I have nothing but good to say about the commitment of well meaning parents to their kids, but it is a persistent philosophical glitch in humanity that parents almost always don't want their kids to know and do the very same things they learned and did with relish when they were the same age. That's especially true in the teen years. It all relates to the problem of backseat driving - the backseat driver is usually a lot more conservative than the person at the wheel. When you're doggedly backseat-driving someone's life, then you are going to have a real nail-biting experience for yourself. And you're going to annoy the driver. Parents these days are nothing if not fraught, and the kids I know by around 16 are almost completely immune to listening to them. That's why Lenore Skenazy and her 'free range kids' movement are so admirable. Parents are capable of learning that their kids are just the next generation of people like themselves. The pweciouses don't need to be kept in the domestic ICU hooked to a parental ventilator until they get their university diplomas. If they want to have a kid who listens to them, then they need to moderate their commitment to an artificially safe world that is creepy and could never exist. Kids WILL find their way to reality.
Boys Honest Doubt
#22
Posted 21 March 2011 - 02:47 PM
Thank you Fix for your long introduction and welcome to the Church.
I thought that Christiaan's response to Toby was unprofessional because if I had said that it is likely that I would have been dismissed the same day. If I had treated Toby like a young friend rather than a pupil, the other boys would have got jealous and Toby might well have been teased or bullied. Having said that I should be interested to know what you make of my experience. My gut instinct is that I never stood a chance of being a successful teacher and that it was most unwise to try. At first I was in denial of my sexual orientation and when I did come to accept it the emotional tie to teaching was too strong to walk away. More seriously I had a nervous breakdown caused by teaching and the behaviour of the boys, however kindly meant, was the principal cause of it; although parents, senior colleagues and the day-to-day demands of teaching were also factors.
I thought that Christiaan's response to Toby was unprofessional because if I had said that it is likely that I would have been dismissed the same day. If I had treated Toby like a young friend rather than a pupil, the other boys would have got jealous and Toby might well have been teased or bullied. Having said that I should be interested to know what you make of my experience. My gut instinct is that I never stood a chance of being a successful teacher and that it was most unwise to try. At first I was in denial of my sexual orientation and when I did come to accept it the emotional tie to teaching was too strong to walk away. More seriously I had a nervous breakdown caused by teaching and the behaviour of the boys, however kindly meant, was the principal cause of it; although parents, senior colleagues and the day-to-day demands of teaching were also factors.
#23
Posted 21 March 2011 - 02:52 PM
In reply to Christiaan's point I think that we can challenge the behaviour of parents using the United Nations Charter on the Rights of the Child. There are two themes running through this lengthy document. Adults have a responsibility to act in the best interests of children and children have the right to develop their full potential in a manner consistent with their personality. The first clause of the last sentence, taken at face value sounds like support for the divine right of parents; afterall they (think they) know their children better than anyone else and are best qualified to judge what is in their best interests. But it is the second clause that tests to what extent parents do know what is in their child's best interests.
#24
Posted 22 March 2011 - 12:10 AM
adamjohn, on 21 March 2011 - 10:47 AM, said:
I thought that Christiaan's response to Toby was unprofessional because if I had said that it is likely that I would have been dismissed the same day.
I think you might be thinking I was suggesting you make that response in front of the class. I didn't mean that - I meant in private, later. And all it really says is 'we have to observe our limits based on my profession.' You got him an alarm clock - that was much more daring.
I don't think that parents would feel bound by the United Nations Charter on the Rights of the Child. They aren't signatories to it. It might influence national legislation that affected parents, but that would be an indirect application.
#25
Posted 22 March 2011 - 12:55 AM
adamjohn, on 21 March 2011 - 06:47 AM, said:
Thank you Fix for your long introduction and welcome to the Church.
Thank you, adamjohn.
Quote
I thought that Christiaan's response to Toby was unprofessional because if I had said that it is likely that I would have been dismissed the same day. If I had treated Toby like a young friend rather than a pupil, the other boys would have got jealous and Toby might well have been teased or bullied.
Hmmm... what if you had treated all the boys with the care, love, and respect one would give a friend? Would that be anathema to the British school system?
Quote
Having said that I should be interested to know what you make of my experience. My gut instinct is that I never stood a chance of being a successful teacher and that it was most unwise to try. At first I was in denial of my sexual orientation and when I did come to accept it the emotional tie to teaching was too strong to walk away. More seriously I had a nervous breakdown caused by teaching and the behaviour of the boys, however kindly meant, was the principal cause of it; although parents, senior colleagues and the day-to-day demands of teaching were also factors.
I'd love to oblige you, adamjohn; I think I am too ignorant of the UK school system to say anything intelligent about it, though. However, I will say that it seems to me that if someone has difficulty with their sexuality, he will have difficulty with the people to whom his sexuality relates. Being in constant contact with boys was probably hard on you almost precisely to the extent that you had difficulty with (accepting) your sexuality. Would you say this is accurate? We can explore this in greater detail, if you would like.
Oh, and the UN "Rights of the Child" upset me greatly when I read it. I am a child liberationist and I see the document as an assault against children's liberty rights.
#27
Posted 22 March 2011 - 01:49 PM
Christiaan X, on 22 March 2011 - 12:10 AM, said:
I think you might be thinking I was suggesting you make that response in front of the class. I didn't mean that - I meant in private, later. And all it really says is 'we have to observe our limits based on my profession.' You got him an alarm clock - that was much more daring.
I don't think that parents would feel bound by the United Nations Charter on the Rights of the Child. They aren't signatories to it. It might influence national legislation that affected parents, but that would be an indirect application.
I don't think that parents would feel bound by the United Nations Charter on the Rights of the Child. They aren't signatories to it. It might influence national legislation that affected parents, but that would be an indirect application.
I didn't think the alarm clock was daring at the time. I just wanted him to get to school on time. Nobody complained about it. Nobody thought it meant anything. It saved his mother from buying him one, which meant more money for her drug habit.
#28
Posted 22 March 2011 - 02:00 PM
Fix, on 22 March 2011 - 12:55 AM, said:
Thank you, adamjohn.
Hmmm... what if you had treated all the boys with the care, love, and respect one would give a friend? Would that be anathema to the British school system?
I'd love to oblige you, adamjohn; I think I am too ignorant of the UK school system to say anything intelligent about it, though. However, I will say that it seems to me that if someone has difficulty with their sexuality, he will have difficulty with the people to whom his sexuality relates. Being in constant contact with boys was probably hard on you almost precisely to the extent that you had difficulty with (accepting) your sexuality. Would you say this is accurate? We can explore this in greater detail, if you would like.
Oh, and the UN "Rights of the Child" upset me greatly when I read it. I am a child liberationist and I see the document as an assault against children's liberty rights.
Hmmm... what if you had treated all the boys with the care, love, and respect one would give a friend? Would that be anathema to the British school system?
I'd love to oblige you, adamjohn; I think I am too ignorant of the UK school system to say anything intelligent about it, though. However, I will say that it seems to me that if someone has difficulty with their sexuality, he will have difficulty with the people to whom his sexuality relates. Being in constant contact with boys was probably hard on you almost precisely to the extent that you had difficulty with (accepting) your sexuality. Would you say this is accurate? We can explore this in greater detail, if you would like.
Oh, and the UN "Rights of the Child" upset me greatly when I read it. I am a child liberationist and I see the document as an assault against children's liberty rights.
I did treat most of the boys with love, care and respect and they responded. To take another example, Zach used to walk into town with me daily after school because he wanted my company. George invited me to his birthday party and at break time they used crowd round me whilst I was doing my duty. Rather embarrassing I had to hear chants of "We love Mr Adamjohn" in the local cathedral too. I remember hiring a taxi and being embarassed at having a "fan club" crowding round. God only knows what the taxi driver thought.
Treating boys with love, care and respect would be an anathema in most UK schools. There are "free range" schools like Summerhill but they are exceptional. You are right. I did have problems with accepting my sexuality. I was in denial for a long time. I was also very confused by the behaviour of the boys. Yes, it would be good to explore this further.
Substantially the UN Rights of the Child is statement aimed at supporting the rights of parents. There is a clause in it stating that every child has the right to develop their potential in a manner consistent with their personality. I think there will be a need to test out precisely what this is supposed to mean. The same principle exists within the Geneva Convention of which the UK is a signatory. In Cossey v. UK 1990, the ECHR ruled that all persons have a right to develop their full potential in a manner consistent with their personality.
#31
Posted 23 March 2011 - 01:10 AM
Hi and thank you to qwerty and Christopher. How nice you all are.
adamjohn, I did not mean to imply that you were not, in my own estimation, friendly to your pupils. I do not know you nearly well enough, nor have I given this particular matter enough thought, to say anything of the sort. My comment was based upon consideration (mostly) of your own comment, "If I had treated Toby like a young friend rather than a pupil, the other boys would have got jealous and Toby might well have been teased or bullied." I very often use the terms "young friend" and "friend" as interchangeable, when talking about kids. After all, a friend is a friend, no matter what age, and we already know we are speaking of young people, right? I think you might have meant (what many would call) "special young friend", or perhaps, "If I had treated him as though I considered him 'special'..."; is this accurate?
Even more confusing, to some people, I often use the term "loved boy" to mean either "yf" or "syf" (one loves ones friends, right?) -but I do understand that others make sharp distinctions between "friends" and "special friends", where I would see a continuum of intimacy, love, and care. -So let us not let confusion over terminology become a sticking point or source of any conflict; I apologize if I seemed to disparage you; that certainly was not my intent.
Your pupils certainly seemed to respond positively to you! -Can you tell us why this embarrassed you? -Actually this was the source of the most confusion to me in your various posts here. -Why did you not simply accept it as your reward for being the type of person who related well with your pupils? -Did you think it made you more visible, as a boylover (and not simply as a popular teacher)?
I am still considering what you have said; I will return to this and explore it further (since I you have invited me to do so) when I have had breakfast and am a bit more sharp and clear, okay?
-Oh, and congratulations upon your continuing friendship with Toby. He at least must have considered you quite "special"!
Delayed reaction: -Is Summerhill still extant? -That is lovely! I first read Summerhill; a Radical Approach to Child Rearing when I was 15 (in fact, my copy is less than 10 feet away from me as I type this; I looked up a reference just a few days ago), and it helped me to form my philosophy on parenting and on being an "adult friend"; I was sad when I heard that the school had been closed (in the 1990s, I believe that was). Was that information erroneous? -Or is the school open again?
adamjohn, I did not mean to imply that you were not, in my own estimation, friendly to your pupils. I do not know you nearly well enough, nor have I given this particular matter enough thought, to say anything of the sort. My comment was based upon consideration (mostly) of your own comment, "If I had treated Toby like a young friend rather than a pupil, the other boys would have got jealous and Toby might well have been teased or bullied." I very often use the terms "young friend" and "friend" as interchangeable, when talking about kids. After all, a friend is a friend, no matter what age, and we already know we are speaking of young people, right? I think you might have meant (what many would call) "special young friend", or perhaps, "If I had treated him as though I considered him 'special'..."; is this accurate?
Even more confusing, to some people, I often use the term "loved boy" to mean either "yf" or "syf" (one loves ones friends, right?) -but I do understand that others make sharp distinctions between "friends" and "special friends", where I would see a continuum of intimacy, love, and care. -So let us not let confusion over terminology become a sticking point or source of any conflict; I apologize if I seemed to disparage you; that certainly was not my intent.
Your pupils certainly seemed to respond positively to you! -Can you tell us why this embarrassed you? -Actually this was the source of the most confusion to me in your various posts here. -Why did you not simply accept it as your reward for being the type of person who related well with your pupils? -Did you think it made you more visible, as a boylover (and not simply as a popular teacher)?
I am still considering what you have said; I will return to this and explore it further (since I you have invited me to do so) when I have had breakfast and am a bit more sharp and clear, okay?
-Oh, and congratulations upon your continuing friendship with Toby. He at least must have considered you quite "special"!
Delayed reaction: -Is Summerhill still extant? -That is lovely! I first read Summerhill; a Radical Approach to Child Rearing when I was 15 (in fact, my copy is less than 10 feet away from me as I type this; I looked up a reference just a few days ago), and it helped me to form my philosophy on parenting and on being an "adult friend"; I was sad when I heard that the school had been closed (in the 1990s, I believe that was). Was that information erroneous? -Or is the school open again?
#32
Posted 23 March 2011 - 01:34 AM
JMA, on 22 March 2011 - 08:40 AM, said:
If a child has the right to say no, it follows that he must also have the right to say yes.
But saying yes is a definite no-no.
Rights of the child indeed!
But saying yes is a definite no-no.
Rights of the child indeed!
I quite agree: http://www.cjat.org/...l=&fromsearch=1 post #6
Quote
Society teaches children these days that their body is their own, and that they have the right to say "no" (saying "yes" is apparently not a privilege of ownership); however we seem determined to violate this principle at every turn. [...] Adults control children constantly in this respect.
#33
Posted 23 March 2011 - 10:33 AM
Fix, on 23 March 2011 - 01:10 AM, said:
Hi and thank you to qwerty and Christopher. How nice you all are.
adamjohn, I did not mean to imply that you were not, in my own estimation, friendly to your pupils. I do not know you nearly well enough, nor have I given this particular matter enough thought, to say anything of the sort. My comment was based upon consideration (mostly) of your own comment, "If I had treated Toby like a young friend rather than a pupil, the other boys would have got jealous and Toby might well have been teased or bullied." I very often use the terms "young friend" and "friend" as interchangeable, when talking about kids. After all, a friend is a friend, no matter what age, and we already know we are speaking of young people, right? I think you might have meant (what many would call) "special young friend", or perhaps, "If I had treated him as though I considered him 'special'..."; is this accurate?
Even more confusing, to some people, I often use the term "loved boy" to mean either "yf" or "syf" (one loves ones friends, right?) -but I do understand that others make sharp distinctions between "friends" and "special friends", where I would see a continuum of intimacy, love, and care. -So let us not let confusion over terminology become a sticking point or source of any conflict; I apologize if I seemed to disparage you; that certainly was not my intent.
Your pupils certainly seemed to respond positively to you! -Can you tell us why this embarrassed you?
It wasn't so much the "positive response" that bothered me. Their behaviour was what I would call "over the top".
-Actually this was the source of the most confusion to me in your various posts here. -Why did you not simply accept it as your reward for being the type of person who related well with your pupils?
First of all, I don't think I related well to my pupils. Some of them were very disaffected. Others presented as being either in love with me, i.e. they couldn't stop talking about me or they actively sought to seduce me.
-Did you think it made you more visible, as a boylover (and not simply as a popular teacher)?
It made me more visible than I wanted to be. It gave the excuse for the senior management to dismiss me as an eccentric, to automatically take the side of parent against me, to dwell on my mistakes to the exclusion of positive achievements and it caused me a lot of stress. It is very difficult to go through one's professional life expecting to be suspended at any moment because a boy has made an inappropriate comment in jest. Being popular also attracted jealousy from other teachers whilst some thought that I was a threat to them, i.e. if the boys could be friends with me, they would expect to be friends with all teachers.
I am still considering what you have said; I will return to this and explore it further (since I you have invited me to do so) when I have had breakfast and am a bit more sharp and clear, okay?
-Oh, and congratulations upon your continuing friendship with Toby. He at least must have considered you quite "special"!
Delayed reaction: -Is Summerhill still extant?
Yes it is still going.
-That is lovely! I first read Summerhill; a Radical Approach to Child Rearing when I was 15 (in fact, my copy is less than 10 feet away from me as I type this; I looked up a reference just a few days ago), and it helped me to form my philosophy on parenting and on being an "adult friend"; I was sad when I heard that the school had been closed (in the 1990s, I believe that was). Was that information erroneous?
Yes, it is erroneous. Summerhill has not been closed and was never closed. It received a critical Ofsted (the UK Inspectorate) Report which recommended closure. I believe that the case ended in the High Court but I think I am right in saying that the then Education Secretary, David Blunkett, came out in support of Summerhill. The criticisms of Summerhill were largely cosmetic, i.e. toilets, health and safety and could easily be put right. As long as one accepts the philosophy of Summerhill (as the UK Government did, in the interests of democracy) the faults were fairly small and that closure was an overreaction.
-Or is the school open again?
adamjohn, I did not mean to imply that you were not, in my own estimation, friendly to your pupils. I do not know you nearly well enough, nor have I given this particular matter enough thought, to say anything of the sort. My comment was based upon consideration (mostly) of your own comment, "If I had treated Toby like a young friend rather than a pupil, the other boys would have got jealous and Toby might well have been teased or bullied." I very often use the terms "young friend" and "friend" as interchangeable, when talking about kids. After all, a friend is a friend, no matter what age, and we already know we are speaking of young people, right? I think you might have meant (what many would call) "special young friend", or perhaps, "If I had treated him as though I considered him 'special'..."; is this accurate?
Even more confusing, to some people, I often use the term "loved boy" to mean either "yf" or "syf" (one loves ones friends, right?) -but I do understand that others make sharp distinctions between "friends" and "special friends", where I would see a continuum of intimacy, love, and care. -So let us not let confusion over terminology become a sticking point or source of any conflict; I apologize if I seemed to disparage you; that certainly was not my intent.
Your pupils certainly seemed to respond positively to you! -Can you tell us why this embarrassed you?
It wasn't so much the "positive response" that bothered me. Their behaviour was what I would call "over the top".
-Actually this was the source of the most confusion to me in your various posts here. -Why did you not simply accept it as your reward for being the type of person who related well with your pupils?
First of all, I don't think I related well to my pupils. Some of them were very disaffected. Others presented as being either in love with me, i.e. they couldn't stop talking about me or they actively sought to seduce me.
-Did you think it made you more visible, as a boylover (and not simply as a popular teacher)?
It made me more visible than I wanted to be. It gave the excuse for the senior management to dismiss me as an eccentric, to automatically take the side of parent against me, to dwell on my mistakes to the exclusion of positive achievements and it caused me a lot of stress. It is very difficult to go through one's professional life expecting to be suspended at any moment because a boy has made an inappropriate comment in jest. Being popular also attracted jealousy from other teachers whilst some thought that I was a threat to them, i.e. if the boys could be friends with me, they would expect to be friends with all teachers.
I am still considering what you have said; I will return to this and explore it further (since I you have invited me to do so) when I have had breakfast and am a bit more sharp and clear, okay?
-Oh, and congratulations upon your continuing friendship with Toby. He at least must have considered you quite "special"!
Delayed reaction: -Is Summerhill still extant?
Yes it is still going.
-That is lovely! I first read Summerhill; a Radical Approach to Child Rearing when I was 15 (in fact, my copy is less than 10 feet away from me as I type this; I looked up a reference just a few days ago), and it helped me to form my philosophy on parenting and on being an "adult friend"; I was sad when I heard that the school had been closed (in the 1990s, I believe that was). Was that information erroneous?
Yes, it is erroneous. Summerhill has not been closed and was never closed. It received a critical Ofsted (the UK Inspectorate) Report which recommended closure. I believe that the case ended in the High Court but I think I am right in saying that the then Education Secretary, David Blunkett, came out in support of Summerhill. The criticisms of Summerhill were largely cosmetic, i.e. toilets, health and safety and could easily be put right. As long as one accepts the philosophy of Summerhill (as the UK Government did, in the interests of democracy) the faults were fairly small and that closure was an overreaction.
-Or is the school open again?
#34
Posted 23 March 2011 - 10:34 AM
Fix, on 23 March 2011 - 01:34 AM, said:
I quite agree: http://www.cjat.org/...l=&fromsearch=1 post #6
I don't think that children have the right to say "no" to their parents.
#35
Posted 23 March 2011 - 11:15 AM
adamjohn, on 23 March 2011 - 02:34 AM, said:
I don't think that children have the right to say "no" to their parents.
In any circumstance?
Parents do not always have the best interests of their child in mind; some parents are quite clearly abusive. Do you propose that children be blindly obedient to even the most twisted and depraved of dictates?
#36
Posted 23 March 2011 - 12:41 PM
Fix, on 23 March 2011 - 11:15 AM, said:
In any circumstance?
Parents do not always have the best interests of their child in mind; some parents are quite clearly abusive. Do you propose that children be blindly obedient to even the most twisted and depraved of dictates?
Parents do not always have the best interests of their child in mind; some parents are quite clearly abusive. Do you propose that children be blindly obedient to even the most twisted and depraved of dictates?
No, I don't, but society does have that expectation.
#37
Posted 23 March 2011 - 02:54 PM
adamjohn, I'd like to comment upon the questions you have raised about your path as a teacher, but I cannot really grasp the dynamics of the British school system, I cannot "get a feel for it". It seems awful. -Even compared to US schools (of which I do not think at all kindly, either). It does seem that love and care and respect for the kids is difficult if not impossible to safely express, and that respect flows solely uphill there (only from students to teachers (-and possibly from teachers to parents?)).... I imagine that the tensions between the way you would have liked to relate to the students and the way you had to relate to the students, and pressures from other faculty and parents and students and society, and your own difficulties in accepting your sexuality, all must have made it very difficult for you! I am sure this is quite a superficial reading... but I am afraid that the nature of schooling there is too subtly foreign for me to easily understand.
#38
Posted 23 March 2011 - 03:56 PM
Fix, on 23 March 2011 - 02:54 PM, said:
adamjohn, I'd like to comment upon the questions you have raised about your path as a teacher, but I cannot really grasp the dynamics of the British school system, I cannot "get a feel for it". It seems awful. -Even compared to US schools (of which I do not think at all kindly, either). It does seem that love and care and respect for the kids is difficult if not impossible to safely express, and that respect flows solely uphill there (only from students to teachers (-and possibly from teachers to parents?)).... I imagine that the tensions between the way you would have liked to relate to the students and the way you had to relate to the students, and pressures from other faculty and parents and students and society, and your own difficulties in accepting your sexuality, all must have made it very difficult for you! I am sure this is quite a superficial reading... but I am afraid that the nature of schooling there is too subtly foreign for me to easily understand.
You seem to be pretty close in your understanding to me. It is simple really. Parents not children pay teachers' salaries. Parents not children are the consumers. The parent is the consumer is therefore always right.
#39
Posted 23 March 2011 - 10:18 PM
Fix, have you read Barry Hines' Kes?
Better still, watch this clip <www.youtube.com/watch?v=HRYvUpsrqmg> and see how too many teachers interact with their pupils.
But some teachers are still human: <www.youtube.com/watch?v=-gqpQqgtqKU&feature=related>
The boy who played Billy Casper so beautifully was David Bradley. Most of the scenes were filmed at Barnsley. I was there years ago, and local people still remembered Kes.
Better still, watch this clip <www.youtube.com/watch?v=HRYvUpsrqmg> and see how too many teachers interact with their pupils.
But some teachers are still human: <www.youtube.com/watch?v=-gqpQqgtqKU&feature=related>
The boy who played Billy Casper so beautifully was David Bradley. Most of the scenes were filmed at Barnsley. I was there years ago, and local people still remembered Kes.