It’s far more expensive to do science than simply talk about stuff though. That’s why good critical thinking skills aren’t taught, while close-reading is taught instead.
Too bad that usually makes for teaching kids to believe in conspiracy theories.
Not so necessarily. You can do quite a lot of introductory science with toothpicks and a thread. It however requires some knowledge/understanding on the side of the teachers.
(Disclaimer: I was tangentially involved in research of teaching physics with the observe-describe-experiment paradigm, some decade or so ago.)
I found that I could get out of literary analysis assignments by taking the engineering approach (Ira Levin’s “This Perfect Day” is an illustration of vulnerability of centralized systems without decentralized fallbacks to acts of sabotage and other mishaps"). Have a perfectly bulletproof analysis that cannot be argued against and is something entirely different than the teacher wants. Do it consistently.
Yes… That’s good work, Shaddack. But, how does the writing style make you feel? What words does the author use to make you feel sad, or angry, or hopeful, or glad?
In my high school students weren’t allowed to take their own medicine, prescription or OTC, except in the nurse’s office. I had classmates get detention or suspension (can’t remember which) for taking their own ibuprofen. It’s ridiculous, and no one bothers to tell students about that policy before punishing them for breaking it, but they enforce it anyway.
On the other hand, one of my teachers saw smoke coming out of a bathroom stall, and reported the student when she came out, and the student’s parent complained (successfully) that since the teacher didn’t actually see the student smoking she couldn’t prove she did it. Yet our class president got removed from office the day before graduation because he had beer in his trunk and another student reported it.
IANAL but I believe this falls under the rubric “failure to render aid,” a real term used in real courts when an adult of sound mind and body did not stop to help someone who [a reasonable person would assume] is about to die if “aid” isn’t “rendered” including but not limited to calling EMS and performing CPR etc. etc.
Not sure if this can apply entirely here, since this 12-year-old is clearly a minor, with kinds of protections a minor would have, under law.
Am guessing here that the same dang insurance racketeers responsible for removal of diving boards from public pools, labeling McD’s coffee cups with a “coffee is hot and can cause burns” warning y mas is the same bunch of geniuses who have all large bureaucratic orgs twitchy with their own in-house legal departments, onerous operating insurance policies that include mandatory education of staff re: edlcts designed to minimize torts.
Am faintly surprised all US schools don’t have some kind of indemnifying EULA to the effect of “by sending your child to this institution you/legal guardian/parent agree never to sue the living daylights out of aforementioned institution under the following conditions…” I mean, crikey–have you read the MacOS or iOS EULA lately? How can sending one’s own children to a school for 8 hours/day 5 days/week (or more) have less paperwork and less contractual language than software agreements? (<---- rhetorical)
I’m in Austin. I’ve been to Garland. It ain’t exactly a hotbed of progressive thinkers.
Aspirin is actually a drug one should be very wary of giving to children due to the risk of Reye’s syndrome. Current advice in the UK is that under 16s shouldn’t be given aspirin except in certain (rare) circumstances.
That’s not a reasonable thing to teach. And adverse is not the same as fatal. If you teach people that they mustn’t do something because it is remotely possible for it to go wrong you will end up either with a population of people who never do anything or one that never listens to you because you have cried wolf once too often.
I’m not sure what you’re arguing in favor of. Are you saying they should lie and say that it definitely will kill someone else if she gives them her medicine or that they shouldn’t say anything and just let her think it’s okay to give anyone any medicine you think might help them?
There’s a rule in place where they’re not to lend their medicine to others. Why wouldn’t they try to explain why it’s a rule? Not explaining would lead to more ignorant violations of the rule and harsher punishment for well-intentioned acts. Not explaining would create fear of being nice to people because you wouldn’t know which rule you’re breaking until you’ve broken it.
I kinda agree with he school here. Handing over prescription drugs to others can be dangerous. You don’t know what that other kids allergies are, or any other affects it can have.
The same applies to more common things like a peanuts-based bar, shrimp-containing sandwich, and other foods. So, no snacks trading under threat of suspension, too?
Is the minuscule bit of safety gained worth the suckiness? Do we want to live in such world?
You’re right! Sharing common food is the same exact thing as sharing controlled prescription medicines! No hyperbole here, no siree!
Speaking of peanut based allergies in schools, some schools don’t allow peanut butter sandwiches just for this reason. This is why a lot of schools usually require medicines to be left at the office or with the teachers.