BTW: I went to a really rough all boys school. It taught me many lessons in life. You cant discount the natural school environment where teachers are seen as 'screws' as in a prison environment. It's us against them, and when inmates are seen fraternising with the enemy it's a slap in the face to the comradeship of the student body.

Apart from learning to add up and read, school would be a general waste of time if not for the social skills learned. I think really we should shorten school by 2 years. There is way too much fluff.

I remember starting high school and thinking I really haven't learned much up to this point in primary school, being excited for a few months to a year at actually learning something more substantial, and then becoming bored for the next 2-3 years, and then spending my time messing with teachers and seeing how they tick, and what would challenge them most. Then when I was considered a lost cause, the corresponding lack of attention and care factor of the teachers enabled me to get on with learning in my own style. I successfully recalibrated the expectations of teachers and gained praise for doing anything at all, or at least a comfortable indifference and was no longer 'rewarded' with extra work.

The school system is insulting to young people. The idea that a bell is rung every 40 minutes, and students are expected to mindlessly and obediently move on to the next 'lesson' is ridiculous. There are 30 students and 1 teacher. The teacher should move. Homework is ridiculous as well, entrenching inefficiency, and the idea that the time allocated is insufficient for the content (fluff) or the teachers are somehow defective.

I think the sane and independent thinking kids are the disruptive ones. The kids who are obedient are the broken ones. Breaking them in being the purpose of school. The only compensating factor for me was the comradeship of the student body rebelling in imaginative ways against this oppressive system.

Teachers are not simpletons, they know their students but there is little support in the system to take stronger disciplinary action such as suspensions. It is treated as the worst case remedy only after counselling - often too late.

Counselling is important (with parental involvement) but frankly some kids will always be at a disadvantage and the process much more difficult especially if the parents are dropkicks. Some might never get on track even with all the right supports. Of course children have a better chance when that support is provided. Perpetual victims of bullying also need counselling, that is an aspect often overlooked.

Kids are also not stupid and quickly learn how to play the system. While there is no emphasis in taking responsibility for actions bullying will continue.

There is some irony the schoolyard has become more tolerant of bullies despite the fluffery and puffery formal rhetoric about managing violence in the school.

My brother came home once from school complaining about a boy who was bullying him constantly. My parents said if he hits you again hit him back twice as hard. So he did but came home crying because the bully said he was going to call the police. We laugh about it now but fact is the boy never picked on him again.

I am not advocating this approach as the solution because there are many approaches depending on the situation. Many kids are not able to muster the courage to defend themselves especially if the attacker is twice as big.

Fact is I don't know the answer to this problem. Much of it lies not only in the institutionalisation of schooling but patterns learnt before schooling. Many parents are tired, both working often to support a high mortgage and many are compensating with pampering and spoiling their kids. That only leads to a sense of self-entitlement and at worse narcissism.

Houellie,

We are home a lot of the time, however, it's more about being able to go out into the community during the day and to mix with all age groups.

I agree that children need to negotiate social environments - not necessarily those found in an institutional environment - which I see as an artificial social model.

For instance, we have quite a large "homeschooling" group who meets regularly. During shared activities, the thing I've noticed is how all the kids don't segregate themselves into age appropriate groups. The older ones tend to be there for the younger ones.
Sure, they tend to gravitate to an age peer during quiet times or conversation, but there is no pack mentality or deliberate isolation practiced.

It seems to me that our schooling model exacerbates the problem of bullying by warping the natural social structure.

Houellie,

I can see that you realised quite young exactly what schooling is about - not just learning the three R's, but also the covert agenda of socialising children to conform to our time-clock society.

It's surprising how difficult it is for most people to stand back and look at the school system from a wider perspective.

Btw, my son is very marginally affected. He would only need the label if he attended school. As it stands, he's just a child growing up. So with him, I home educate because I want him to flourish and to develop confidence to pursue his learning independently - not to meekly conform to the prescribed model.

Pelican
I would oppose expulsion, or forms of corporal punishment.

One of the reasons is that it would more than likely lead to boys being expelled or receiving corporal punishment, while girls who are bullys are kept at the school and receive no corporal punishment.

There is enough evidence that girls carry out as much bullying as boys, and this bullying can be just as harmful.

EG
girls use indirect methods of aggression, such as spreading rumours and

excluding and ostracising others; and Crick, Bigbee and Howes (1996)

report that with relational aggression, girls' peer conflicts increase

in frequency and become more common as they move from middle childhood

to adolescence. Such socially manipulative strategies are also powerful

tools often used by girls to protect and maintain their peer

relationships and friendship dyads, which in turn reflect exclusivity,

intensity and disclosure. These behaviours appear to serve a dual

function: to protect existing friendships from the intrusion of others;

and to deliberately harm target girls through rejection and isolation. “

http://www.aare.edu.au/97pap/leckb284.htm

It is ironic that most of bullying can be solved through communication, and getting the student to think about their actions.

We are told to believe that women are the best communicators, and now about 4 out of 5 teachers in the primary school system are women.

However, when they have a problem involving communication, they want to solve it through expulsion and corporal punishment.

vanna I did not say expulsions or corporal punishment. I am not advocating the cane. Suspensions are not expulsions they are temporary removal to ensure the safety of other students and enforces the idea that certain behaviours are unacceptable. Just because I share this belief does not mean that all women share my views. Women are individuals - I know it is hard to fathom.

I don't care about the gender in terms of bullying the rules apply to all CHILDREN. We are human first before we are male or female IMO.

This issue is too important to reduce it to a boys vs girls scenario and I don't intend to insult the intelligence of the other posters in this debate.