Agreed, but teachers can't be expected to be the only ones providing this help.
Other public institutions outside the school system need to be in place to support the parents who are stressed and overworked and barely have time to parent.
And their right to be helped stops at the line where they're causing harm to the learning of others.
Discipline in schools isn't and cannot be about holistically reforming the problem kids, it's about making sure those who want to learn can.
You can't dump the entirety of systemic poverty, racism, mental health, etc. on the education system and expect it to work well.
Yep, but also many schools in the US don't even have the basics AND they're getting all of that stuff dumped on them. Teachers are quitting at alarming rates since the pandemic. This is not being treated remotely like the emergency it is, and 10 years from now we're really going to feel it.
It's also in large part profit motive. You can bet there are corporations licking their chips at the thought of opening cut-rate schools and raking in the profits. They can also incorporate all sorts of corporate propaganda that their parent companies want them to inject.
The profit motive belongs far far away from education.
This is absolutely a huge factor, if not the biggest factor in education: kids who are actively disruptive and harmful to the learning of others being kept in with other kids, draining all of the attention from the teacher.
The causes and solutions are not as simple as "these kids are bad, kick them out of school", but any solution needs to involve kids who aren't disruptive and WANT to learn getting an environment conducive to that.
>> I went to public school as a kid and the disruptive kids were expelled. Not just kicked out of class - totally kicked out of school and told to find a new one! One reason I send my kids to private school is if you don’t want to learn they will kick you out. In public schools today you get a few bad kids and it ruins the whole class.
> The causes and solutions are not as simple as "these kids are bad, kick them out of school", but any solution needs to involve kids who aren't disruptive and WANT to learn getting an environment conducive to that.
But it might not be that much more complicated. It's been a long time since I've been in school, but in our district there was an "alternative" high school, which had a reputation among the kids as the place you'd end up if you were too much of a behavior problem.
That said, the kids at my schools were well-behaved in class and I never knew of anyone specific who was expelled.
If behavior problems are getting more widespread, maybe embracing more of an explicit containment strategy is appropriate.
> The complicated part is the "why" of their behavior
You can have specialized people look at the "why" after you remove the disruptive (some times dangerously disruptive) person from forced prolonged contact with innocent ones.
It's certainly very good to look and fight the causes; as it's important to give the people chances to go back on track, and protect them at that new environment too. But forcefully submitting everybody else to them is just horrible.
its worse than that, i have some examples of what always annoyed me:
- a terrible kid was constantly given presents from a teacher, chocolates, and small things she could give him so that he would stop misbehaving in class. normally these prizes would go to a single student every day, for merit, but once this terrible person kept getting them, everyone else became pissed and demoralized.
- the young kids copy the teachers behavior, and it creates this culture of "they have a harder life than you" when trying to complain about the terrible students in their vicinity (which i completely disagree with, they're not trying hard at all that's why they get like this), so when terrible people bully decent, kind, and hardworking students, there's no sympathy for the hardworking students. they get treated like shit and abused from the future-criminals who do nothing but degrade the experience of everyone who attends, then they get told "get over it, you have everything" by their peers who for whatever reason weren't bullied, and refuse to help. its cult-like behavior
- you also have kids who are way too old for their grade, by at least 4 years. someone who should otherwise be way ahead of the classroom they're in is 2x the size of anyone else, is a literal delinquent, and is for some reason still allowed in the public school system where they either terrorize their classmates, get them into their same terrible habits, or bully people who express any kind of discontent with their behavior.
People can most certainly believe in a collective moral code that is, at times, at odds with the laws of their country, and simultaneously not dictated by a central religious authority.
Desiring the state to more closely model one's personal moral code isn't a signifier that people are placing the state at the "moral center", it's an indicator that they want those with a monopoly on violence to act in accord with what they believe is right.
I do believe the collective moral codes are drifting from those dictated by religions, but I hardly think that is a bad thing, given the rigidity and absolutism of many religions.
> Why do you need to have a constant "perception" of government outside of election day?
Because you leave yourself more susceptible to recency bias, and the prevailing media narrative on election day rather than continually evaluating the actions politicians take in real-time with proper context, evaluating the raw facts for yourself.
I get stomach upset and a bit of reflux when I overeat,
I suspect that the couple of cases of severe vomiting I had, may relate to either eating too much, or eating at the wrong time, or both. So I think that if I'm more careful in the future, I can avoid those occurrences.
Overeating is definitely bad, since Ozempic - as I heard it described - "slows down the movement of food through your digestive system, which leads to a feeling of fullness". That effect apparently being part of how/why Ozempic leads to weight loss. But that also suggests that you have to be really careful about not eating too much or you might overload your system in a way that exacerbates the side effects. My subject feeling is also that timing is an issue: I think that eating late makes it more likely that the bad side effects will occur. I'm trying to shift to making lunch my largest meal of the day, and then eating a very light dinner, and preferably earlier than in past years. Time will tell if this theory is right or not, but it's where I'm leaning at the moment.
Is it true that your body adjusts to the drug and once you stop taking it you can no longer process shit correctly, exacerbating the problems and forcing you to remain on it for life?
Suggesting lifestyle change as a cure for obesity presupposes that obese people simply lack the knowledge of what must be done.
The real struggle is in the doing.
Many tout "listen to your body" as a solution, or "think about how junk food makes you feel" as one of the go-to solutions in "lifestyle change".
For the first time in my life I was able to adhere to this advice, because I'm on semaglutide.
My body now actually is telling me that too much junk food feels bad.
Before now, it actually felt VERY VERY GOOD to eat nearly unlimited junk food.
There is something going on in my body that prevents the proper signaling of "too much food feels bad", and this medicine corrects that for me and countless others.
<<Suggesting lifestyle change as a cure for obesity presupposes that obese people simply lack the knowledge of what must be done.
You presuppose lack of knowledge, not me. Contrarily, I call out the lack of self discipline knowing what they must do. Every obese person I know is aware of what is wrong and what they must do.
Ozempic and semaglutide trick your body into thinking it has eaten. If you take it for a year, but still eat the same calories per day, you do not lose weight. It still requires some discipline. From pricing without insurance these seem to be >$200 per month medications. That's a lot of money for Big Pharma considering they suggest you take it for at least a year and the obesity rate in America.
Call me old fashioned and relying on some common sense, but there are longer term and healthier solutions than relying on a pill for all of your troubles.
>>Before now, it actually felt VERY VERY GOOD to eat nearly unlimited junk food.
So downing a bucket or two of chicken wings felt good to the last wing? I doubt it. You've conditioned yourself to still like it when bursting at the seams. Again some discipline would go a long way rather than a pill. Let's see where all this medication puts this generation down the road - from all sorts of mental health pills to diet pills, etc. I don't think it's the right path, and there are those making money hand-over-fist while everyone plugs into the matrix.
> So downing a bucket or two of chicken wings felt good to the last wing? I doubt it
Well there's your problem. You're failing to believe and listen to the people who actually experience the problem, and insist that it simply can't be true.
I would overeat because the pleasure signals never stopped.
But sure, over 40% of Americans are obese and it's a personal moral failing, not something systemic.
> Again some discipline would go a long way rather than a pill
I lost about 40lb 10 years ago through diet and exercise. I did intense exercises at least 3x a week, and watched what I ate strictly.
Guess what: it all came back and then some, because I was white knuckling my way through life, and it was unsustainable.
You know nothing about my level of discipline, so you ought not comment on it.
> Let's see where all this medication puts this generation down the road
I hope so for your sake, but I highly doubt it for all the medications being touted for mental health and obesity.
> I lost about 40lb 10 years ago through diet and exercise. I did intense exercises at least 3x a week, and watched what I ate strictly.
How long did you do this for? Did you keep doing this along with the Ozempic or similar, or did you cut it down and only take the meds?
For what it's worth, it's better to do moderate exercise everyday (walking a mile or two daily) then to overdo it 2 or 3x per week with regards to regulating your metabolism and making it favorable for fighting off your hunger and maintaining a healthy body weight.
I have found the number one thing in my diet throughout my whole life has been sugar. It is the worst for your health and weight. I never bought into the sugar substitutes; I just cut back drastically on sugar. That and walking everyday would have a big impact on people's lives and the obesity epidemic. The discipline I speak of is just getting out everyday, not necessarily the gym or high-intensity exercise. Most obese people I know personally think they eat less than they do, and do not see how inactive they truly are.
I hear your struggle, and I am not commenting on your discipline. Only that discipline is needed and many people need an objective bar on what level that is outside of their own echo chamber. I am not saying this is you, but in my opinion this is most of the battle for the suffering.
You misunderstand my argument. I realize how Ozempic and semaglutide works. It dupes you. It does not treat the cause, but the symptom. I hold that discipline, not drugs, are needed. Discipline can be built where it is weak. That is common sense. The drugs short circuit the reality causing you to skip the step where you build up your own healthy lifestyle to beat the problem. It is not a long-term or healthy solution by any means. Sagging and aging face as a side effect for one. Common sense - it takes work to get things done in physics and physiology. It is clear from the opioid and mental health epidemics that treating the symptom and not the cause with all sorts of pills does not end well. You need to do some work - exercise, diet, get proper sleep. No course of drugs will replace those basic and normal tasks. Any long-term results on Ozempic? I already see warnings that they may increase the risk of thyroid cancer, acute pancreatitis, gallbladder disease among other things. I think old fashioned and common sense were more synonymous in my generation than they are nowadays. A pill for everything is today's mantra.
There's an argument to be made that this is a constructive dismissal, and would thus qualify for any benefits that a termination would entail, but I'm sure that type of legal wrangling is not what the people at Schwab will want to deal with.
If it were me, I would simply continue working from home until my access and/or paycheck were cut off.
Other public institutions outside the school system need to be in place to support the parents who are stressed and overworked and barely have time to parent.
And their right to be helped stops at the line where they're causing harm to the learning of others.
Discipline in schools isn't and cannot be about holistically reforming the problem kids, it's about making sure those who want to learn can.
You can't dump the entirety of systemic poverty, racism, mental health, etc. on the education system and expect it to work well.