Thursday, June 21, 2007

I Want to Keep My Job.


Firstly, repeal of sec. 59 ostensibly to protect children from parental excess when everyone else knew the change would simply 'muddy the waters.'

Now, lowering the voting age to 16 years ... why??

The former of course commended by the UN, the latter WHO, two organisations of immense credibility and presence.

Both of these 'changes' (real and mooted) can be seen as empowering children, in some ways attributing almost 'equivalent status' to adults ... when educationally speaking kids are the financial responsibility of parents until the age of 25 ... sooo ........ you can't use force on them at all for correction, at 16 they can vote, they'll have to stay at school until they're 17, but they are not sufficiently responsible to chose their own food, aha ...

Now given that we have something like 40,000 truants a week, 30,000 stand downs/suspensions/exclusions per year and a large percentage of these are secondary school children, presumably a large percentage of which will be deemed sufficiently 'civic-minded' and responsible to vote, yep ...

This lady is really somewhat misguided and in fact constitutes a considerable threat to society. She is undermining parental authority and hence generalised instructional control which is basic for social functioning and learning, both within school and society in general, and it is further empowering kids as independently thinking and functioning. This particularly for that group of children that they, the government, are trying to keep at school because ongoing adult supervision reduces (having firstly disempowered teachers via the removal of force for correction) illegal activity.

This is really very, very confusing as to overall intention and is very, very misguided.

But perhaps the reason is simply self interest. After the repeal of sec. 59, who in their 'right mind' would vote for her ... aside from those young persons, 'idealistic' (green ?), 'educated' (?), whose parents are legally, financially responsible for them ... if you enable all this and give them the means to 'stick it to' their parents you probably have created a pool of loyal support.

School research has shown greater authority and structure results in both greater learning, enjoyment and hence motivation to learn ... the 'life long learners' catch phrase. She has ruined this and arguably she is about to deprive kids of their 'childhood,' no less, in fact on a far grander scale, than a sexual predator would ever be capable of.

2 comments:

Anonymous said...

As far as section 59 goes the reasons why child abuse wasn't reported before the law change still exist. Changing the law to ban light transient smacking isn't going to change the status quo.

The government doesn't want to deal with the problem of child abuse. If they did they would be asking hard questions about whether poverty and single parenting increase the likelihood of child abuse and if so what can be done about it.

Gloria

mojo said...

I agree. The 'hard questions' have however largely been answered by overseas research already ... so it's difficult to see why they were so keen to repeal this law ... mind you there were a considerable number of professional bodies supporting it, groups that I would have believed would have known better.