What is really dangerous about many bullies is the fact that for some reason they feel they must pick on someone. For whatever reason, making other people embarrassed and miserable is entertaining to them, or even addicting. If they find a target, and that target has the miracle "cool" reaction to get out of it, then they have lost their target. Well there are tons of other kids, so the bully just moves on to someone else. This is why I feel it is important to go to authority figures about the situation (my tattle tale nature speaking here), especially if you see other kids suffering. If that bully pulls down 20 different kids' pants, and each kid has the "cool" reaction about it, it doesn't matter. He still pulled down 20 kids' pants. Also, what if a guy pulls a girl's pants down? Is it her fault if she feels like she is being sexually harassed, instead of being "cool" about it?
Contrastingly, there is also the occasional bully that doesn't mean real harm and just goes with the flow for their own advancement. I admit that when I was young, even though I was teased myself, I also teased other kids. I remember calling this one girl a boy because her hair was short. I did this because everyone else was doing it, and I guess I thought it would make me fit in. Did I really care about her short hair? No, I had no fashion sense at the time. Did I want her to feel bad? Not really, I just wanted everyone else to see me being mean so I could fit in. Of course it was wrong, but I didn't really think about it at the time because I was just another kid.
Having authority figures step in is often necessary and those authority figures should be a primary defense against bullying.
Having authority figures step in usually worsens bullying. Now the kid who has been protected looks like a momma's boy or a teacher's pet or whatever. Authority stepping in can only help if its action is extreme enough to end the bullying completely, such as expelling the bully entirely. Even in an environment with no bullies at all, the former victim may still have trouble making friends.
When I was a camp counselor I got a kid who was a bully completely removed from the situation. The kids who were victimized really liked me after that, but they didn't really get along any better. They just got through camp all quiet-like without much friendship. Meanwhile, the normal kids, neither bullies nor bullied, became slightly bullyish, though not complete bullies. They were angry because the kid I got rid of for being a bully to the victims was just a good friend to them.
In another year as camp counselor I encountered another situation with an infamously bad kid, who was a bully to kids and counselors alike. Most counselors were afraid to have him in their cabin. One counselor managed to deal with him pretty well. The solution seemed to be that the counselor befriended him rather than being an oppositional authority figure. The good cop, without the camp director as the bad cop. The kid was misbehaving and bullying for attention, mostly. He transformed the kid by getting the rest of the kids in the cabin to react appropriately to the antics. The kid got the attention he wanted from clowning instead of misbehaving, eventually, and everyone laughed together. But this only really worked because he was able to get the victims, the rest of the cabin, to change their attitude towards the bad kid.
Having authority figures step in often does help the situation, particularly when that situation is disruptive to class, is violent, or the student(s) involved are experiencing emotional distress (this may very well be the bully and not the victim). I think you are thinking of casual teasing and minor bullying. When I speak of bullying I mean intentional, ongoing bullying. Bullying and making friends are two very different issues and you are confusing them. Having authority figures step in does not necessarily mean doling out punishments. Your idea of "befriending" the bully rather than demonizing him/her is not new and is a frequently used tool. Striking and accord/understanding with the bully and the victim is key.
EDIT: You just advocated that any physical abuse should result in jail, but you are now saying that a seeking out an authority figure makes a student a "momma's boy"? Something here does not compute.
Scott does not understand child psychology or how to create a desired outcome because he only understands his own 'logical' outlook. As much as he may make seemingly rational points, the fact is that they do not apply, or work, in nearly all situations dealing with children. He does not understand the psychology of children, therefore does not provide realistic solutions.
Scott does not understand child psychology or how to create a desired outcome because he only understands his own 'logical' outlook. As much as he may make seemingly rational points, the fact is that they do not apply, or work, in nearly all situations dealing with children. He does not understand the psychology of children, therefore does not provide realistic solutions.
Yeah, because what they teach teachers in teacher school has been working so well for the past few decades, it's obviously right.
EDIT: You just advocated that any physical abuse should result in jail, but you are now saying that a seeking out an authority figure makes a student a "momma's boy"? Something here does not compute.
Actually, Scott's point was quite clear:
Authority stepping in can only help if its action is extreme enough to end the bullying completely, such as expelling the bully entirely. Even in an environment with no bullies at all, the former victim may still have trouble making friends.
Scott does not understand child psychology or how to create a desired outcome because he only understands his own 'logical' outlook. As much as he may make seemingly rational points, the fact is that they do not apply, or work, in nearly all situations dealing with children. He does not understand the psychology of children, therefore does not provide realistic solutions.
Yeah, because what they teach teachers in teacher school has been working so well for the past few decades, it's obviously right.
In "teacher school"? WTF, Scott? While the education system has its faults, education techniques are constantly being refined and bettered. Are you seriously pulling the nostalgia glasses on and comparing schools in the 60's to schools of today and thinking that schools in the 60's were better? Keep in mind that you discussing this with Adam and to a lesser extent with me is like one of us attempting to argue with you about programming. There is a disparaging level of discourse, experience and knowledge. Moreover, you are continuing to argue for an unattainable ideal while ignoring the realities, logistics, and nuances of the problem.
Scott does not understand child psychology or how to create a desired outcome because he only understands his own 'logical' outlook. As much as he may make seemingly rational points, the fact is that they do not apply, or work, in nearly all situations dealing with children. He does not understand the psychology of children, therefore does not provide realistic solutions.
Yeah, because what they teach teachers in teacher school has been working so well for the past few decades, it's obviously right.
Is your new vision that would replace "what they teach teachers in teacher school" based on any experience, research, or scholarship?
OR - is it another case of "I'm Scott Rubin. This is my conclusion, based upon thinking about this subject for five minutes, and so therefore I am right."?
There are no perfect solutions Scott. They do not teach you how to deal with specific situations, but they do focus on child psychology and strategies to handle bullies and victims. It is in no way the fault of the schools who are teaching teachers if they go out into the world and do not pay attention to what they've learned. There are some teachers I remember as a kid who were all about defending me, but not all teachers can be everywhere all at once and deal with all problems all at once. Psychology is a tricky thing and no matter how much you study and prepare, you are going to get surprised and have to rely on instinct combined with what you know about psychology in order to deal with potential problems as a teacher.
While the education system has its faults, education techniques are constantly being refined and bettered. Are you seriously pulling the nostalgia glasses on and comparing schools in the 60's to schools of today and thinking that schools in the 60's were better?
Uh, no. Where did I say anything about schools in the '60s? Oh, because I said few decades. Yeah, no. Schools have always sucked, even more than a few decades ago.
The good schools that I see are the really experimental ones that do things drastically differently from what is common in most schools. Some of them don't even have classes. If you went to some of these, you might not even realize they were schools.
Scott does not understand child psychology or how to create a desired outcome because he only understands his own 'logical' outlook. As much as he may make seemingly rational points, the fact is that they do not apply, or work, in nearly all situations dealing with children. He does not understand the psychology of children, therefore does not provide realistic solutions.
Yeah, because what they teach teachers in teacher school has been working so well for the past few decades, it's obviously right.
Translation -
I speak from no outstanding or notable experience or knowledge on the subject, Yet, my solution is obviously better just because it's logical, and makes sense on the surface. I mean, the solution to Childeren's problems with being childeren is that they should be adults about it, it's so blindingly obvious that I'm amazed nobody thought of it before I did. It doesn't matter that it's so divorced from reality that reality is already living with it's new husband in the beach condo that it got in the settlement, it's right, goddamnit, and everyone else is wrong.
I'm utterly taking the piss, if you couldn't guess, but seriously, this is just ridiculous. Someone with day to day experience with these sorts of situations and what a teacher can do says your solution is unrealistic, and you don't stop and say "hmm, maybe, what flaws could there be?" You say "Yeah, because what they're teaching you in teacher school is working really well, because the situation persists in spite of that, therefore your opinion on my idea is invalid."
One person tells you you're a fool, you ignore 'em, two people, you start to think, but you'd think by the time we get to three people, try starting to look for pictures of yourself in a harlequin suit.
(Edited to give it an actual point beyond me just being a dick.)
While the education system has its faults, education techniques are constantly being refined and bettered. Are you seriously pulling the nostalgia glasses on and comparing schools in the 60's to schools of today and thinking that schools in the 60's were better?
Uh, no. Where did I say anything about schools in the '60s? Oh, because I said few decades. Yeah, no. Schools have always sucked, even more than a few decades ago.
The good schools that I see are the really experimental ones that do things drastically differently from what is common in most schools. Some of them don't even have classes. If you went to some of these, you might not even realize they were schools.
I am aware of the schools you are mentioning. Those schools are great and I am all for implementing the techniques that they enact in more schools once they are proven over the long term. They are still experimental for a reason and are well covered and addressed in M.Ed. and Certification programs. Most of those schools also have built in advantages like smaller school sizes, supportive parents that elect for their children to be in those programs, have "gifted" students, receive special attention, are outside of the traditional administration, and usually receive a large amount of funding. Keep in mind that most of those schools are new and conclusive studies of their long term viability are still in question. I am all for overhauling the current system. This is one of the reasons I want to be an educator. All this being said, it doesn't really speak to the issue at hand with any specificity or relevant point.
EDIT: As for schools sucking and always sucking, I can't take your opinion on this. You are an all-or-nothing guy. From what I have observed there are some great aspects of our school systems and they are often overshadowed by its flaws. There is room for improvement and some major changes that are screaming out to take place, but let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater. Some elements of our current school system work well for the majority of the population.
All this being said, it doesn't really speak to the issue at hand with any specificity or relevant point.
The point is that I think you are going to need that kind of drastic change that a completely new school system can bring to have any satisfying solution to the problem of bullying.
The only current practical courses of action which can provide a completely solution require action on the part of the victim, which is obviously not ideal. I'm not really convinced that there is anything a third party can actually do within the current system to completely correct a bullying problem. They can help, but they can not completely fix the situation.
If there is, why isn't it ever done? Every story so far in this thread has shown cases where outside parties can help the situation, but not completely eliminate it. The only stories we have seen where the problem has completely disappeared is where the victim has had some change in their approach. Sure, it's all anecdotal. But has anyone ever had a story of a kid who was bullied, and then a teacher saved the day and everything was wonderful after that? I have never heard nor seen of such a story ever. If there was such a story, every teacher in the country would try to duplicate whatever was done.
I think that if we had a complete overhaul of the education system, and the social structures it creates, then there would also be an opportunity to eliminate the bullying problem as well.
The problem is not schools alone, Scott. You are looking at a very complex combination of school social life, home life, personality, learning/social disorders, and outside-of-school social systems. Short of making all schools completely locked down or doing away with them all together, there is no silver bullet.
The problem is not schools alone, Scott. You are looking at a very complex combination of school social life, home life, personality, learning/social disorders, and outside-of-school social systems. Short of making all schools completely locked down or doing away with them all together, there is no silver bullet.
I think stratification would provide such a huge benefit that it would feel like a silver bullet.
Is there as much of a bullying problem in Europe and Asia as there is in the States? Is our bullying problem merely symptomatic of deeper problems within our society, or are kids bullies the world over?
If there's one thing about this forum that continues to impress, it is just how long these posts tend to get. I don't see how you people have the time to write them out, and sometimes find articles and such to back things up, when I barely have time to read them. So, I apologize in advance for skipping over most of the Great Scott/Kate (Skate?) Debate '09.
Looking back on my own schooling, and comparing it to the many examples people have given here regarding their own experiences with bullying, I honestly don't have a whole lot to discuss. When I was in K-8 (grade and middle school were combined), I always felt like I was the victim. Being in a private school, and an exceptionally well run one at the time, with very small classes, there was virtually no traditional forms of bullying. There were kids who were mean to other ones, but it almost never got past teasing and name-calling. On the rare occasion that violence did occur, it was usually instigated by the victim. I must admit that I am guilty of that. There was one exception, when a particular student transferred in one year. He was the typical bully, and he knew very quickly who to pick on, but luckily he was gone after that one year.
But I did get teased quite a bit for a very long time. Mostly regarding my awkwardness, my eternal habit of talking to myself, for a while about me and a girl being together all the time, my lack of knowledge regarding popular media, and, of course, for being smarter in many areas than anyone else. That last one didn't really get me teased so much as I had a lot of classmates trying to take advantage of me. It was a love/hate thing though because I did like the attention (I had a big ego and was very arrogant back then), even though it would always come back to bite me later.
The only real setback that this constant teasing had was that I felt like it was really hard to make good friends, so it has taken me a lot longer to develop social skills compared to most people I know. I will say that what really kept me going during those days was that I was determined to make myself better. So, when I felt like an outcast and had no one to have fun with, I just put all that time into doing well in school. I learned quickly, I excelled, and it has given me a lot of advantages in life that very few people I know have gotten.
So, regarding my opinions on the matter, I do feel that the best solution to a bullying situation is that the victim does have to put effort into improving him- or herself. Other people have suggested doing martial arts or strength training, which are great steps. The biggest hurdle with this is that children who are bullied need to have very strong parental support, and sadly that is the exception rather than the rule. However, in cases where the bullies are ruthlessly persistent and violent, I will not even assume to know anything about that since I've never personally experienced that in the schools that I have been to. I would like to think that if teachers had the ability to make examples of bullies, i.e. bring them down in the eyes of their classmates as long as their behavior is harmful, specific cases of bullying could be closed. But, that is not likely to happen these days.
The problem is not schools alone, Scott. You are looking at a very complex combination of school social life, home life, personality, learning/social disorders, and outside-of-school social systems. Short of making all schools completely locked down or doing away with them all together, there is no silver bullet.
I think stratification would provide such a huge benefit that it would feel like a silver bullet.
Not all bullies are slower learners and not all victims of bullying are faster learners. There will be bullies in the upper levels, middle levels, and lower levels of classes. How does "stratification" help that?
I would like to think that if teachers had the ability to make examples of bullies, i.e. bring them down in the eyes of their classmates as long as their behavior is harmful, specific cases of bullying could be closed. But, that is not likely to happen these days.
It would be nice, and it's pretty awesome to think about a bully getting a taste of their own medicine. However, it doesn't really help the situation. You're just fighting with fire and stooping down to the bully's level. Not really setting a great example. It might even backfire on you. maybe the former bully is now the victim. All you've done is change the roles, not remove the problem.
Not all bullies are slower learners and not all victims of bullying are faster learners. There will be bullies in the upper levels, middle levels, and lower levels of classes. How does "stratification" help that?
The problem is not schools alone, Scott. You are looking at a very complex combination of school social life, home life, personality, learning/social disorders, and outside-of-school social systems. Short of making all schools completely locked down or doing away with them all together, there is no silver bullet.
I think stratification would provide such a huge benefit that it would feel like a silver bullet.
Not all bullies are slower learners and not all victims of bullying are faster learners. There will be bullies in the upper levels, middle levels, and lower levels of classes. How does "stratification" help that?
Indeed. Additionally, stratification could induce more out-of-school bullying. Kids recognize stratification very quickly, and as I pointed out by my example about the guy who had his test screwed up, it can ram people into the wrong categories without hope of letting them achieve.
Not all bullies are slower learners and not all victims of bullying are faster learners. There will be bullies in the upper levels, middle levels, and lower levels of classes. How does "stratification" help that?
You don't have to stratify just on brains.
So how would you stratify, Scott? If you stratify based on learning ability, social needs, emotional needs, etc. You will have two kids per class. How is that feasible?
I would like to think that if teachers had the ability to make examples of bullies, i.e. bring them down in the eyes of their classmates as long as their behavior is harmful, specific cases of bullying could be closed. But, that is not likely to happen these days.
It would be nice, and it's pretty awesome to think about a bully getting a taste of their own medicine. However, it doesn't really help the situation. You're just fighting with fire and stooping down to the bully's level. Not really setting a great example. It might even backfire on you. maybe the former bully is now the victim. All you've done is change the roles, not remove the problem.
That is a good point. It is very possible for a teacher to overcompensate, and kids are surprisingly quick to change allegiances when the status quo suddenly changes.
So, maybe we should look at it from another perspective. While I do agree with Scott that it would be nice if kids were rational creatures, like adults should be, as everyone else has said, reality says otherwise. When you think about it, when you take away rationality from an adult, what are you usually left with? Instinct, or something like it. Without rationality, people react mostly on emotion and instinct. Namely, people will do whatever they can to protect themselves and survive. Now, when you add back in just a little bit of rationality and experience, I think you get to the real root of the problem. Kids, in general, are totally selfish.
Therefore, I propose a possible solution. What teachers could focus on, instead of trying to prevent bullies from picking on others by threatening punishment, is to instead nurture selflessness. Scott gave a few examples on befriending which stem from this idea. The only problem with that solution by itself is that you would have to get to the bully before he or she has time to settle into a routine. For bullies that have been bullies for a while, that wouldn't really work.
I'm afraid I don't really have any specific examples of how one would instill selflessness in a bully, who is likely to be very stubborn against such things, but I think that might be the most effective way to remove bullying.
Is there as much of a bullying problem in Europe and Asia as there is in the States? Is our bullying problem merely symptomatic of deeper problems within our society, or are kids bullies the world over?
That would be interesting to know just because the standards of education are so much different. The amount of stress schools put on children is much different, but it really varies from country to country. The USA is rather isolated like that.
What is really dangerous about many bullies is the fact that for some reason they feel theymustpick on someone. For whatever reason, making other people embarrassed and miserable is entertaining to them, or even addicting. If they find a target, and that target has the miracle "cool" reaction to get out of it, then they have lost their target. Well there are tons of other kids, so the bully just moves on to someone else. This is why I feel it is important to go to authority figures about the situation (my tattle tale nature speaking here), especially if you see other kids suffering. If that bully pulls down 20 different kids' pants, and each kid has the "cool" reaction about it, it doesn't matter. He still pulled down 20 kids' pants. Also, what if a guy pulls a girl's pants down? Is it her fault if she feels like she is being sexually harassed, instead of being "cool" about it?
Contrastingly, there is also the occasional bully that doesn't mean real harm and just goes with the flow for their own advancement. I admit that when I was young, even though I was teased myself, I also teased other kids. I remember calling this one girl a boy because her hair was short. I did this because everyone else was doing it, and I guess I thought it would make me fit in. Did I really care about her short hair? No, I had no fashion sense at the time. Did I want her to feel bad? Not really, I just wanted everyone else to see me being mean so I could fit in. Of course it was wrong, but I didn't really think about it at the time because I was just another kid.
That's a good way to narrow down the two types of bullies. With grade school children, you are much more likely to get the first bully who won't stop bullying for some personal, unknown reason. Kids are still developing, so I think Scott R. is correct in the sense that they are more truthful. Therefore if a bully is picking on a kid at that age, it's most likely because they DON'T LIKE something about the person they are victimizing. It's much more likely that there's a whole ribbing/friends issue at an older age, but even then, it's 50/50. I mean, how many of us can honestly say that we earned great friends because we bullied them or they once bullied us? I can see you having one or two mean people turning into your friend, but how often does that happen? Aren't the good people going to outnumber the bad?
It seems as if both inclusion and stratification have problems. Inclusive settings make it hard to provide all students with what they need unless classes are small enough. That would be expensive, though. In addition, this is the system that created our bullied nerd stereotype. Stratification can be in error. It may reduce some bullying within school, but not everything at all. It may group kids incorrectly and dwarf their potential. Kids will also be inexperienced in socially interacting with other types of children when they get into the real world, which is by nature inclusive.
Like I said before, I like the idea of having mostly inclusive classes, but some stratification as an option for certain subject areas. I liked the system of honors and AP classes, for example. Instead of being compulsory, or predetermined by one test, it is an option for kids that want to try. It is not compulsory. It gives the 'nerds' a safe haven subject if they are being bullied, but doesn't entirely shelter and alienate them from learning about the rest of their peers.
As for kids on the lower end, I think there should possibly be more RTI (Response to Intervention) or similar programs for older grades. I was in one for reading when I was little. I was younger than my classmates by about a year, and was struggling a little with phonetics. ADD( not diagnosed yet) didn't help, I'm sure. Anyway, I went to a reading class during PE twice a week for 9 weeks, and caught up. My spelling will always suck, but it allowed me to have a chance to catch up to my peers without being thrust into Special Ed.
The problem is, it seemed as if this service was only provided in grades 1 and 2 for reading. When most kids struggle in higher grades, they go for tutoring--often having to pay money, or get it from peers that don't know how to figure out the student's learning style. Wouldn't it be great if the DOE could afford a few teachers that specialize in this kind of thing? After all, the goal is free appropriate education.
This is a way kids can get the extra boost they may need. In a small setting, they can privately express their struggle without embarrassment, and the teacher can troubleshoot more thoroughly to figure out how this kid learns best. It also doesn't have that all-out Special Ed label. Lastly, the student won't miss any time in the inclusive, regular classroom. Ideally, this regular classroom is at least partially reaching out to these struggling students, and will collaborate with the RTI teacher on adjusting the lesson materials to cater to the student's discovered learning style. It is a means of temporarily stratifying struggling kids into a safe group where they can figure out how to teach them better, and then tell the regular teacher how to differentiate their instruction to accommodate them. From what I've read and heard, I think that both students and teachers could really use more support that way.
Hey Scott, I would argue that stratification based on intelligence would not work at all. Japan has horrible bullying problems, but what high school you go to has to do with your performance on exams, and grade point average and stuff. Even classes within a school are based on grades, and grades are posted publicly. Is it better than the US? Not all that much. Kids are still dicks to each other.
I mean, look at me. I have hundred of people constantly saying things to me that would be normally be considered bullying. Jokes about why I'm gay. Jokes about having no girlfriend. Getting ripped a good one whenever I say something wrong or stupid. Getting ripped an even bigger new one when I suck at something. I get ripped again if I change my mind on something, or do something other people perceive to be out of character. I get people trying to poke me just because I don't want to be poked.
Nothing in my life has changed in terms of people bullying me or saying harassing things. All that has changed is my attitude. It just doesn't bother me, and it's funny. If someone pesters you, and you don't like it, they're a bully. If you join in on the self deprecating humor, suddenly that bully is a friend. When I was in middle school, a gay joke would have angered me and made me hate the person who saidit. Nowadays the same exact joke is just uber-lols, and I'm great friends with the person who says it. What changed? My attitude.
Look at this thread. Just about every single person was bullied in some way at one point or another. I bet if you ask every person on the street, they will tell you as well. Even popular kids tease the hell out of each other. I honestly believe that just about every single kid in every single school is teased or picked on or bullied to varying degrees. Every person you meet on the street will tell you they were picked on in some way in school. And I think the difference in determining who becomes the extreme victims are how those victims react.
I'm sorry I bully you, Scott. Bully bully bully. Raar. I do agree with you that in almost every social group, popular or not, there are problems with rumors and bullying.
You know, I can narrow down my fifth grade year into one critical moment. I was standing in the lunch line and some kid, James I think his name was, made bunny ears with his hand and mimed a gun shooting a bunny to make me angry, and sure thing, I got mad and yelled at him. With that, I was teased for the REST of Elementary School about shooting rabbits. If I had answered with an "Ooookay then, dude." "Uh, Right..." or something similar, I can see the year turning out differently. Scott is a little right about first impressions.
To Natalie, your idea is not unrealistic. It sounds like the only hard task that would come from it is that the parents would have to be comfortable with students getting close to teachers. Not to mention, it would require a group of willing and prepared school teachers to do such a task. I don't mean to sound negative, but in small communities you have some really burnt out teachers.
And with that subject, it would also be a great way to eradicate the need to label people. Or at least keep them from being labeled from being "Special." Giving a child ADD/ADHD diagnosis or labeling them as special needs can really mess them up.
Is there as much of a bullying problem in Europe and Asia as there is in the States? Is our bullying problem merely symptomatic of deeper problems within our society, or are kids bullies the world over?
It certainly is in Australia and England, I can say that for sure - I've not been through the English school system, but the Ex was a product of it, and was bullied terribly, as were many of her friends.
From my skimming of this discussion it is apparent Scott has OFFICALLY forgot what it is to be a child and is now an old man.
I got the impression that Scott is some sort of real life Benjamin Button. I think his mind started out as an old man and by the time he hits 50 his body and mind should be about the same age. We'll know for sure when he starts complaining about the bully in the next rocking chair over who keeps picking on him at the nursing home.
Comments
Contrastingly, there is also the occasional bully that doesn't mean real harm and just goes with the flow for their own advancement. I admit that when I was young, even though I was teased myself, I also teased other kids. I remember calling this one girl a boy because her hair was short. I did this because everyone else was doing it, and I guess I thought it would make me fit in. Did I really care about her short hair? No, I had no fashion sense at the time. Did I want her to feel bad? Not really, I just wanted everyone else to see me being mean so I could fit in. Of course it was wrong, but I didn't really think about it at the time because I was just another kid.
Bullying and making friends are two very different issues and you are confusing them.
Having authority figures step in does not necessarily mean doling out punishments. Your idea of "befriending" the bully rather than demonizing him/her is not new and is a frequently used tool. Striking and accord/understanding with the bully and the victim is key.
EDIT: You just advocated that any physical abuse should result in jail, but you are now saying that a seeking out an authority figure makes a student a "momma's boy"? Something here does not compute.
I'd also like to add:
You are arguing with Scott.
While the education system has its faults, education techniques are constantly being refined and bettered. Are you seriously pulling the nostalgia glasses on and comparing schools in the 60's to schools of today and thinking that schools in the 60's were better?
Keep in mind that you discussing this with Adam and to a lesser extent with me is like one of us attempting to argue with you about programming. There is a disparaging level of discourse, experience and knowledge. Moreover, you are continuing to argue for an unattainable ideal while ignoring the realities, logistics, and nuances of the problem.
OR - is it another case of "I'm Scott Rubin. This is my conclusion, based upon thinking about this subject for five minutes, and so therefore I am right."?
The good schools that I see are the really experimental ones that do things drastically differently from what is common in most schools. Some of them don't even have classes. If you went to some of these, you might not even realize they were schools.
Someone with day to day experience with these sorts of situations and what a teacher can do says your solution is unrealistic, and you don't stop and say "hmm, maybe, what flaws could there be?" You say "Yeah, because what they're teaching you in teacher school is working really well, because the situation persists in spite of that, therefore your opinion on my idea is invalid."
One person tells you you're a fool, you ignore 'em, two people, you start to think, but you'd think by the time we get to three people, try starting to look for pictures of yourself in a harlequin suit.
(Edited to give it an actual point beyond me just being a dick.)
I am all for overhauling the current system. This is one of the reasons I want to be an educator.
All this being said, it doesn't really speak to the issue at hand with any specificity or relevant point.
EDIT: As for schools sucking and always sucking, I can't take your opinion on this. You are an all-or-nothing guy. From what I have observed there are some great aspects of our school systems and they are often overshadowed by its flaws. There is room for improvement and some major changes that are screaming out to take place, but let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater. Some elements of our current school system work well for the majority of the population.
The only current practical courses of action which can provide a completely solution require action on the part of the victim, which is obviously not ideal. I'm not really convinced that there is anything a third party can actually do within the current system to completely correct a bullying problem. They can help, but they can not completely fix the situation.
If there is, why isn't it ever done? Every story so far in this thread has shown cases where outside parties can help the situation, but not completely eliminate it. The only stories we have seen where the problem has completely disappeared is where the victim has had some change in their approach. Sure, it's all anecdotal. But has anyone ever had a story of a kid who was bullied, and then a teacher saved the day and everything was wonderful after that? I have never heard nor seen of such a story ever. If there was such a story, every teacher in the country would try to duplicate whatever was done.
I think that if we had a complete overhaul of the education system, and the social structures it creates, then there would also be an opportunity to eliminate the bullying problem as well.
Looking back on my own schooling, and comparing it to the many examples people have given here regarding their own experiences with bullying, I honestly don't have a whole lot to discuss. When I was in K-8 (grade and middle school were combined), I always felt like I was the victim. Being in a private school, and an exceptionally well run one at the time, with very small classes, there was virtually no traditional forms of bullying. There were kids who were mean to other ones, but it almost never got past teasing and name-calling. On the rare occasion that violence did occur, it was usually instigated by the victim. I must admit that I am guilty of that. There was one exception, when a particular student transferred in one year. He was the typical bully, and he knew very quickly who to pick on, but luckily he was gone after that one year.
But I did get teased quite a bit for a very long time. Mostly regarding my awkwardness, my eternal habit of talking to myself, for a while about me and a girl being together all the time, my lack of knowledge regarding popular media, and, of course, for being smarter in many areas than anyone else. That last one didn't really get me teased so much as I had a lot of classmates trying to take advantage of me. It was a love/hate thing though because I did like the attention (I had a big ego and was very arrogant back then), even though it would always come back to bite me later.
The only real setback that this constant teasing had was that I felt like it was really hard to make good friends, so it has taken me a lot longer to develop social skills compared to most people I know. I will say that what really kept me going during those days was that I was determined to make myself better. So, when I felt like an outcast and had no one to have fun with, I just put all that time into doing well in school. I learned quickly, I excelled, and it has given me a lot of advantages in life that very few people I know have gotten.
So, regarding my opinions on the matter, I do feel that the best solution to a bullying situation is that the victim does have to put effort into improving him- or herself. Other people have suggested doing martial arts or strength training, which are great steps. The biggest hurdle with this is that children who are bullied need to have very strong parental support, and sadly that is the exception rather than the rule. However, in cases where the bullies are ruthlessly persistent and violent, I will not even assume to know anything about that since I've never personally experienced that in the schools that I have been to. I would like to think that if teachers had the ability to make examples of bullies, i.e. bring them down in the eyes of their classmates as long as their behavior is harmful, specific cases of bullying could be closed. But, that is not likely to happen these days.
So, maybe we should look at it from another perspective. While I do agree with Scott that it would be nice if kids were rational creatures, like adults should be, as everyone else has said, reality says otherwise. When you think about it, when you take away rationality from an adult, what are you usually left with? Instinct, or something like it. Without rationality, people react mostly on emotion and instinct. Namely, people will do whatever they can to protect themselves and survive. Now, when you add back in just a little bit of rationality and experience, I think you get to the real root of the problem. Kids, in general, are totally selfish.
Therefore, I propose a possible solution. What teachers could focus on, instead of trying to prevent bullies from picking on others by threatening punishment, is to instead nurture selflessness. Scott gave a few examples on befriending which stem from this idea. The only problem with that solution by itself is that you would have to get to the bully before he or she has time to settle into a routine. For bullies that have been bullies for a while, that wouldn't really work.
I'm afraid I don't really have any specific examples of how one would instill selflessness in a bully, who is likely to be very stubborn against such things, but I think that might be the most effective way to remove bullying.
Stratification can be in error. It may reduce some bullying within school, but not everything at all. It may group kids incorrectly and dwarf their potential. Kids will also be inexperienced in socially interacting with other types of children when they get into the real world, which is by nature inclusive.
Like I said before, I like the idea of having mostly inclusive classes, but some stratification as an option for certain subject areas. I liked the system of honors and AP classes, for example. Instead of being compulsory, or predetermined by one test, it is an option for kids that want to try. It is not compulsory. It gives the 'nerds' a safe haven subject if they are being bullied, but doesn't entirely shelter and alienate them from learning about the rest of their peers.
As for kids on the lower end, I think there should possibly be more RTI (Response to Intervention) or similar programs for older grades. I was in one for reading when I was little. I was younger than my classmates by about a year, and was struggling a little with phonetics. ADD( not diagnosed yet) didn't help, I'm sure. Anyway, I went to a reading class during PE twice a week for 9 weeks, and caught up. My spelling will always suck, but it allowed me to have a chance to catch up to my peers without being thrust into Special Ed.
The problem is, it seemed as if this service was only provided in grades 1 and 2 for reading. When most kids struggle in higher grades, they go for tutoring--often having to pay money, or get it from peers that don't know how to figure out the student's learning style. Wouldn't it be great if the DOE could afford a few teachers that specialize in this kind of thing? After all, the goal is free appropriate education.
This is a way kids can get the extra boost they may need. In a small setting, they can privately express their struggle without embarrassment, and the teacher can troubleshoot more thoroughly to figure out how this kid learns best. It also doesn't have that all-out Special Ed label. Lastly, the student won't miss any time in the inclusive, regular classroom. Ideally, this regular classroom is at least partially reaching out to these struggling students, and will collaborate with the RTI teacher on adjusting the lesson materials to cater to the student's discovered learning style. It is a means of temporarily stratifying struggling kids into a safe group where they can figure out how to teach them better, and then tell the regular teacher how to differentiate their instruction to accommodate them. From what I've read and heard, I think that both students and teachers could really use more support that way.
What do you think? Unrealistically ideal?
I do agree with you that in almost every social group, popular or not, there are problems with rumors and bullying.
You know, I can narrow down my fifth grade year into one critical moment. I was standing in the lunch line and some kid, James I think his name was, made bunny ears with his hand and mimed a gun shooting a bunny to make me angry, and sure thing, I got mad and yelled at him. With that, I was teased for the REST of Elementary School about shooting rabbits. If I had answered with an "Ooookay then, dude." "Uh, Right..." or something similar, I can see the year turning out differently. Scott is a little right about first impressions.
And with that subject, it would also be a great way to eradicate the need to label people. Or at least keep them from being labeled from being "Special." Giving a child ADD/ADHD diagnosis or labeling them as special needs can really mess them up.