that I had nothing to lose, then I wouldn't surrender so easily.

Three: he made no effort whatsoever to conceal himself or his intent. If videogames really are to blame, then he should have been playing "Metal Gear Solid", which requires the player to think in terms of stealth.

It's been said before, but I think this is more a cry for help than a serious attempt. But the kid will probably go to prison, where he'll not only be verbally abused and bullied, but probably raped as well. He'd have been better off if he just fell on his sword.

Post 39

Thursday, July 10, 2003 - 9:45am

Link

Edit

I remember reading he was on his way to kill 3 of his tormentors...the theory that he was on his way to go on a spree to kill others wasn't confirmed, that I know of. So that could explain why he didn't kill the man in the car, or the cop. He had specific people in mind. I don't think he was out for a massacre, if to kill at all.

Yes, it was a cry for help. I don't know if his intentions of killing anyone were real, or fantasy. But just the fact he was brought to that point to even ENTERTAIN the use of violence is crucial...obviously, he's been crying for help for a long time now, and no one has had the guts or sense to listen. The fact is, more and more kids ARE resorting to violence, and adults aren't getting the clue. They blame culture and everything else but what is really going on. Granted, the culture prepetuates it, but it's all the more reason to listen to your kid when he tells you what's going on in school.

As far as video games go...the media do love to play that card, don't they? He wore black, carried a bat, etc. etc...they play it up to make him look like some sort of sociopathic outsider on the fringe, propelled by these things that thousands of kids are into...instead of what he most likely was, a kid going through his own hell most of his life and no one around who'd help him deal or get out of it.

I don't think he should have fallen on his sword, although given his probable fate as you put it, he'd be better off. I understand why you say that, believe me.

I think what should happen is that adults who have played a close part in his life throughout his school years should be held accountable in some manner (unless of course they really didn't know, but they usually do). Same with his tormentors. This kind of thing should not be happening in public schools.

Not that he isn't responsible for his own actions. But his father ignored both his son's situations, and I'm sure teachers blew it off as well, attributing it to "kids will be kids". Thuggery is thuggery at all ages. We don't tolerate this behavior from adults, and even get thrown in jail for it. Yet for kids it's alright?

It's bad enough to be forced to go these awful public schools...and then on top of it, to be threatened and abused each day is just evil. No one should have to go through it. For an adult to turn a blind eye to it, when a kid has little control over it, is disgusting and unforgivable. I swear if I was that kid's mother before this point I would have either taken him out of that school, or there would be heads rolling down the hall.

You won't hear THAT in the media.