Fed up with seeing terror suspects' photos everywhere

Thank you all for your comments. The immigration situation is complex and I'm not saure I know the best answer, especilly after hearing of this situation.

I spent my entire career theaching the "bad kids." It wasn't my original intention, but once I got started with those kids, I quickly became committed.

If you are curious, you might check Netflix for a couple of old movies from the late 80's and early 90's: Dangerous Minds with Michelle Pheiffer or Stand and Deliver with James Edward Olmos. they come pretty close to my situation.

What bugs me about this is that these are wealthy people. They could easily send their kids to private schools. If they want their children to get to know the culture, they should also want them to follow rules and customs.

I am glad for this forum. Intelligent people see things differently and present the information that leads them to their point of view. That way, more information is available to sift into new and possibly breakthrough recommendations for improving the situation.

None of us has a stake in oil, arms, and other vested interests that are truly running the country. Therefore, we try to sift out rational reasons for irrational results.

We all tend to look for a person, a policy, a group of people or a philosophical (political) point of view as the "culprit" when, in fact, the culprit is a very large, diverse country with special interests in control of every aspect of life. They control the media, the industries, the transportation, the food supply, healthcare, employment, immigration, education and an unending list. And the controlling interests are consolidating their power. I noted today that batteries and crayola have some connection. Who knew?

Until we get a handle on the octopus of special interest controls, we will never get a handle on what is really causing the disruption in what should be a very satisfactory, quality life for all people in this very wealthy country.

Other countries send food aid to the U.S. because we have starving children, one in five that is "food insecure" since "hunger" in politically incorrect. The cost of the prison industry exceeds by far providing a college education for every inmate, regardless of who is incarcerated. Incarceration practices vary by state - obviously, segments of the population deserve different treatment for their crimes depending on their state of residence. Everyone but the dangerous offenders should be turned out of prisons at once, the money transferred to education, drug rehab and work ready programs. All inmates will be required to work on infrastructure (let's start with bridges) projects in the meantime, man or woman.

Every sniffle in the U.S. gets a law case and a lawyer. I understand that the concentration of lawyers has finally become so saturated that fewer are entering law schools - a concern to those schools. It figures. By the time women thoroughly break into a high paying profession, the profession itself is so over-saturated that wages plummet - for the masses. Of course, those at the top still continue thriving. I like the old days when lawyers and pharma companies didn't have television ads - it was too low class. You know, like the days before movie stars and television stars began adding their useless but convincing endorsements.

I was on my way to work and heard an ad by a plastic surgeon, "have you started noticing the parenthesis on the sides of your mouth, the little pouches near your chin, the furrow in your brow? These obvious signs of aging can be taken away and your youth restored." I looked in the mirror. I saw parenthesis (didn't know what they were called) for the first time. I wanted Dr. X to make me young again.

There is a natural cycle that about the time things reach their worst, something comes along to change the parameters or the paradigm, with or without our interference. Every business owner feels those shifts; some survive and thrive and others fail. Those in power at the top of the chain use that power to make sure they thrive - whatever it takes.

The immigration from Mexico fixed itself as the Mexican economy has thrived compared to ours tanking. My understanding is that zero illegal immigrants are entering from Mexico and related S. American countries because the work is not here. Major problem fixed without our interference. Drugs and guns are another matter; drugs come in and weapons go out. So long as the profits for drugs and the U.S. users are many, that problem will remain. As long as gun manufacturers continue to produce and profit from the weapons favored by the Mexican cartels for their murder and mayhem, the weapons will return across the border.

The healthcare issue has so many tentacles that picking one to praise and another to hate is really an exercise in futility. It's the best we've got and it's up to us to elect representatives who will be smart and caring enough to amend it as needed along the way rather than the current crop who only care about being re-elected to their cushy jobs. Right now the insurance companies, the pharmaceutical companies, the physicians, the hospitals, the hospital supply companies and more are calling the shots because the only representatives we have represent someone else, not you and me, the consumer.

As far as hiring Americans. An industry that wants to profit will find the cheapest labor. Period. Thus, major industries sent their production and profits to impoverished countries so they could treat workers the same as in the early industrial revolution in this country and pay them nothing. If they couldn't send it overseas, they advertised in countries that sent illegals here and they were treated the same, but in this country. If American workers want to be treated the same as those the profiteers are hiring, they will be hired just as quickly regardless of the healthcare fine. The fine is insignificant to the savings by exploiting workers.

Fact is, Americans without regard to their ethnicity from that generation Victor so well described will sit back on their welfare and unemployment before they will soil their hands with working conditions they have not experienced. "How dare they cut my hours?" said the Publix employee. Of course they "dare." Then they don't pay benefits. A whole line of replacements are ready. As they cut hours, they are advertising for new hires. And I like Publix because they hire people able to do the job. Period. They have the biggest collection of fat, ugly, disabled, and generally diverse people in any business. Yet, they are trained to be courteous, pleasant and customer oriented. I praise Publix for that and clean bathrooms!

Farm products in the heartland of the U.S. died in the trees and on the vine because the illegal migrant workers and the legal ones went back to Mexico and Guatamala and no U.S. citizen who lost a cushy job with benefits, vacation and sick pay, etc. had the stamina or desire to last more than a few days in such jobs that might impair their unemployment.
benefits.

If anything leads to the downward slide of the U.S. as a world power, it will be the damning of diversity that gave us groups of people strongly motivated to succeed, and the laziness of the current generation who came into the workplace expecting easy street and found a down economy and cushy jobs turning into tough ones with others eager to take the place of those who can't hack change.

Great posts. Victor and DK have provided a good analysis. Ann's personal perspective is noteworthy. LC's input as usual gets to the heart of the matter quickly.
I think we can agree that there is no easy solution, however I still believe the problems begin in the home. My pet peeve is discipline. Coddling just doesn't work. This is where the "no pain, no gain" becomes relevant. Experiencing some pain as a child, whether that pain is felt in the loss of coddling, privileges or a getting a smack is something remembered. Rewards must be earned. Praising a child for doing something they should do, is not helpful. That is similar to employees being priaised for doing the job they were hired to do. When they do more than expected, praise is earned.

Quote :

Praising a child for doing something they should do, is not helpful.

I totally disagree with that one, Abe. Positive reinforcement is always helpful. It is far more effective than any form of discipline that makes a child or young personguilt or shame, which will negatively impact self-image. Ignoring them when they do it right and punishing when they make a mistake is more often than not make for an adult who acts out those negative qualities because he believes that is who he is. At "best," it will lead to an adult who lieves life out of a rear on being punished flr every mistake, and who heeds so desperately to believe he is right and good that he projects his "badness" onto other people.

A child's limits need to be clear, and every time he does the right thing, he or she should be rewarded, and it should be made clear that the reward is connected to having done the right thing. It sends a completely different message to the child about who she is, and what her expectations ought to be for herself in the future.

Just my perspective, of course.

Ann, I think we had this conversation before and we tend to disagree in part. As parents, we base proper upbringing of our children on getting good results. When all else fails, getting the attention of a child may require a smack. My kids remember vividly the smacks they got and why. I don't believe in beatings. I got those as a child. I remember them to this day as mostly undeserved. I think the punishment should fit the offense. If I smack a kid because he ran into the street without looking for cars, it may save his life. If he/she gets upset about that, so be it.

Dave still remembers having his pong game unplugged, and being confined to his room for a specified period of time. I still remember the last swat I gave him - when he was about three. He turned around and smacked my shin. It was clear to me that I was teaching him that violence was a viable option.

Limits need to be set and reinforced. It's still easier to reinforce with positive comments like "Good job!" when they are doing their jobs. Dave remembers that phrase, too. He uses it frequently with Jaycie, just as he does the time-outs and temporarily revoking privileges.

I'm done now.

Annie

As far as keeping a child safe from running out into a busy street, that is why there are fences.

I deeply regret spanking my kids.

Alice, you were doing what was then considered the right thing. They seem to have survived. You are a good mom.

Annie

There are not always fences to protect kids. Where were the fences when we were young? Instead of building walls and fences, why not work on building character and responsibility? Parents must be respected and obeyed. Those of us who went through basic training in the military understood what obeying orders meant or suffered the consequences.
I have no right to tell anyone how to raise their kids. How I raised mine was my own business and I'm pleased with the result. Positive reinforcement when deserved is good. No one left behind is schools is in my opinion, bullshit. If they don't make the established grades, they fail and repeat the grade. What lesson is being taught to a kid that doesn't qualify to pass and is passed anyway? It is unfair to those who worked hard and met the requirements.
Seems we will continue to agree to disagree. That's okay. I can handle it.

Quote :

No one left behind is schools is in my opinion, bullshit.

Every child born in this country has a legal and moral right to a free quality education through high school. For children born and raised in poverty, this sometimes requires special programs. It isn't about passing students who have not learned. It is about finding ways to help them learn, and recognizing that the socio-economic background of each child is a factor in how they learn.

Quote :

If they don't make the established grades, they fail and repeat the grade. What lesson is being taught to a kid that doesn't qualify to pass and is passed anyway?

If a student who hasn't learned the required objectives for that grade level, the child should be retained. When it is occurring frequently, especially within a particular group, programs need to be set up that see to it that more of them succeed.

Quote :

It is unfair to those who worked hard and met the requirements.

Student in these programs are expected to work hard and meet the requirements.

As DK said, this is a great forum.

I agree with Abe on the need to correct children's bad behavior with punishment. That punishment should be appropriate, significant and consistent. I also agree with Ann on the need for positive reinforcement, though not on the need for it to be constant nor on the emotional consequences that accrue from reasoned, caring punishment.

Constant positive reinforcement is essential in training animals like dogs. But even there, treats are cut back as the dog learns the new behavior and the reinforcement takes a different form--verbal approval, a loving pat, a scratch behind the ears, etc. And negative reinforcement is also used--the withholding of approval, a stern "No," a denial of treats other than for worthy behavior. Children are not dogs or trained seals. They are human beings with an enormous capacity to learn--and an enormous capacity for both good and evil--who need to develop a sense of morality and the value of doing the right thing for its own sake which ultimately is the only meaningful form of establishing genuine self worth. Every time I hear "good job" offered as a reward to a child for doing nothing in particular that is praiseworthy, I suppress the impulse to respond "woof!" i suppress that impulse a lot whenever I am around parents and young children or see them on TV.

We are so afraid of hurting the feelings and self esteem of children, adults, groups, criminals, and so on that we withhold judgment and look for ways to reinforce the behavior we want by giving them what they want. This is precisely how we got to where we are today. When children are trained like dogs, seals or monkeys they will unsurprisingly behave like dogs, seals and monkeys.

Unlike most lower animals and all insects, human beings are not born with a genetic memory of the skills they need to succeed in life. It is the job of parents and teachers to provide these to survive in a complex society. It takes love, time, patience and constant care to grow the intellectual, moral and emotional tools every child needs to maximize their potential and to be a productive member of society. It also takes the courage to punish a child when they misbehave and test the limits of parental control as children do naturally from toddlers through their teens. The problem is parents are more concerned with winning the approval of their children than with being parents. Some for the very best of reasons (they fear doing harm, they want to improve the child's self esteem, they want only to nurture and support the precious lives in their care) and others out of laziness and selfishness. Children want attention, love, support, praise--but they also need (and I think also want) to learn limits, and that there are consequences--sometimes negative, painful, life altering consequences--for straying off the path of acceptable behavior.

Like Abe, I was occasionally beaten as a child and, objectively, I doubt I ever deserved it. I was a quiet, loving, extraordinarily curious child who wanted to learn everything about everything. If my mom was cooking, I wanted to help and learn how to cook. If she was sewing, I insisted on helping and wanted to learn how the sowing machine managed to perform its miraculous task. If she was cleaning house, I wanted to help. If she sang, I wanted to learn to sing, and to paint, and to draw and so on ad nauseam ad infinitum. My loving parents struggled with other issues that made them ill equipped to deal with an energetic, inquisitive, stubborn, pain in the ass child who was quiet and never got into trouble but could drive them crazy with questions to which he wanted full explanations (unlike the "why" for its own sake of normal kids). If I could have been my own parent, I would have turned out much differently. (I certainly would not have beaten me--ever--or provided wrong information to a toddler hungry to understand the world at a very different level than the average toddler who was asking very serious questions to understand how the world really worked. I would have bought him more serious books, and fewer designer clothes, more learning toys and fewer designed haircuts, and taken him to the library when I could not answer a simple question like how far the sun is or why it is hot and why the moon shines but it is cold, and what stars were and how far were they in the sky, and why airplanes did not have tampoons above their wheels so they could all land in the water and on land, and on, and on, and on all the time, everywhere, driving my parents nuts and giving great amusement to curious onlookers on train and bus rides. . . .)

No child should be beaten. But a time out is not enough either. If a child of mine kicked me because I lost my temper and slapped his/her behind, I would not unplug the video game. I would take it to an orphanage or to a hospital and have him/her personally give it away for the children's use. And it would not be replaced for quite some time. And of course I would apologize for having slapped his/her tooshie and ask for forgiveness because mom's and dad's are not infallible. But I would not buy approval with another gift.

The only meaningful gift that a parent can give a child is the gift of their time, their support, their unqualified love. Sometimes that requires engendering guilt and meaningful punishment as a means of sculpting souls. All the self esteem in the world will not help a child sent out into the world without a moral compass or the understanding that there are consequences for actions, that you are not entitled to anything in this life beyond the equal protection of the law, that there are no time outs (other than jail) in the real world, and that praise and respect have to be earned--usually over long periods of time.

Too big a part of this country's educational system is designed to keep rich kids rich and poor kids poor. The intention is to ensure having a lower class of people whose only option for survival is to serve the rich.That was the concern I was addressing in my original comments about the children of certain wealthy immigrants.

We have this statue in NY harbor, the one my granddaughter calls her green lady, who promises an opportunity for a better life.

Too often it doesn't happen.

Victor, I see are posting at the same. I am not addressing that post yet as I haven't had time to read it.

Victor, sometimes we see things from such different perspectives I have a difficult time digesting it.

What I do not get, not just from you, but from many others here as well, is the idea that I am taking an extreme stand on an issue, when what I am trying to do is achieve a bit of balance. In between the extremes I'm hearing from you and Abe there exists a reasonable middle ground. I love you guys, but it totally bugs me to be accused of holding a point of view that is an opposite extreme.

I keep saying it so often: Both/and; not either/or. I'm not asking you to agree, only to remember that my perspective lies nearer the center of a spectrum of choices, and to not assume that I'm taking an opposite position. That is simply not where I come from.

And, incidentally, I abhor the psychological concept of behaviorism. I do NOT see children as dogs. I DO see a developing mind that needs to be engaged at an appropriate level.

I know that level because I pay attention to them, I listen to what they say, and I respond - verbally - with an explanation that they can grasp and understand. I speak in a voice that is authoritative enough to get their attention. I establish limits and hold them to those limits. My children did not obey my rules because they were afraid I would punish them. They chose to follow them because they were able to get that it was a wise and proper thing to do. They internalized the limits. to the point that, especially as they grew older, consequences were seldom necessary.

Of course children need to be held to a parent's limits. A very small child may sometimes require a swat to keep them from doing something that could cause them harm.

My son was an exceptionally bright child who eventually went on to earn a PhD in theoretical astrophysics from a highly acclaimed school in your state: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute. He attended the school for five years on fellowship, earning his masters as well as his doctorate during that time.

At three, even he did not have the ability to play Pong. Four, maybe, certainly by five, but not three. His action, which was not a kick, but the same mild swat I had just given him. My response was to hunker down to his level, hold him firmly - but not painfully - by his shoulders and tell him that what he had none was not OK, that he was not to do it again. I then asked him to tell me what I had told him: slapping Mom is not OK. It took a minute or two, but he did. Neither of us ever slapped the other after that, and we began the process of learning about time outs and being confined in our room. for a little boy who could run before he could walk and was constantly exploring his world, that was an excruciating punishment, even for a short period of time. As he grew older, the consequences of inappropriate actions changed - always on a level with his ability to understand. The same held true for both his sisters.By the time he was old enough to play pong, such physical behavior was not a problem.

In between authoritarian and permissive parenting is a third option: authoritative parenting, where the limits are based on the child's level of development, and the consequences of overstepping limits fit the circumstances. There are options available for the child to choose (If you stay up an hour past bedtime tonight to watch this TV show, you will have had your night for this week. Are you sure you want to miss that favorite show that will be on tomorrow night?) In this way, a child gradually learns to accept responsibility based on what he or she can cope with at that level.

And what applies to parenting also applies to a teacher's classroom management program.

Done ranting for real now. I think I've managed to exhaust the topic.

Ann,

Your point is well taken. I don't believe that the inequity is by design, though. Wealthy school districts simply have more money than poor ones. This is exacerbated by the way we fund public schools--through property taxes. I believe that schools should be funded through income taxes of all citizens in a state or by local income taxes. This would go a long way towards removing the huge advantage of wealthy communities over poorer ones.

On the larger issue of keeping the poor poor, there is ample blame to go around for both Democrats and Republicans for implementing policies that hurt the poor.

Democrats who want state-sponsored solutions have engendered a dependency culture that makes it easy to stay on public assistance in all its myriad forms and difficult to get off it as crucial benefits like child care and housing allowances are taken away when people get to certain income levels. Whether by design or through stupidity, this fosters a more or less permanent underclass who cannot rise above living off public charity (sorry, entitlements) because they simply cannot afford to do so--a particular tragic problem for single moms and dads struggling to work and simultaneously care for their children. Cynics would also argue, not without some cause, that Democrats benefit from as large and dependent a lower class as possible that will reliably and understandably keep voting for the party that supports greater efforts to provide government help, longer and longer unemployment benefits, and ever more generous tax credits to people who pay no federal or state income taxes.

Republicans, on the other hand, want cheap labor and as many breaks as possible for corporations and other business entities and oppose every tax increase and effort to get rid of favorite tax breaks and loopholes that only benefit the wealthiest Americans and business entities.

Both parties need to work together to come up with a rational, fair tax policy that benefits all Americans.

Hey, I understand that we are members of different political parties, and that our views re answers to complex sociological/cultural situations are going to differ as well. That's just us being us.

What was bugging me in my last response had to do with what I saw as mis-perceptions of my approach to dealing with children, both at home and in the classroom.

Anyway, I've had my say now, LB, and hope you won't hold it against me.

Annie

Ann,

I think you've misinterpreted my post. I never accused you of holding an extreme point or view, nor did Abe as I read his comment. It is not possible for me to accuse you of that because I don't believe that to be the case. By the same taken, I don't believe you can fairly characterize my comments, or those of Abe (although he can certainly speak for himself) as extreme. They are not. We may have a different point of view, but it is not an extreme one under any rational definition of the term.

I cannot speak to how you raised your children and have absolutely no doubt that you are a wonderful, caring mother. I can, however, speak to how those around me have raised and are raising children, and the larger effect on society of the current paradigm for doing so. That was my point.

Ann,

I apologize if my comments seemed specifically aimed at you or your point of view. Parts of the post of course were, but the majority absolutely was not. My stream of consciousness often floods its banks and my comments are poorly organized. For that I'm sorry, though I firmly stand behind the essence what I said.

There is no one proper way to raise children. Caring, loving parents who are committed to their children's rearing can do a wonderful job of it regardless of whether they are permissive, authoritarian or somewhere in between. I am not concerned about such parents. Extremely permissive and extremely authoritarian parents who are more concerned with themselves than their children are both the problem. I attack the permissive paradigm because it is the current paradigm for child rearing and has been since the late 1960s. I don't think anyone needs an explanation as to why beating children into submission is not a good way to raise children either.

OK, but I still disagree with you re permissive parenting being the current norm. It still get a lot of attention, but that authoritative middle ground I was speaking of, in my experience, is more the norm. My son, his friends, my children's stepbrothers, all adhere to it, as did their mom(my kids' stepmom).

Since my daughters both chose not to have children, they don't get a vote as parents, but from what I hear them saying, they both followed it in their classrooms while they were teaching, and still do as administrators and counselors.

But I still love you, anyway

Likewise, sis.

I've enjoyed reading the posts on the subject of crime and punishment, crime being in this case, misbehavior.

I respect the opinion of parents. I don't respect the opinions of those who never were a parents. That's about as valid as getting marriage counseling from a Priest. Guessing about what should or should not be done may be a good mental exercise, but rarely valid. Monday morning quarterbacking is similar. Most know what they should have done, after the fact. We make judgments and take action or react often on instinct. If we are harsh and can prevent an accident or save a life, the method we used is not so important.

As for those less fortunate who have no guidance at home, schools play an important role. If elders, in this case Teachers, are respected they will have a positive influence on the future of the child.

Understanding what I do today, I would prefer to be respected rather than liked. Having both is ideal, but rare. Parents who have respect and love from their children have succeeded. Being firm when needed is respected by the child. Being permissive may get some likes, but not respect.
My daughter, who has two children, told me several years ago about an incident where she wanted to do something when she was a teenager and I said, "No!" As she reflected on my response at that time, she realized that what she wanted to do would have been very wrong. Feedback like that is gratifying. The answers they want or need are not always yes.

deleted

In Mr Hobb's Takes a Vacation, Jimmy Stewart wisely observed, "I have never seen a properly reared child."


All of us have beefs with our own upbringing.

I would have been better with less parenting.

Great quote, Alice.

So much of the middle of my life was defined as being a working single parent. So many in-services, so many teacher's lounge comments decried my status. We were the problem of the day, we single mothers who worked instead of being home where we should have been, actively giving hands-on care 24-7. Never mind we had limited choices; shouldn't have had children if we weren't willing to stay at home to care for them.

The first time I came across an article that related parenting styles to student success was as it being one element leading to successful students. The others were a relatively high income and having two parents at home. I flunked both of those, but passed the third with flying colors, so, forgive me if I am proud of the decisions I had the power to make and control.

One of those, once the oldest was starting to date, was to stop dating. There had been a few one-on-one "relationships" after my divorce, but in each instance I had broken things off because I could not see these men as good stepfathers, for one reason or another. One was a perennial bachelor committed to staying the same, another 10 years my junior, and the third, an authoritarian parent to his own very rebellious son. Since I already felt there was nothing left for me after being teacher, parent, and, um, romantic interest, I realized that something had to give. It was the "dating" that gave.

As I look back, I have very few regrets. I am convinced I made the right choices. At the same time, I am learning that I need to take time, once in a while, to mourn what might have been.

We cannot always manage to do it all. I firmly believe in keeping vows. Unfortunately, I didn't think to ask my prospective spouse how he felt about the matter. In that day, time, and place, once he made his decisions, my options were limited. I had thought that our attorney and friend was truly ours. How soon I learned I was wrong and naive.

So, I became, and am still proud to be, a feminist. We feminists have changed the world, like it or not guys, and I believe, for the better.

The patriarchal paradigm, which is thankfully ending, not only ignored, but often tromped on feminine values. "Mothering" was considered hopelessly sentimental, and "weakening." Masculine "discipline" was the way to make men out of our sons, and our daughters were instructed to comply and leave the decision-making to our husbands.

Well, you want to know what bullshit is? Bullshit is that whole, patriarchal, authoritarian concept.

I am not advocating replacing patriarchy with matriarchy. That's what got us into this mess in the first place. The early matriarchal societies were conquered because they had no way to defend themselves.

For example, I do hope that one day we can end the need for military preparedness. We are not in a position to do that now. We still need warriors to protect us from the aggression of strongly patriarchal cultures and communities. To advocate against military solutions is incredibly premature.

The answer is to balance the masculine and feminine qualities in an outlook that embraces the hieros gamos. We refer to it euphemistically as a sacred marriage, but Jung called it the coniunctio oppositorium the sacred joining of the masculine and feminine energies in sexual union ( and it isn't about male/female,men/women. It is about masculine and feminine qualities - think yin/yang, so don't use it as an excuse to deny gay couples the right to legally marry - which (marriage) involves a legal recognition of a partnership status and spousal rights.)

That's what authoritative parenting is - an equal contribution from "Mothering" and "Fathering" practices. Not either masculine discipline nor feminine nurturing, but a balance of both - and if you think it is easy for a single parent to provide both, let me tell you - you are bleeping wrong. which was why I mad the choices I made. It was hard enough being the nurturer and the breadwinner. Being the lover, under those circumstances, simply had to go. One individual can only be pulled so many ways, and my firm belief was and is that becoming a parent supersedes all else. Sometimes I think it is too bad that men cannot give birth. So much crap would be just gone.

As I said earlier, I don't regret, but every now and again, I need to mourn the loss.

Sorry, I thought I was done ranting.

My bad.

Dear Ann,

I am so thankful to hear your voice. You say what I would like to say.

In my childhood, there was no discussion, there was only beating and often with boards that had nails, shoes, skillets, anything that was handy to grab. Often, well mostly all the time it was not something I did. It was me in the way being a little kid. I learned to fear and watch eyes. I do not believe in hitting little kids. They are little and powerless and adults are big and often do not control their muscle power. To make it safe for all children, I think hitting should be out.

My two cents would be that the people for whom I would do anything to please were the teachers who treated me with respect and honor and made me feel equal to all the rich kids. I would learn anything with glee for them. I loved those teachers. I cannot say the same about my parents.

Love,

Betty