Teacher says we can't be friends....

[Philter]

 

+111 on that. Nature takes it due, regardless. I mean you turn a "best friendship" into forbidden fruit and for some kids that alone will make such things all the sweeter, probably even easier to go co-dependent and damaging. The rule of unintended consequences.... nat whilk ii

 

 

So what has been your experience with your own children?

[Philter]

 

My first thought upon reading this thread is to say to anyone who would try to choose their kids' friends..."Good luck with that". We will idealize whoever we will and there seem to be some important exchanges meeting pretty deep emotional needs that can only be satisfied in certain types of friendships. We're hard wired for this and any attempt to screw with the designs of nature will end up really coming back to haunt us somewhere down the road.

 

 

How is parenting and guiding your kids not a "design of nature..."

 

Kids don't raise themselves. I'm interested to know who in this thread actually has children. There's theory and then there's practice.

[Lee Flier]

 

Normal is relative. When you say "normal" you might as well just hit the space bar six times instead; that's how much meaningful information is contained in that word.

 

 

But that's pretty much my whole point - trying to define "one size fits all" methods of educating, or parenting, is dangerous.

 

Obviously there are situations where a kid can get into a destructive relationship and their parent or teacher needs to step in at that point. But some of the people quoted in the article specifically said that ANY time two kids became unusually close, and didn't necessarily want to hang out with other kids, they thought it was a problem. And that is apparently how they approach their teaching, the way they run their summer camp, etc.

 

Do you think that just because a kid gets into a close relationship with a best friend and may go through some pain if they have a serious argument, or the kid betrays them, or moves away, or moves on to another best friend... do you think that's inherently unhealthy?

[robertkoa]

This shows a lack of common sense on the part of school administrators.

 

School administrators who have psychological problems, drug histories, and currently using prescription drugs for depression or "pain" or " stress" should NOT be allowed to be school administrators concerning students.

 

These compounds do NOT fully wear off (nor does Marijuana ), one of the reasons for the decline of simple common sense and logic in our society.

[nat whilk II]

 

Normal is relative. When you say "normal" you might as well just hit the space bar six times instead; that's how much meaningful information is contained in that word. Do you label your own kids as normal?

 

 

Well..."Normal" is one of the most important articulations the human race can formulate.

 

Meaningful? "Normal" is only meaningless if you hold it up to the bar of some abstract notion of idealized, absolute TRUTH for all persons at all times.

 

No, "normal" by definition, means not "what is absolutely correct and must be consistently followed without deviation" but it means "what people in a certain grouping have by and large accepted as valid in behavior or conception."

 

Which is of terrific importance and deserving of respect, truly. Once in a million, the individual is smarter than the group. Let's all clap and bow for the odd genius, he/she deserves it. I'm ready for the next one to learn from.

 

The other 99,999,999 times the group is smarter than individual. If you don't believe that, then just accept it as a means of backing the winner - you'll end up in the same place.

 

nat whilk ii

[nat whilk II]

 

So what has been your experience with your own children?

 

 

Good question.

 

One son, one daughter. I already posted that the daughter, MA graduate, has a "best friend" - but she has had some 2-3 other "best friends" with very particular and varied outcomes thru JH and SH and Undergrad years.

 

Best friend no. 1 for the daughter at about age 12 - lasted about a year - lost track of after middle school, then re-acquainted in college by coincidence. They just grew apart - very quickly and entirely. Not much pain there for the "breakup.

 

Best friend no. 2 - desperate for a best friend, daughter hooks up with another friend who is a lot of fun but...(this is Dad talking - so fetch your grain of salt with a backhoe)...not nearly as smart or stable. No. 2 didn't hack college, got heavy-boyfriended early on, ran off, went crazy, came back, calmed down, and now is married and living in a trailer somewhere....bye bye and good luck!

 

Best friend no. 3 - dorm roomate, such sisters/soulmates, such amazing compatibility from the get-go...then a boyfriend for the BFF, and my daughter was dropped like last year's edition of TMZ. Big pain, big depression. Serious there for a while, not good at all. Slow recovery, but came out of it slow and steady.

 

Best friend current - good kid, smart, growing up, a pain in the ass at times, but can live with it. Bad friendships in the past have taught them both to brave out the ups and down in the present. Both my daughter and her BFF heading for Korea as English-As-Second-Language teachers for a year. They each provide a grounding pole for life's bolts from the blue for each other. Mom and Dad (me, here) provide a safe haven when they want it, but they are defining the future for themselves. Ok by me.

 

The son? One best friend from 3rd-9th grade-sorta claustrophobic. Then in high school BFF found a new crowd and dropped my boy. Son got all alienated and combed his hair down into his eyes and did the emo thing for a year or so - a lonely, alienated, kid, unable to process the pain very well. Sensitive and non-verbal kid. Very scary for mom and dad...we worried bigtime. Dad make a decision to spend LOTS of time with son, and now, some 7 years later, it's paying off (notice how I give MYSELF credit:rolleyes:) He's got a big gang of solid friends in college out of town, no BFF, but stable, growing. God I love this kid, think about him so far away every day.

 

That's about it - but I can say, if they had gone to a school where "best friends" were "discouraged" (read "given untouchable status), their lives would probably have been very different because of some fad idea by some impressionable newbies in the teaching field. I think they would be...well, ignoramouses regarding the heavy issues of committment, the possibilities of pain, and what it takes to just bloody get along with another human being at close quarters over an extended period of time.

 

No....thanks.....

 

nat whilk ii

[elsongs]

Does this strike anyone else as just plain weird? from recent NYTimes article: ...for school officials intent on discouraging anything that hints of exclusivity, in part because of concerns about cliques and bullying...

 

 

Oh, because cliques and bullying NEVER exist in the grown-up world...

[Philter]

 

But that's pretty much my whole point - trying to define "one size fits all" methods of educating, or parenting, is dangerous. Obviously there are situations where a kid can get into a destructive relationship and their parent or teacher needs to step in at that point. But some of the people quoted in the article specifically said that ANY time two kids became unusually close, and didn't necessarily want to hang out with other kids, they thought it was a problem. And that is apparently how they approach their teaching, the way they run their summer camp, etc. Do you think that just because a kid gets into a close relationship with a best friend and may go through some pain if they have a serious argument, or the kid betrays them, or moves away, or moves on to another best friend... do you think that's inherently unhealthy?

 

 

No I do not think it's unhealthy... nor do I think it's unhealthy for schools to create an environment that favors the development of more inclusive social groupings. That being said, I would most likely never send my kid to a private school like those mentioned in the article in the first place.

[Philter]

I wonder, has anyone in the thread pointed out that every source in the article is from a private school?

 

How can this be "big brother" if it's just private schools doing it? People are choosing to send their kids to these places... don't they have the right to raise their children as they see fit?

 

If it were public schools pursuing this kind of policy, maybe we could be talking about big brother. But people are paying to send their kids to these places.

[Philter]

 

That's about it - but I can say, if they had gone to a school where "best friends" were "discouraged" (read "given untouchable status), their lives would probably have been very different because of some fad idea by some impressionable newbies in the teaching field. I think they would be...well, ignoramouses regarding the heavy issues of committment, the possibilities of pain, and what it takes to just bloody get along with another human being at close quarters over an extended period of time. No....thanks..... nat whilk ii

 

 

So what you are saying is, you would probably not have paid to send them to private schools that pursued such policies, since every example in the article is from a private school. I've never heard of a public school with such a policy- have you? I wonder if maybe, like I said in my first post, if the NYTimes is just trying to get everyone worked up over nothing, so they would post the article on forums and get more clicks. You can find private schools around the nation pursuing all sorts of odd and untested theories, since they are not accountable to the same kind of standards as public schools.

 

Do you think parents have a right to send their kids to a private school that has policies like this? Or do kids have the right to choose whatever friends they want without any kind of outside interference?

 

What if your kids had made poor choices? Would you begrudge other parents the for interfering if their kids weren't as good at choosing friends as your own?

[Lee Flier]

 

So what you are saying is, you would probably not have paid to send them to private schools that pursued such policies, since every example in the article is from a private school. I've never heard of a public school with such a policy- have you?

 

 

Not yet. Doesn't mean it won't happen, or that parents won't read this article and say "Gee, I wonder if that's bad for my kid that he/she has a best friend?" I think it was really irresponsible of the Times to frame this article the way they did.

[nat whilk II]

 

So what you are saying is, you would probably not have paid to send them to private schools that pursued such policies, since every example in the article is from a private school. I've never heard of a public school with such a policy- have you? I wonder if maybe, like I said in my first post, if the NYTimes is just trying to get everyone worked up over nothing, so they would post the article on forums and get more clicks. You can find private schools around the nation pursuing all sorts of odd and untested theories, since they are not accountable to the same kind of standards as public schools. Do you think parents have a right to send their kids to a private school that has policies like this? Or do kids have the right to choose whatever friends they want without any kind of outside interference? What if your kids had made poor choices? Would you begrudge other parents the for interfering if their kids weren't as good at choosing friends as your own?

 

 

Agreed definitely and previously that the NYTimes article seems to be taking something done in a corner and pushes it into view for attention-getting.

 

Still, it's an idea that's "out there" and it does seem to dovetail to a certain extent with the marked tendency of recent parental generations to overprotect and micromanage kid's lives. Maybe we'll see more of this type of thing, maybe not. I like to stay tuned on these sorts of things.

 

Public schools in our experience are not free from implementing outlandish or controversial ideas by any means....just slower to adapt them and slower to get rid of them. Which is both a curse and a comfort.

 

But I didn't start the thread to sound an alarm, just to spark a discussion, bounce it around. Public or private schools, parental "rights", etc. I wasn't particularly interested in - it was the gall of the "experts" involved that I found rather astonishing.

 

nat whilk ii

[Lee Flier]

Yeah, totally agree with all you said there.

[ganja]

It's unprofessional to be friends with students.

[rasputin1963]

Well..."Normal" is one of the most important articulations the human race can formulate. Meaningful? "Normal" is only meaningless if you hold it up to the bar of some abstract notion of idealized, absolute TRUTH for all persons at all times. No, "normal" by definition, means not "what is absolutely correct and must be consistently followed without deviation" but it means "what people in a certain grouping have by and large accepted as valid in behavior or conception." Which is of terrific importance and deserving of respect, truly. Once in a million, the individual is smarter than the group. Let's all clap and bow for the odd genius, he/she deserves it. I'm ready for the next one to learn from. The other 99,999,999 times the group is smarter than individual. If you don't believe that, then just accept it as a means of backing the winner - you'll end up in the same place. nat whilk ii

 

 

My IQ of 145 is so rightward on the Bell Curve.... that, in "the numbers game", it is almost as if I were profoundly retarded. I like to think I'm "normal", but really I'm not. Kind of a freak, really.

 

But then you guys knew that.

[nat whilk II]

My IQ of 145 is so rightward on the Bell Curve.... that, in "the numbers game", it is almost as if I were profoundly retarded. I like to think I'm "normal", but really I'm not. Kind of a freak, really. But then you guys knew that.

 

 

Hmmm...did I write that? Overstated my case methinks in the bright light of today. A two-glass-of-wine post I confess.

 

For the record, scratch the business about "smarter than" indiv vs group, and the 99,999,999 verbiage.

 

What I wanted to get across is my small campaign against the idea that "normal" = "meaningless". "Normal" is a useable and useful term within it's limitations. Behaviors fall into a bell curve upon analysis, just like almost everything else. Cut the tails off and you have the big lump of "normal". Easy as that.

 

The other thing is that simply defining "normal" does not imply an agenda of squashing human diversity the way I use it here. Somewhere in the sociology, anthropology, and psychology classes of the 60s and 70s, "normal" picked up a bad reputation as a tool of suppression/oppression. I'm sure it was misused in many contexts, so there's a point to recognize there. That work was done and overdone, time to move on.

 

Normal is us. It's okay.

 

nat whilk ii

[Frantag]

 

How is parenting and guiding your kids not a "design of nature..." Kids don't raise themselves. I'm interested to know who in this thread actually has children. There's theory and then there's practice.

 

 

I have kids. And as much as I will correct them, direct them and choose what I think is best for them, they still make their own choices and have to live with the consequences. When it comes to schools, teachers, governments, and I'll say it even parents who think that their kids are programmable mechanisms whose social connections should be manipulated to the whims of authority, I believe that such actions will ultimately come back to haunt those who make such attempts. That is the dictionary picture of tyranny. We are designed to resist such a thing.

 

Don't assume that I don't have kids unless you check with me first. And for that matter, don't jump to any conclusions as to what kind of parent I am. You don't know me and you have no place in making any general statements based on three sentences that I've written.