Disciplining your children

[Boob Johnson]

This article, or the contents there of, will come as no surprise to many no doubt!

What's your thoughts on this? Some disturbing statistics here. Discuss!


http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/education/6953255/NZ-parents-want-tougher-stance-on-class-discipline

Increasing numbers of fed-up parents want schools to get tough on discipline.

A recent international study ranked New Zealand students among the worst-behaved in the world, and Secondary Principals' Association president Patrick Walsh said there was a sea change in how discipline was perceived in schools.

"The public and parents are becoming less tolerant with the restorative justice approach, and want schools to get tough on serious offenders."

While a restorative justice approach had been widely adopted, research showed children's behaviour had grown worse in the past decade, with sexual and physical assaults increasing.

Almost three-quarters – 71 per cent – of respondents in a Sunday Star-Times reader poll, said discipline was lacking in our schools, and blamed the rise in bad behaviour on the loss of discipline at home and a lack of respect among young people.

Walsh said many of the worst-behaved students came to school with violence or sexual deviance learned at home, and it was a difficult balancing act between rehabilitating students and ensuring the safety of others.

Edgewater College guidance counsellor Mike Williams said he understood why parents wanted tougher punishments, but hardline approaches did not work. "If you're son or daughter is bullied, of course you're going to want the bully kicked out."

But that only pushed the problem on to another school. "The restorative justice approach is more effective at managing conflict than a punitive one."

A book he co-authored, Safe and Peaceful Schools: Addressing Conflict and Eliminating Violence, was published in December. It points to undercover anti-bullying teams, mediation, restorative conferencing, and anger management groups as solutions to classroom conflict.

An OECD report, which looked at how long it took teachers to control unruly children, was published last year. It ranked New Zealand 50th out of 65 countries for disruptive pupils. Many Asian countries ranked near the top, the United States was 22nd and the United Kingdom 32nd.

A teacher who has taught in Asia and New Zealand said there were always disruptive students, but there was a different cultural approach to education here, with teachers in Asia gaining immediate respect by virtue of their position where here they had to "prove themselves".

The respect a teacher gained depended on a number of factors, but the fact they had to do it at all was disruptive, he said.

Post-Primary Teachers' Association president Robin Duff said student behaviour had deteriorated over the past 30 years, but it followed the pattern of wider society.

Ad Feedback

The association recently issued members with an instruction to report assaults on teachers to police. Statistics NZ figures show there were 567 assaults in schools last year. The number causing injury rose from 50 to 81 between 2001 and 2011, and sexual assaults more than trebled, from 33 to 116.

PUBLIC REACTION

Adequate discipline has been taken away from schools.

Students know it and run riot.

I am a year 13 student. I have seen the disrespect towards teachers. I have heard them sworn at and abused. I often feel my learning is hindered by those students who command a teacher's attention because of their misbehaviour.

As teachers, you have very little at your disposal for disciplinary measures and that is reflected in reduced learning.

Bring back corporal punishment and stop giving so much power to adolescents. Teachers are powerless because they don't have the support of parents.

Discipline needs to be fair, not the rigid way it was in the past.

I was a teacher, but gave up because of the ill-discipline. The lack of respect is unbelievable. We have become far too PC and as a result children lack respect for authority in general

[mashman]

Where's the option for not giving a shit as it makes no difference as to how I treat my children behind closed doors... or in public for that matter. There are already laws in place to encourage me not to beat the shit out of my kids, I see no point in changing any more laws.

[Boob Johnson]

Pretty sure your vote falls under option #3 there Mashy

[mashman]

Pretty your vote falls under option #3 there Mashy

ha ha ha ha haaaaaa... "Roger that. Right you are, that it should be" :niceone: (although I see not point in reversing the law)

[FJRider]

Just give the teachers the right to smack the shit out of the kids ass with a length of bamboo ... AGAIN ... :yes:

Then the parents wont have to ... :no:

[Berries]

Where's the option for not giving a shit as it makes no difference as to how I treat my children behind closed doors... or in public for that matter.
+1 to that.

[Kickaha]

Just give the teachers the right to smack the shit out of the kids ass with a length of bamboo ... AGAIN ...

Electric dog collars on them while they are in class

[Akzle]

i could care less what their laws are. they're not my laws. child abuse is rife as ever in NZ.

if the govt is not going to pay me to raise my f*cking kids, they don't get a say in it.

i haven't had to hit either of my children since they were <3yrs old. (barring about 2 occasions) it's a teaching tool. sitting down and explaining in calm tones and positive language while wearing pastel colored shirts just doesn't f*cking cut it. sending them to their room to plot revenge isn't much better.
a smack on the ass communicates your message quickly, clearly, leaves noone unsure about the acceptability of their behaviour, and it's over.
child knows - do that=pain, don't do that = not pain. the logic or adult reasoning behind it can come later.

"physical discipline" is how animals learn socially acceptable behaviours - pup nips another pup's tail, mummy dog scruffs offeding pup. lesson learned.

[FJRider]

Electric dog collars on them while they are in class

Might work in Home Detention too .... :yes:

[MIXONE]

I was regularly caned at school and I haven't bashed anyone for ages.:bash:

[SVboy]

So, some parents cant cope at home so they expect teachers to sort it? With the limp and limited responses available to teachers these days that is not going to happen and is as likely as is the re introduction of the cane. To those parents without the skills-seek to educate yourselves preferably before getting pregnant.

[Headbanger]

Just give the teachers the right to smack the shit out of the kids ass with a length of bamboo ... AGAIN ... :yes:

Then the parents wont have to ... :no:

I'd agree with that, as long as I'm allowed to thump the teachers whenever I get the urge.

[Headbanger]

Shitbag kids are created by shitbag influences, namely their parents and family.

The smacking law has zero influence on this situation.

I'd rather the shitbags are removed from class, If they aren't prepared to learn then no need to allow them to drag down the rest. Their parents have already fucked their chances.

[XxKiTtiExX]

Shitbag kids are created by shitbag influences, namely their parents and family.

The smacking law has zero influence on this situation.

I'd rather the shitbags are removed from class, If they aren't prepared to learn then no need to allow them to drag down the rest. Their parents have already fucked their chances.

I'm sorry but some kids/people are just outright shitbags, raised by shitbag parents/family or not. :mellow:

[Headbanger]

I'm sorry but some kids/people are just outright shitbags, raised by shitbag parents/family or not. :mellow:

In that case, Most of the time shitbag kids are produced by shitbag influences.

And some, They are just born with the devil in them.

[Winston001]

Just for the record there is no such thing as an "anti-smacking law".

The law says one person must not assault another. There are exceptions - police officers in execution of their duty etc.

The topical exception here is parents may defend a charge of assault on their child as follows:




Every parent of a child....is justified in using force if the force used is reasonable in the circumstances...

[FJRider]

Just for the record there is no such thing as an "anti-smacking law".

The law says one person must not assault another. There are exceptions - police officers in execution of their duty etc.

The topical exception here is parents may defend a charge of assault on their child as follows:




Every parent of a child....is justified in using force if the force used is reasonable in the circumstances...


It's quite funny (ok ... not really) that those the "Anti-smacking bill" was introduced to combat the abuse of their children ... are the very one's that continue to offend. And the cycle of the new generation continues the tradition ...

Yet the dad that gives a firm smack to the backside of his 6 year-old in the supermarket ... for throwing a tantrum because he isn't allowed lollies ... and 3 do-gooders make a complaint to police and he ends up in court. The do-gooders pat themselves on the back, and the dad gets arrested because complaints have been made and they must be seen to be taking action.

Interesting reading ...

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0705/S00020.htm

[Maha]

Worked well for me, in fact, being spanked every now and then still helps...:corn:

[Winston001]

It's quite funny (ok ... not really) that those the "Anti-smacking bill" was introduced to combat the abuse of their children ...

Interesting reading ...

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0705/S00020.htm

Naughty! That link dates from 2007 before the amendment to S 59 was passed into law. Since then there have been no actual prosecutions that offend common sense. Judges won't put up with having their time wasted by petty charges and the police have far worse to deal with. You are extremely unlikely to be arrested for smacking Johnny on the bottom in the supermarket.

[Virago]

...The topical exception here is parents may defend a charge of assault on their child as follows:


Every parent of a child....is justified in using force if the force used is reasonable in the circumstances...


That would always have to be the case. Children being afforded full adult rights when under the control of their parents would result in some farcical situations - perhaps the fall-back parental control of "Time Out" would result in charges of kidnapping and false imprisonment...

The reality is that S59 was a complete waste of time. It simply serves to undermine the confidence of normal parents - while the real villians continue to cheerfully batter their children in alarming numbers. It has achieved nothing.

[xXGIBBOXx]

Im not good at watching the news and jazz , but wasnt the law put in place so they would have something to charge them with and the familys that close doors and like when a baby is beaten to dead ? A clip round the ear and belt to the ass never did me any harm when i was growing up . And if i stepped out of line when i was at school it wasnt the teachers i feared it was the old man . kids these days know there rights and play on them to get away with half the shit i wouldnt have dreamed of for fear of not walking right for week .

[tigertim20]

i could care less what their laws are. they're not my laws. .
You sound like one of them fuckin Tuhoe independant state tame iti fuckin idiots . . .

It's quite funny (ok ... not really) that those the "Anti-smacking bill" was introduced to combat the abuse of their children ... are the very one's that continue to offend. And the cycle of the new generation continues the tradition ...

Yet the dad that gives a firm smack to the backside of his 6 year-old in the supermarket ... for throwing a tantrum because he isn't allowed lollies ... and 3 do-gooders make a complaint to police and he ends up in court. The do-gooders pat themselves on the back, and the dad gets arrested because complaints have been made and they must be seen to be taking action.

Interesting reading ...

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0705/S00020.htm

I agree with ya trev.
The law that was introduced does little or nothing to fix the problem it was designed to combat.
Those who were likely to seriously beat, bash, and cause harm to their children, or children in their care, are just as likely as ever to do so.
The difference now is that reasonable, responsible parents, are at risk of becoming criminals in the eyes of the law because their otherwise acceptable parenting strategies can be perceived as a serious affront to the welfare of a child if the law is taken seriously.
Its a joke.

The law should be biffed out (it was rushed through anyway and lacked the time required to really look at and make into something worth doing anyway) and they should find a better way of actually combating the problem that still plagues us

[mashman]

Naughty! That link dates from 2007 before the amendment to S 59 was passed into law. Since then there have been no actual prosecutions that offend common sense. Judges won't put up with having their time wasted by petty charges and the police have far worse to deal with. You are extremely unlikely to be arrested for smacking Johnny on the bottom in the supermarket.

Does it stop the stress and the strain in regards to the worry it causes wondering how far it's going to go?

[Winston001]

The law that was introduced does little or nothing to fix the problem it was designed to combat.
Those who were likely to seriously beat, bash, and cause harm to their children, or children in their care, are just as likely as ever to do so.

The difference now is that reasonable, responsible parents, are at risk of becoming criminals in the eyes of the law

The law should be biffed out it was rushed through anyway...

I do understand what you are saying Tim. Many good people think the same and that is because the whole Section 59 Crimes Act 1961 debate was poorly reported by the media.

Let me ask you this: if the amended S 59 was so useless, so abysmally out of step with the population, and opposed by 89% in a petition - why did Parliament pass it almost unanimously? Despite all the hate and vitriol why did every Party support it?

Could it be that MPs understood what the law was aiming for? To reduce parent defences where they used vacuum cleaner cords and riding whips on their kids? Because that is what happened previously. Would you do that to your kids??

[Akzle]

Let me ask you this: if the amended S 59 was so useless, so abysmally out of step with the population, and opposed by 89% in a petition - why did Parliament pass it almost unanimously? Despite all the hate and vitriol why did every Party support it? oooh! oooh! i know the answer to this one!

it's because your government dont give half a shit about what you think. they're not acting as representative governments should, that is: make the will of the people the law (statute).
...not the first time, wont be the last.

but which of the sheep will do anything about it?
who will cow that vicious shepherd, especially when trying to do so results in him putting the dogs on you?
back to the flock. bleat all you want, just don't dare do anything.

tuhoe? no. tama iti? no, fucken idiot? no, independent state? no.
sovereign by my own right? well.. who's going to challenge that?

[Tigadee]

To reduce parent defences where they used vacuum cleaner cords and riding whips on their kids? Because that is what happened previously. Would you do that to your kids??

You mean it was legal to use vacuum cleaner cords and riding whips before and now thanks to S59, it is illegal? Well, in that case, thank goodness for that!


- perhaps the fall-back parental control of "Time Out" would result in charges of kidnapping and false imprisonment...

I prefer the American-style term of "involuntary incarceration"... :laugh


I'd rather the shitbags are removed from class, If they aren't prepared to learn then no need to allow them to drag down the rest. Their parents have already fucked their chances.

Shitbag kids should be sent to boot camps... in Australia.

[Winston001]

You mean it was legal to use vacuum cleaner cords and riding whips before and now thanks to S59, it is illegal? Well, in that case, thank goodness for that!






Yes. There were two cases where parents were prosecuted for doing the above. They used the old S 59 defence of reasonable discipline in that family, and the juries acquitted them. There are other cases such as a father who chained his daughter up.


As for those who point to children still getting bashed by parents - murder is also illegal but it still occurs. Should we allow murder on the basis that its going to happen anyway?

[MSTRS]

S59 allowed for 'reasonable force'. Slapper Bradford sought to remove it altogether, but Parliament decided to simply replace it with 'light and inconsequential'. So S59 was never really repealed as such, just watered down.
I suggest it was rushed through with little trouble (eventually) because the Slapper threatened to kiss each and every dissenter...

[Clockwork]

Yes. There were two cases where parents were prosecuted for doing the above. They used the old S 59 defence of reasonable discipline in that family, and the juries acquitted them. There are other cases such as a father who chained his daughter up.


As for those who point to children still getting bashed by parents - murder is also illegal but it still occurs. Should we allow murder on the basis that its going to happen anyway?

So after attending the trial, listening to all the evidence and taking on board the advice of the judge, these people were judged and acquitted by a jury of there own peers (which is how it should be surely) But apparently non-participants knew better and consequently felt they had to change the law to save society from such idiotic juries?

[Edbear]

Shitbag kids are created by shitbag influences, namely their parents and family.

The smacking law has zero influence on this situation.

I'd rather the shitbags are removed from class, If they aren't prepared to learn then no need to allow them to drag down the rest. Their parents have already fucked their chances.

+1


I do understand what you are saying Tim. Many good people think the same and that is because the whole Section 59 Crimes Act 1961 debate was poorly reported by the media.

Let me ask you this: if the amended S 59 was so useless, so abysmally out of step with the population, and opposed by 89% in a petition - why did Parliament pass it almost unanimously? Despite all the hate and vitriol why did every Party support it?

Could it be that MPs understood what the law was aiming for? To reduce parent defences where they used vacuum cleaner cords and riding whips on their kids? Because that is what happened previously. Would you do that to your kids??


Yes. There were two cases where parents were prosecuted for doing the above. They used the old S 59 defence of reasonable discipline in that family, and the juries acquitted them. There are other cases such as a father who chained his daughter up.

As for those who point to children still getting bashed by parents - murder is also illegal but it still occurs. Should we allow murder on the basis that its going to happen anyway?

Will you please stop being logical and calm, it is detracting from the tone of the thread...

[avgas]

The antismacking law has a much to with shithead kids in school as ACC levies have to do with Motorbike accidents.

Fact of the matter is if a kid is being a shit-head at school he should be booted out. No questions asked.
This has nothing to do with laying a hand on a kid.

I have mentioned this in another thread - but should be repeated here.
Create a solution for each problem - not a solution for all problems......it will never work. It never has.

[SVboy]

Kicking a kid out for being a "shithead' will only create further larger social problems. Resource and enable the schools to act appropriately and watch exclusion rates fall.

[Winston001]

Kicking a kid out for being a "shithead' will only create further larger social problems. Resource and enable the schools to act appropriately and watch exclusion rates fall.

Good point. Why is a kid difficult? Ok sometimes there are just nasty kids from good homes - kids with an inflated sense of entitlement. But mostly, the troublesome children have an unhappy homelife and have learned not to give a damn. In fact being disruptive means that somebody pays attention to them which is a lot more than they get at home.

I had a teacher friend who had a pupil she knew would be trouble. At age 6 he was uncontrolable. On one occassion his mother went to Dunedin (200km) and locked him in a wardrobe. Fortunately the police somehow discovered him.

Another friend has been seconded as voluntary BOT help for a decile 1 primary school. Some of the kids age 5 cannot talk. They don't know they live in a city, in a country called NZ. They don't know words for chair, table, bed. But they can swear like a biker. These sad children have grown up in homes where they are ignored. They are a time bomb for our society.

[Ender EnZed]

So after attending the trial, listening to all the evidence and taking on board the advice of the judge, these people were judged and acquitted by a jury of there own peers (which is how it should be surely) But apparently non-participants knew better and consequently felt they had to change the law to save society from such idiotic juries?

A jury's job is not to determine whether or not the defendant deserves to go to jail. The juries in these trials did their job and determined whether or not the defendant had broken the law. They hadn't broken the law, because the law was stupid. Now it's different.

[scumdog]

S59 allowed for 'reasonable force'. Slapper Bradford sought to remove it altogether, but Parliament decided to simply replace it with 'light and inconsequential'. So S59 was never really repealed as such, just watered down.
I suggest it was rushed through with little trouble (eventually) because the Slapper threatened to kiss each and every dissenter...

You got something against slappers comparing them to Bradford?

Bradford is a motor-mouth 'look-at-me' leech on the taxpayer.

Constantly.

And 'her' law very likely not saved one kid.

[FJRider]

... And 'her' law very likely not saved one kid.

The bicycle helmet law has saved more kids lives ... and (the not wearing of same) gained more revenue for the coffers ...