Dad Warned Him. He Didn't Listen. Dad Kept His Promise

Hahahahaha brilliant!! Bet his son was not amused...

eddie wrote:Hahahahaha brilliant!! Bet his son was not amused...

I just love the look on the Dad's face

Lol what a show up. Bet the son doesn't do it again. Good for his dad.

eddie wrote:Hahahahaha brilliant!! Bet his son was not amused...

He doesn't seem to be bothered.

I'm wondering...it used to be that if you spoke up in class, or otherwise participated, you got the top grades. Now they are encouraging students to shut up!?

I don't get these new teaching methods.

Original Quill wrote:

eddie wrote:Hahahahaha brilliant!! Bet his son was not amused...

He doesn't seem to be bothered.

I'm wondering...it used to be that if you spoke up in class, or otherwise participated, you got the top grades.  Now they are encouraging students to shut up!?

I don't get these new teaching methods.

Are you reading the same thread as everyone else?

It states about his behaviour and being disruptive

What is wrong with raising your hand, to wait so you can speak?

I've read the source three times, and the word "disruptive" does not appear anywhere.

Brad's son, Bradley, has been having trouble keeping quiet during class. So Dad told him "If you do this again, if we get another note from your teacher, I’m going to come up there and sit with you in class."

A few days later, Bradley's teacher called again, and his dad made good on his promise

Even so, I question if its disruption or if the young man is an enthusiastic student wanting to learn.

Original Quill wrote:I've read the source three times, and the word "disruptive" does not appear anywhere.  

Even so, I question if its disruption or if the young man is an enthusiastic student wanting to learn.

Well clearly he is being disruptive as it clearly states his behaviour

So I ask again, even if enthusiastic, why can he not use his hand raised to do as any other person does patiently waiting to then speak, If they have questions or views?

Ho is anyone ever going to learn if people continually speak over each other?

Thorin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:I've read the source three times, and the word "disruptive" does not appear anywhere.  

Even so, I question if its disruption or if the young man is an enthusiastic student wanting to learn.

Well clearly he is being disruptive as it clearly states his behaviour

I'm having trouble seeing that. Can you point to the disruption for me?

Thorin wrote:So I ask again, even if enthusiastic, why can he not use his hand raised to do as any other person does patiently waiting to then speak, If they have questions or views?

Ho is anyone ever going to learn if people continually speak over each other?

I don't see where it says he hasn't raised his hand. Clearly there is miscommunication between student and teacher in this classroom. But there are some bad teachers out there, too. Perhaps the young man is enthusiastic about the subject, and is being ignored.

Original Quill wrote:

Thorin wrote:


Well clearly he is being disruptive as it clearly states his behaviour

I'm having trouble seeing that.  Can you point to the disruption for me?

Thorin wrote:So I ask again, even if enthusiastic, why can he not use his hand raised to do as any other person does patiently waiting to then speak, If they have questions or views?

Ho is anyone ever going to learn if people continually speak over each other?

I don't see where it says he hasn't raised his hand.  Clearly there is miscommunication between student and teacher in this classroom.  But there are some bad teachers out there, too.  Perhaps the young man is enthusiastic about the subject, and is being ignored.

1) Well if he has had his teacher contact the parents over his noise and behaviour, clearly he is being disruptive, otherwise the teacher would not contact them. Its not rocket science.

2) Clearly  you cannot answer why he cannot raise his hand. It does not even say he is raising points or questions and its more likely he is talking to friends during lessons and thus clearly not learning.

Thorin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

I'm having trouble seeing that.  Can you point to the disruption for me?



I don't see where it says he hasn't raised his hand.  Clearly there is miscommunication between student and teacher in this classroom.  But there are some bad teachers out there, too.  Perhaps the young man is enthusiastic about the subject, and is being ignored.

1) Well if he has had his teacher contact the parents over his noise and behaviour, clearly he is being disruptive, otherwise the teacher would not contact them. Its not rocket science.

That's kind of an authoritarian response. Perhaps the teacher is the one having difficulty in teaching. I believe the father should take a more open-minded approach until he knows what is going on.

Thorin wrote:2) Clearly  you cannot answer why he cannot raise his hand. It does not even say he is raising points or questions and its more likely he is talking to friends during lessons and thus clearly not learning.

Until it is demonstrated that he has not raised his hand, there's nothing to answer for. But assumptions are not facts...nothing is "more likely" until we get answers. I do agree that the article is deficient in that it doesn't answer all these questions.

Original Quill wrote:
That's kind of an authoritarian response.  Perhaps the teacher is the one having difficulty in teaching.  I believe the father should take a more open-minded approach until he knows what is going on.

Until it is demonstrated that he has not raised his hand, there's nothing to answer for.  But assumptions are not facts...nothing is "more likely" until we get answers.  I do agree that the article is deficient in that it doesn't answer all these questions.

1) Well teachers are in charge of the children when in their classes and are thus an authority figure. You can believe what you like, but that does not change the fact you clearly take the view of one student over the rest of the class. That is backing the view to be selfish and not thinking of the rest of the class. Hence the teacher has asked the parents to help tackle his behaviour. That to me is the way forward, as he clearly has not punished the child himself within school but has left the parents to deal with this.

2) Until you have demonstrated that he is asking views and questions about the lesson, then there is nothing to answer from your views, as your view is an assumption.

Thorin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:
That's kind of an authoritarian response.  Perhaps the teacher is the one having difficulty in teaching.  I believe the father should take a more open-minded approach until he knows what is going on.

Until it is demonstrated that he has not raised his hand, there's nothing to answer for.  But assumptions are not facts...nothing is "more likely" until we get answers.  I do agree that the article is deficient in that it doesn't answer all these questions.

1) Well teachers are in charge of the children when in their classes and are thus an authority figure. You can believe what you like, but that does not change the fact you clearly take the view of one student over the rest of the class. That is backing the view to be selfish and not thinking of the rest of the class. Hence the teacher has asked the parents to help tackle his behaviour. That to me is the way forward, as he clearly has not punished the child himself within school but has left the parents to deal with this.

2) Until you have demonstrated that he is asking views and questions about the lesson, then there is nothing to answer from your views, as your view is an assumption.

You make a lot of assumptions there, and assumptions are not facts. Obviously, you side with the authority figure, the teacher, and it's because you accept the word of the authority figure, without question, I think your approach is authoritarian.

I think the better approach is to side with neither the teacher nor the student, but to ask questions...which is what I am doing. The article is not very informative, hence it leaves open many questions. Until we have answers, we have only assumptions.

Assumptions, as I say, are not facts.

Original Quill wrote:

Thorin wrote:


1) Well teachers are in charge of the children when in their classes and are thus an authority figure. You can believe what you like, but that does not change the fact you clearly take the view of one student over the rest of the class. That is backing the view to be selfish and not thinking of the rest of the class. Hence the teacher has asked the parents to help tackle his behaviour. That to me is the way forward, as he clearly has not punished the child himself within school but has left the parents to deal with this.

2) Until you have demonstrated that he is asking views and questions about the lesson, then there is nothing to answer from your views, as your view is an assumption.

You make a lot of assumptions there, and assumptions are not facts.  Obviously, you side with the authority figure, the teacher, and it's because you accept the word of the authority figure, without question, I think your approach is authoritarian.

I think the better approach is to side with neither the teacher nor the student, but to ask questions...which is what I am doing.  The article is not very informative, hence it leaves open many questions.  Until we have answers, we have only assumptions.  

Assumptions, as I say, are not facts.

1) Actually you were the one that jumped in here making assumptions from the start.

2) I side with the parents who deemed it important enough to act the point you glaringly miss.

3) My approach is that all children should be able to learn without disruption. As seen one can spoil that for all the rest, which has nothing to do with authoritarian, but simple manners and civility.

4) How about you respect the decision of the parents who clearly know their own son is disruptive and why the father acted to do something about this

5) The assumptions only started from yourself and its clear you have dug a hole for yourself unable to dig yourself out of.

Thorin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

You make a lot of assumptions there, and assumptions are not facts.  Obviously, you side with the authority figure, the teacher, and it's because you accept the word of the authority figure, without question, I think your approach is authoritarian.

I think the better approach is to side with neither the teacher nor the student, but to ask questions...which is what I am doing.  The article is not very informative, hence it leaves open many questions.  Until we have answers, we have only assumptions.  

Assumptions, as I say, are not facts.

1) Actually you were the one that jumped in here making assumptions from the start.

2) I side with the parents who deemed it important enough to act the point you glaringly miss.

3) My approach is that all children should be able to learn without disruption. As seen one can spoil that for all the rest, which has nothing to do with authoritarian, but simple manners and civility.

4) How about you respect the decision of the parents who clearly know their own son is disruptive and why the father acted to do something about this

5) The assumptions only started from yourself and its clear you have dug a hole for yourself unable to dig yourself out of.

I have only questions.  Questions are not assumptions, nor are assumptions properly answers. Until we know what is happening here, we cannot make any judgments.

My first question is: Why are they assuming the student is disruptive?  My next question is: Why does the father go directly into punishment mode, without ascertaining if the student is deserving of punishment?

I don't think calling for fairness is a bias one way or another.  The article does not even reveal what prompts this display of discipline without cause.

Original Quill wrote:

Thorin wrote:


1) Actually you were the one that jumped in here making assumptions from the start.

2) I side with the parents who deemed it important enough to act the point you glaringly miss.

3) My approach is that all children should be able to learn without disruption. As seen one can spoil that for all the rest, which has nothing to do with authoritarian, but simple manners and civility.

4) How about you respect the decision of the parents who clearly know their own son is disruptive and why the father acted to do something about this

5) The assumptions only started from yourself and its clear you have dug a hole for yourself unable to dig yourself out of.

I have only questions.  Questions are not assumptions, nor are they answers.

My first question is: Why are they assuming the student is disruptive?  My next question is: Why does the father go directly into punishment mode, without ascertaining if the student is deserving of punishment?

I don't think calling for fairness is a bias one way or another.  The article does not even reveal what prompts this display of discipline without cause.

Really I suggest you go back to your first post where you made assumptions

The article reveals the parents viewed that he was disruptive enough for the dad to attend his class

The point you glaringly keep missing

Original Quill wrote:

eddie wrote:Hahahahaha brilliant!! Bet his son was not amused...

He doesn't seem to be bothered.

I'm wondering...it used to be that if you spoke up in class, or otherwise participated, you got the top grades.  Now they are encouraging students to shut up!?

I don't get these new teaching methods.

First post by Quill

Assumptions

Indeed, you see in my first post I only posed a question. Proof positive!

Original Quill wrote:I'm wondering...it used to be that if you spoke up in class, or otherwise participated, you got the top grades. Now they are encouraging students to shut up!?

This question begs a discussion about what is going on here?  You will note that I quoted the entire article, and nowhere did it say the boy was being disruptive.

Indeed, neither do you.  In this lengthy exchange without answers, I think you and the author of the article owe the boy an apology.

Original Quill wrote:

eddie wrote:Hahahahaha brilliant!! Bet his son was not amused...

He doesn't seem to be bothered.

I'm wondering...it used to be that if you spoke up in class, or otherwise participated, you got the top grades.  Now they are encouraging students to shut up!?

I don't get these new teaching methods.

First post by Quill

Assumptions

As can be seen that is an assumption about speaking up in class

The second is not a question but a statement.

What can i say, the parents clearly know their own son and clearly believed the teacher, which can be easily deduced that the son has previous track record of misbehaving.

This Quill ignores, as he keeps backtracking from his earlier as seen assumptions.

The facts are this, there clearly has been numerous calls to the parents due to his behaviour

The parents acted on this and thus clearly are supporting the teacher

And Quill thinks the boy should receive an apology, even though he has since stopped being disruptive

Thorin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

He doesn't seem to be bothered.

I'm wondering...it used to be that if you spoke up in class, or otherwise participated, you got the top grades.  Now they are encouraging students to shut up!?

I don't get these new teaching methods.

First post by Quill

Assumptions

As can be seen that is an assumption about speaking up in class

The second is not a question but a statement.

What can i say, the parents clearly know their own son and clearly believed the teacher, which can be easily deduced that the son has previous track record of misbehaving.

This Quill ignores, as he keeps backtracking from his earlier as seen assumptions.

The facts are this, there clearly has been numerous calls to the parents due to his behaviour

The parents acted on this and thus clearly are supporting the teacher

And Quill thinks the boy should receive an apology, even though he has since stopped being disruptive

Original Quill wrote:I'm wondering...it used to be that if you spoke up in class, or otherwise participated, you got the top grades. Now they are encouraging students to shut up!?

Didge, it is even punctuated with a question mark. The assumption is in the article; even you could not point to any "disruptive behavior" when I asked. Given the biased presentation in the article, I ask the question in a way that evens the field...but that doesn't change the fact that it's a question.

You are still not addressing the point: where is the cause for all this? Where does it say the boy was being disruptive? (Haha...I hope you caught the question marks.)

Original Quill wrote:

Thorin wrote:


First post by Quill

Assumptions

As can be seen that is an assumption about speaking up in class

The second is not a question but a statement.

What can i say, the parents clearly know their own son and clearly believed the teacher, which can be easily deduced that the son has previous track record of misbehaving.

This Quill ignores, as he keeps backtracking from his earlier as seen assumptions.

The facts are this, there clearly has been numerous calls to the parents due to his behaviour

The parents acted on this and thus clearly are supporting the teacher

And Quill thinks the boy should receive an apology, even though he has since stopped being disruptive

Original Quill wrote:I'm wondering...it used to be that if you spoke up in class, or otherwise participated, you got the top grades. Now they are encouraging students to shut up!?

Didge, it is even punctuated with a question mark.  The assumption is in the article; even you could not point to any "disruptive behavior" when I asked.  Given the biased presentation in the article, I ask the question in a way that evens the field...but that doesn't change the fact that it's a question.

You are still not addressing the point: where is the cause for all this?  Where does it say the boy was being disruptive?  (Haha...I hope you caught the question marks.)

Its still a statement

I did point to his disruptive behaviour, as the teacher has called the parents numerous times due to his behaviour.

So why did he call the parents if he was not being disruptive and why did the father warn him?

Take your time

A North Texas teen learned an important lesson from his dad -- don't act out in school or you'll get a new study buddy.

Bradley Howard, a 17-year-old junior at Rockwall-Heath High School, is quite the chatty student during class. His physics teacher notified his parents on several occasions about the problem.


Source: Talkative Rockwall Teen Gets Surprise Visitor in Class | NBC 5 Dallas-Fort Worth http://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/Talkative-Rockwall-Teen-Gets-Surprise-Visitor-in-Class-421796633.html#ixzz4gz9Tjzbw


Chatty is informal and thus clearly not about the topic and points more to chatting to other students in class. Which would easily point to him being disruptive.

Thorin wrote:I did point to his disruptive behaviour, as the teacher has called the parents numerous times due to his behaviour.

That's all you got? Such a joke.

Maybe his mom is Henry VIII's great Aunt Margaret.

Original Quill wrote:

Thorin wrote:I did point to his disruptive behaviour, as the teacher has called the parents numerous times due to his behaviour.

That's all you got?  Such a joke.

Maybe his mom is Henry VIII's great Aunt Margaret.

Your entire response on this thread has been a joke

Jeez. The teacher says he was being "chatty" and it's been on several occasions. In teacher language that sounds like he's chatting to other students which is 'disruptive' behaviour in a classroom.

My son, though an A* student, often used to be told he was "too chatty" - especially in his English class for some reason. His teacher was brilliant. Called me up and said "I have an idea about how to keep him from chatting"
She went on to say that she realised he could listen and learn whilst he was "busy" so she bought him a doodle pad, she figured if she kept his hands busy, it may keep his mouth quiet and he would still listen and learn.

It worked for him. What a great teacher. Came up with a personalised solution for him.

eddie wrote:Jeez. The teacher says he was being "chatty" and it's been on several occasions. In teacher language that sounds like he's chatting to other students which is 'disruptive' behaviour in a classroom.

My son, though an A* student, often used to be told he was "too chatty" - especially in his English class for some reason.  His teacher was brilliant.  Called me up and said "I have an idea about how to keep him from chatting"
She went on to say that she realised he could listen and learn whilst he was "busy" so she bought him a doodle pad, she figured if she kept his hands busy, it may keep his mouth quiet and he would still listen and learn.

It worked for him. What a great teacher. Came up with a personalised solution for him.

+1

What a fab teacher for your son, and your son can clearly multitask.

Sadly Quill thinks someone chatty is not disruptive, when indeed it is, when you are trying to teach for others to learn. As then all suffer.

Great post

Yep. Being chatty to your fellow pupils can be distracting for them and others within earshot - and that was my son's teacher's point: my son wasn't suffering because he could clearly talk and listen at the same time but some can't.
(Yes my son's school is actually a great school I'm really happy with it)


I'm not sure what point Quill is making to be fair.

eddie wrote:Yep. Being chatty to your fellow pupils can be distracting for them and others within earshot - and that was my son's teacher's point: my son wasn't suffering because he could clearly talk and listen at the same time but some can't.
(Yes my son's  school is actually a great school I'm really happy with it)


I'm not sure what point Quill is making to be fair.

Your son has a gift rare in men. To multitask, being able to take things in, while also doing other things.

Her must have got that from you Eddie

I think Quill was simply looking to argue, just as I admit I do sometimes

Just to spice things up...

Naughty boys.

eddie wrote:Naughty boys.

Would you have us on here any other way?

Thorin wrote:

eddie wrote:Naughty boys.

Would you have us on here any other way?

No. Being bored is worse than being irritated.

eddie wrote:

Thorin wrote:


Would you have us on here any other way?

No. Being bored is worse than being irritated.

That really made me laugh Eddie, So have a thanks   

Hahahaha thanks but it's true though.

eddie wrote:Hahahaha thanks but  it's true though.

I agree Eddie  

eddie wrote:I'm not sure what point Quill is making to be fair.

The point is to approach issues--parenting as well as politics--without prejudice.  I think the article wanted to make a scapegoat of the boy, in this instance merely for the fun of humor.  It is significant that the story never articulates the cause of the dispute.  What is the boy doing that prompts the retribution of the father and teacher...who are obviously in cahoots.  It's a great sit-com situation to start in after-the-fact and show the discipline.  But the real question is:  what prompted this situation?

Clearly, there is a more serious side to this story.  Discipline, for the sake of retribution--without stating what the retribution is for(??)--is the stuff of authoritarians.  In real life, it teaches authoritarianism to children.  It teaches: we need not concern ourselves with the whys and wherefores of justice, only that authoritarianism prevails.

This is that situation for which the phrase QUESTION AUTHORITY was invented.  That is the point.

Original Quill wrote:

eddie wrote:I'm not sure what point Quill is making to be fair.

The point is to approach issues--parenting as well as politics--without prejudice.  I think the article wanted to make a scapegoat of the boy, in this instance merely for the fun of humor.  It is significant that the story never articulates the cause of the dispute.  What is the boy doing that prompts the retribution of the father and teacher...who are obviously in cahoots.  It's a great sit-com situation to start in after-the-fact and show the discipline.  But the real question is:  what prompted this situation?

Clearly, there is a more serious side to this story.  Discipline, for the sake of retribution--without stating what the retribution is for(??)--is the stuff of authoritarians.  In real life, it teaches authoritarianism to children.  It teaches: we need not concern ourselves with the whys and wherefores of justice, only that authoritarianism prevails.

1) Prejudice invented here and introduced by Quill on prejudice.

How is a father acting wrong here in this story?

2) Apparently there is a more serious side to this story?

Really?

Thorin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

The point is to approach issues--parenting as well as politics--without prejudice.  I think the article wanted to make a scapegoat of the boy, in this instance merely for the fun of humor.  It is significant that the story never articulates the cause of the dispute.  What is the boy doing that prompts the retribution of the father and teacher...who are obviously in cahoots.  It's a great sit-com situation to start in after-the-fact and show the discipline.  But the real question is:  what prompted this situation?

Clearly, there is a more serious side to this story.  Discipline, for the sake of retribution--without stating what the retribution is for(??)--is the stuff of authoritarians.  In real life, it teaches authoritarianism to children.  It teaches: we need not concern ourselves with the whys and wherefores of justice, only that authoritarianism prevails.

1) Prejudice invented her and introduced by Quill on prejudice.

How is a father acting wrong here in this story?

By fostering authoritarianism and having no real purpose for discipline.

Thorin wrote:2) Apparently there is a more serious side to this story?

Really?

Yes, justice.

Original Quill wrote:

Thorin wrote:


1) Prejudice invented her and introduced by Quill on prejudice.

How is a father acting wrong here in this story?

By fostering authoritarianism and having no real purpose for discipline.

Thorin wrote:2) Apparently there is a more serious side to this story?

Really?

Yes, justice.

No real purpose for discipline?


Okay how to fuck up a simpleton

What is the purpose of life?

Original Quill wrote:

Thorin wrote:


1) Prejudice invented her and introduced by Quill on prejudice.

How is a father acting wrong here in this story?

By fostering authoritarianism and having no real purpose for discipline.

Thorin wrote:2) Apparently there is a more serious side to this story?

Really?

Yes, justice.

So this justice matters more?

Explain that?

Yet the injustice of all the other students disrupted from learning is of no consequence here according to Quill?

wow