|
Post by leftturnonly on May 4, 2017 20:08:41 GMT
It's an enormous assumption to make that everyone at a particular age or grade is ready for such a demonstration. No one that has ever seen these things in real life had the option to see it. NO ONE is ready for such a thing. It would even freak ME out, but, if it serves it's purpose, I am all for it. Those kids are old enough to experience this. Not all kids are emotionally at the same age even if they are all at the same physical age. And that's also assuming that there are no younger kids that had been advanced to that grade. It's not that big a deal to offer the very few exceptions the chance to not be exposed to a demonstration. For the rest - it's a great idea, especially if it's like the video that was included in this thread.
|
|
|
Post by elaine on May 4, 2017 20:11:37 GMT
FWIW, I am fairly certain that parents of kids with IEPs for ED (emotional disability), would be given the option to have their children involved in another activity at that time. Here, Drivers Ed is taken by everyone as one quarter of 10th grade p.e. Even kids who, like my son, will never drive. I am fine with that, because it is important for him to be able to judge the safety of any driving situation where he will be a passenger. Huh, really? Everyone takes Driver's Ed for PE? <Wondering what physical exertion expended driving around in parking lots is equivalent to running around a field kicking or hitting a ball..... > ETA - yep to the first part. They do here and we have a huge school district with 25+ high schools. Drivers Ed is NOT Driver Training. One does not actually drive, except in a simulator, here in Drivers Ed. It is all about the rules of the road, driver safety, etc. Driver Training, behind the wheel, is something completely separate. It was the same in Los Angeles in LAUSD when I was growing up. In order to get a drivers license here in VA, you need both drivers ed and a certain number of hours of driving training behind the wheel. Eta: Health - which includes sex ed - is one quarter of p.e. in 9th grade here.
|
|
cycworker
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 4,378
Jun 26, 2014 0:42:38 GMT
|
Post by cycworker on May 4, 2017 20:17:53 GMT
I get really tired of the 'You don't have kids' line being used in these conversations.
I have a LOT of kids in my life that I could not love more had I given birth to them. I would do ANYTHING to keep them safe. I have lost people, too. If these programs were actually effective, I would support them, but they AREN'T.
|
|
|
Post by 950nancy on May 4, 2017 20:30:41 GMT
I think all high school juniors and seniors should have to see a program like this. You shouldn't be able to opt out a child of something that they will encounter in their lifetime. Not only does it make kids think twice, but it also helps prepare them for coming up on accidents and being able to cope better. I believe it will make your child stronger in the end. Please don't shield your kids from real life. I don't think all kids should have to get up close to what they are seeing, but they should be involved in hearing the information and seeing the images (even from behind closed fingers). There's a time and a place for this. It's an enormous assumption to make that everyone at a particular age or grade is ready for such a demonstration. I'll bet not everyone at that assembly was taking or getting ready to take driver's ed if not already driving. Not every teen gets a driver's license. (Rare that may be, I know several.) With pre-notification, parents with legitimate concerns for their child can have the opportunity to do what is right for their child at that moment in time. I don't have an objection to this being a mandatory part of a Driver's Ed program given at the school. Any parents not wanting their children to view the demonstration would also be opting that child out of the school's Driver's Ed. Having gone through driver's ed in the 80's and seen the most awful real videos, I believe today's kids (whether they drive OR get into a car with another teen driver) should have to see what could and very often does happen. I have never met a kid who legitimately shouldn't have seen the videos unless they will never drive or get into a vehicle with another teen driver. I also don't want kids not to go through Driver's Ed because of a graphic video. It just puts too many people at risk. I really want today's young drivers to get the message that driving and texting could kill me.
|
|
marciekoch
Shy Member
Posts: 14
Jun 26, 2014 15:05:08 GMT
|
Post by marciekoch on May 4, 2017 20:50:22 GMT
Our local high schools participate in the Every 15 Minutes program. I think it is very powerful and impactful. However, I think it should be updated to be texting while driving instead of drunk driving. That seems to be a bigger problem among teens now. I'm a high school counselor and our school is having Drunk and Distracted Driving Week this week leading up to Prom on Saturday. They have done a great job of including "distracted" driving as a leading cause of car accidents too - including texting while driving. The Every 15 Minutes part is tomorrow. It is always sobering.
|
|
|
Post by leftturnonly on May 4, 2017 20:52:18 GMT
Huh, really? Everyone takes Driver's Ed for PE? <Wondering what physical exertion expended driving around in parking lots is equivalent to running around a field kicking or hitting a ball..... > ETA - yep to the first part. They do here and we have a huge school district with 25+ high schools. Drivers Ed is NOT Driver Training. One does not actually drive, except in a simulator, here in Drivers Ed. It is all about the rules of the road, driver safety, etc. Driver Training, behind the wheel, is something completely separate. It was the same in Los Angeles in LAUSD when I was growing up. In order to get a drivers license here in VA, you need both drivers ed and a certain number of hours of driving training behind the wheel. Eta: Health - which includes sex ed - is one quarter of p.e. in 9th grade here. Driver's Ed included behind the wheel time when I took it. Health Ed was it's own course. PE was physical exercise. Period. Taking time away from actual physical exercise in PE was something I hated when my kids were in school.
|
|
MizIndependent
Drama Llama
![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_green.png)
Quit your bullpoop.
Posts: 5,836
Jun 25, 2014 19:43:16 GMT
|
Post by MizIndependent on May 4, 2017 20:56:52 GMT
No one that has ever seen these things in real life had the option to see it. NO ONE is ready for such a thing. It would even freak ME out, but, if it serves it's purpose, I am all for it. Those kids are old enough to experience this. Not all kids are emotionally at the same age even if they are all at the same physical age. And that's also assuming that there are no younger kids that had been advanced to that grade. It's not that big a deal to offer the very few exceptions the chance to not be exposed to a demonstration. For the rest - it's a great idea, especially if it's like the video that was included in this thread. Here's my question: are they emotionally ready to ride in a car with friends? What about drinking on the sly? How about are they ready to sneak out on the weekends and go to parties? This is why these kinds of things are needed because whether or not our teens are ready to illegally drink, party, etc, there are some that still will do it. And there are those who think about doing it and are pressured into doing it. Having a shocking experience like this somewhere in the back of their mind may be the very difference between getting into a car with a drunk driver or not. At the very least it gets the conversation in motion and makes them think about what they're doing.
|
|
|
Post by leftturnonly on May 4, 2017 21:00:07 GMT
There's a time and a place for this. It's an enormous assumption to make that everyone at a particular age or grade is ready for such a demonstration. I'll bet not everyone at that assembly was taking or getting ready to take driver's ed if not already driving. Not every teen gets a driver's license. (Rare that may be, I know several.) With pre-notification, parents with legitimate concerns for their child can have the opportunity to do what is right for their child at that moment in time. I don't have an objection to this being a mandatory part of a Driver's Ed program given at the school. Any parents not wanting their children to view the demonstration would also be opting that child out of the school's Driver's Ed. Having gone through driver's ed in the 80's and seen the most awful real videos, I believe today's kids (whether they drive OR get into a car with another teen driver) should have to see what could and very often does happen. I have never met a kid who legitimately shouldn't have seen the videos unless they will never drive or get into a vehicle with another teen driver. I also don't want kids not to go through Driver's Ed because of a graphic video. It just puts too many people at risk. I really want today's young drivers to get the message that driving and texting could kill me. You present this as if there's a disagreement between us when I don't see it that way at all. There is a very small group of kids that should probably wait to see this. I expect a significant portion of that very small group are not the ones who will either be driving or riding as a passenger of those who shouldn't be driving. If they are old enough and mature enough to be given responsibilities of either being allowed to drive and/or being out on their own so that they could ride with another driver who this would apply to, then they probably are not part of that very limited group to begin with.
|
|
|
Post by elaine on May 4, 2017 21:14:27 GMT
They do here and we have a huge school district with 25+ high schools. Drivers Ed is NOT Driver Training. One does not actually drive, except in a simulator, here in Drivers Ed. It is all about the rules of the road, driver safety, etc. Driver Training, behind the wheel, is something completely separate. It was the same in Los Angeles in LAUSD when I was growing up. In order to get a drivers license here in VA, you need both drivers ed and a certain number of hours of driving training behind the wheel. Eta: Health - which includes sex ed - is one quarter of p.e. in 9th grade here. Driver's Ed included behind the wheel time when I took it. Health Ed was it's own course. PE was physical exercise. Period. Taking time away from actual physical exercise in PE was something I hated when my kids were in school. I hear you, and the parents in our school district are much more interested in having enough space in high schoolers' schedules for the academics needed to get into top-tier universities than in physical education. High School here is viewed as College prep, so, unlike K thru 8, phys ed takes a back seat to academics. Kids who are less academically inclined can take phys ed as an elective and/or participate in team sports. Whether you agree with the philosophy or not, it is the reality here. Health Ed and Drivers Ed are part of P.E. in high school in our school district with 180,000 students.
|
|
|
Post by melanell on May 4, 2017 21:17:36 GMT
I think you are taking this further than it needs to go. I am 48 years old. I cannot handle some of the content on TV even if it is pretend. Plane crashes, dog attacks, car accidents in gory detail I can't really handle those well. They create small obsessions in my mind and because of my highly visual memory stick around for a long time, cause nightmares, are generally difficult for me. I have been driving for 32 years and am a good driver with experience in a wide variety of situations. However, visual representation of serious injury and death are upsetting to me. Grays Anatomy is an example of a show I can't watch, it is too gory for me with some of its plot lines. It would be expected in my opinion that some of those much younger than I with less developed emotional skills by simple virtual of age would have challenges with same. Especially those for whom trauma is a reality. I am often surprised to see how little sensitivity some have to the emotional makeup of another person. I am the same in terms of any sort of violent or graphic content in shows, movies, or books. I avoid them at all costs for all of the reasons you mentioned. It does not in any way impeded upon my ability to drive or do anything else day to day. It's simply a choice I make about what I do with my free time. However, as I said earlier, my school did have their own version of this back in the day, and I attended it and I still think it has value. Because while I don't think there is any reason for me to find myself going over some graphic fake medical scene from a fictional TV show in my head umpteen times a day or having nightmares about it, I do think there was value in me thinking about that program over & over again, even if it was upsetting. In fact I'd say that a person like me may get more from the program than someone else because it did stick with me so much and I did give it so much thought. (Of course, sadly, in my case and in the case of my fellow students, we got first hand evidence that students could see this program, and then within a few short months make a tragic mistake of driving under the influence anyway. And I think that in itself was a sobering lesson. And one that I kept in mind as well.) Save
|
|
|
Post by crazy4scraps on May 4, 2017 21:48:54 GMT
Out of curiosity, does anyone know if there is empirical evidence that this program works? I ask in large part because the shock-tactic 80s drug-education programs didn't, at all. I have no objection to this sort of thing if it works. I remember seeing autopsy films in ninth-grade health class, and the gruesomeness of those films (where the autopsies were performed, eg, on heavy smokers) really did stick in my head during a period in my life where I was more likely to make bad choices than I would be now. Still, I understand (after having to deal with a lot of horrifying footage and photos when I was a criminal defense attorney) that looking at violence and death is genuinely disturbing, and I don't necessarily want to inflict that on teens unless there is actual evidence that this program reduces drunk driving. Thank you. This is the crux of the issue. these programs are no different than the 80's anti - drug programs. They emphatically do NOT work, just as the war on drugs, just say no programs didn't/don't. I think some confuse this program with harm reduction strategies. This is NOT harm reduction. Well, I was a teen in the 80's and a child of the 70's and they worked on me. When I was in first grade my class attended a presentation where we were shown preserved slices of cadaver lungs. One was from a smoker and the other was from a non-smoker. Both of my parents and most of my adult relatives smoked at the time, and seeing that nasty, rotted out black lung really impacted me for the rest of my life. I easily imagined lungs exactly like that inside my parents. As a result, not only did I personally never smoke but I literally begged my parents and other family members repeatedly to quit. I also never experimented with drugs because my older brother died of an overdose when I was ten. Those anti-drug programs helped reinforce what I already knew. From my perspective they weren't completely useless. None of my friends ever used drugs either.
|
|
milocat
Drama Llama
![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_green.png)
Posts: 5,456
Location: 55 degrees north in Alberta, Canada
Mar 18, 2015 4:10:31 GMT
|
Post by milocat on May 4, 2017 21:52:43 GMT
I guess you have to closely monitor what your daughter sees on television and in the movies, too, since she is so easily upset? If my son turns out to be exceptionally sensitive and yes, fragile, then we will do our best to help him learn to live in the world in spite of that. We will not expect the world to bend to his idiosyncrasies and sensitivities. And, if he is so emotionally fragile that he cannot handle watching things that upset him THAT HE KNOWS ARE PRETEND, then I would not consider allowing him to drive while under my roof. For his safety and the safety of everyone else on the road. You can't have it both ways. You want all these special concessions for "sensitive" children, but you don't want to consider the impact those "sensitivities" have on others. ETA: this assembly isn't being shown to children. It's for young adults. 16 - 18 year olds. I think you are taking this further than it needs to go. I am 48 years old. I cannot handle some of the content on TV even if it is pretend. Plane crashes, dog attacks, car accidents in gory detail I can't really handle those well. They create small obsessions in my mind and because of my highly visual memory stick around for a long time, cause nightmares, are generally difficult for me. I have been driving for 32 years and am a good driver with experience in a wide variety of situations. However, visual representation of serious injury and death are upsetting to me. Grays Anatomy is an example of a show I can't watch, it is too gory for me with some of its plot lines. It would be expected in my opinion that some of those much younger than I with less developed emotional skills by simple virtual of age would have challenges with same. Especially those for whom trauma is a reality. I am often surprised to see how little sensitivity some have to the emotional makeup of another person. I can't and don't watch a lot of those shows either but I'm all for kids seeing this. Yes I'm sure it will stick with them and even give them haunt them for a while but that's the point. And on the other hand there are young kids out there that play mature video games and watch R rated movies. Something needs to stop people from drinking and/or texting and driving. Like I earlier drunk driving is rampant around here by people of all ages.
|
|
milocat
Drama Llama
![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_green.png)
Posts: 5,456
Location: 55 degrees north in Alberta, Canada
Mar 18, 2015 4:10:31 GMT
|
Post by milocat on May 4, 2017 21:57:45 GMT
Not all kids are emotionally at the same age even if they are all at the same physical age. And that's also assuming that there are no younger kids that had been advanced to that grade. It's not that big a deal to offer the very few exceptions the chance to not be exposed to a demonstration. For the rest - it's a great idea, especially if it's like the video that was included in this thread. Here's my question: are they emotionally ready to ride in a car with friends? What about drinking on the sly? How about are they ready to sneak out on the weekends and go to parties? This is why these kinds of things are needed because whether or not our teens are ready to illegally drink, party, etc, there are some that still will do it. And there are those who think about doing it and are pressured into doing it. Having a shocking experience like this somewhere in the back of their mind may be the very difference between getting into a car with a drunk driver or not. At the very least it gets the conversation in motion and makes them think about what they're doing. That's why they really should do it here because the legal drinking age is 18 in Alberta so illegal drinking age is even younger. So kids can be getting in vehicles with kids that have been drinking. They have to be lining up designated drivers, no public transportation in the rural area and that DD needs to stay sober. Kids need to know to not get in a vehicle and to call for a ride or get in with a sober person instead if their ride ends up drinking.
|
|
cycworker
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 4,378
Jun 26, 2014 0:42:38 GMT
|
Post by cycworker on May 4, 2017 22:21:12 GMT
Here's my question: are they emotionally ready to ride in a car with friends? What about drinking on the sly? How about are they ready to sneak out on the weekends and go to parties? This is why these kinds of things are needed because whether or not our teens are ready to illegally drink, party, etc, there are some that still will do it. And there are those who think about doing it and are pressured into doing it. Having a shocking experience like this somewhere in the back of their mind may be the very difference between getting into a car with a drunk driver or not. At the very least it gets the conversation in motion and makes them think about what they're doing. That's why they really should do it here because the legal drinking age is 18 in Alberta so illegal drinking age is even younger. So kids can be getting in vehicles with kids that have been drinking. They have to be lining up designated drivers, no public transportation in the rural area and that DD needs to stay sober. Kids need to know to not get in a vehicle and to call for a ride or get in with a sober person instead if their ride ends up drinking. A bunch of things need to happen: -We need to lower the drinking age. It's 19 in BC and even that's a bit high... 21 is ridiculous. -Stop demonizing drinking and making alcohol taboo for your kids. At least here in BC, even before it's formally 'legal' parents have some leeway to allow their kids to drink in supervised, controlled situations. Allow that. Don't put kids in a situation where they're heading out to a schoolground, like the Portland example, or worse, somewhere dangerous like the woods. Teach them early how to have a healthy, responsible relationship with alcohol. -Parents need to change their attitudes to underage drinking. Kids shouldn't HAVE to sneak out. Make it safe for your kid to call you if they need you to come & get them. THOSE are the types of things that will address the problem, not these ineffective, moralistic, Scared Straight type programs, which are the alcohol & drug equivalent of abstinence only sex education. Harm reduction keeps kids safe. This other stuff doesn't work.
|
|
MizIndependent
Drama Llama
![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_green.png)
Quit your bullpoop.
Posts: 5,836
Jun 25, 2014 19:43:16 GMT
|
Post by MizIndependent on May 4, 2017 22:32:35 GMT
That's why they really should do it here because the legal drinking age is 18 in Alberta so illegal drinking age is even younger. So kids can be getting in vehicles with kids that have been drinking. They have to be lining up designated drivers, no public transportation in the rural area and that DD needs to stay sober. Kids need to know to not get in a vehicle and to call for a ride or get in with a sober person instead if their ride ends up drinking. A bunch of things need to happen: -We need to lower the drinking age. It's 19 in BC and even that's a bit high... 21 is ridiculous. -Stop demonizing drinking and making alcohol taboo for your kids. At least here in BC, even before it's formally 'legal' parents have some leeway to allow their kids to drink in supervised, controlled situations. Allow that. Don't put kids in a situation where they're heading out to a schoolground, like the Portland example, or worse, somewhere dangerous like the woods. Teach them early how to have a healthy, responsible relationship with alcohol. -Parents need to change their attitudes to underage drinking. Kids shouldn't HAVE to sneak out. Make it safe for your kid to call you if they need you to come & get them. THOSE are the types of things that will address the problem, not these ineffective, moralistic, Scared Straight type programs, which are the alcohol & drug equivalent of abstinence only sex education. Harm reduction keeps kids safe. This other stuff doesn't work. Actually, I agree with you. Demystifying alcohol by teaching our teens how, when, and the safety needed would likely go a long way to stopping a good portion of the illegal activity around alcohol. The whole "use good judgment, make good choices" mentality. I do think education (like Driver's Ed and the Oregon Impact program) coupled with common sense experience would be an excellent two-pronged approach. It won't work for everyone but for the average kid it could have a very positive impact on how they view using alcohol and when it's safe and appropriate.
|
|
cycworker
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 4,378
Jun 26, 2014 0:42:38 GMT
|
Post by cycworker on May 4, 2017 22:40:46 GMT
A bunch of things need to happen: -We need to lower the drinking age. It's 19 in BC and even that's a bit high... 21 is ridiculous. -Stop demonizing drinking and making alcohol taboo for your kids. At least here in BC, even before it's formally 'legal' parents have some leeway to allow their kids to drink in supervised, controlled situations. Allow that. Don't put kids in a situation where they're heading out to a schoolground, like the Portland example, or worse, somewhere dangerous like the woods. Teach them early how to have a healthy, responsible relationship with alcohol. -Parents need to change their attitudes to underage drinking. Kids shouldn't HAVE to sneak out. Make it safe for your kid to call you if they need you to come & get them. THOSE are the types of things that will address the problem, not these ineffective, moralistic, Scared Straight type programs, which are the alcohol & drug equivalent of abstinence only sex education. Harm reduction keeps kids safe. This other stuff doesn't work. Actually, I agree with you. Demystifying alcohol by teaching our teens how, when, and the safety needed would likely go a long way to stopping a good portion of the illegal activity around alcohol. The whole "use good judgment, make good choices" mentality. I do think education (like Driver's Ed and the Oregon Impact program) coupled with common sense experience would be an excellent two-pronged approach. It won't work for everyone but for the average kid it could have a very positive impact on how they view using alcohol and when it's safe and appropriate. Thank you... and I'll concede that a big part of my problem with these programs, beyond what I said about them being in the vein of 'Scared Straight' is that they're too often done in isolation. For example, when providing sex education, there's nothing inherently wrong with teaching abstinence as an option. In fact, I support it... as long as it is just that. ONE option. As a believe in the Biopsychosocial model of addiction, it goes without saying for me that for some folks there is a biological/hereditary component to alcohol (or drug) addiction. In those cases, additional, different conversations will have to happen with the kids in question.
|
|
|
Post by 950nancy on May 4, 2017 22:41:49 GMT
Having gone through driver's ed in the 80's and seen the most awful real videos, I believe today's kids (whether they drive OR get into a car with another teen driver) should have to see what could and very often does happen. I have never met a kid who legitimately shouldn't have seen the videos unless they will never drive or get into a vehicle with another teen driver. I also don't want kids not to go through Driver's Ed because of a graphic video. It just puts too many people at risk. I really want today's young drivers to get the message that driving and texting could kill me. You present this as if there's a disagreement between us when I don't see it that way at all. There is a very small group of kids that should probably wait to see this. I expect a significant portion of that very small group are not the ones who will either be driving or riding as a passenger of those who shouldn't be driving. If they are old enough and mature enough to be given responsibilities of either being allowed to drive and/or being out on their own so that they could ride with another driver who this would apply to, then they probably are not part of that very limited group to begin with. Then I shall agree to agree with you.
|
|
scrappinspidey2
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 2,511
Location: In the Parlor with the Fly
Mar 18, 2015 19:19:37 GMT
|
Post by scrappinspidey2 on May 4, 2017 23:10:31 GMT
..that none of them have lost someone that way, or have been in a dramatic accident, I haven't read the entire thread, just enough to get a gist, and I wanted to acknowledge this part. As many here know, my family was involved in a fatal car crash that has created issues with PTSD, Flashbacks etc. my husband died in that crash. So yes, something like this would be a trigger for my daughter and myself if I was forced to watch it. I have a very hard time with movies involving car crashes or noises that sound like the car crash itself even though I know it is not real. It brings back my reality though. My daughter also has the same issues. So yes as a parent of a child who has already been traumatized via a real accident with devastating consequences, I would like an option to either opt out or advance notice to prepare that child in an appropriate way. I suffer PTSD from our accident and I still get behind the wheel of a car on a daily basis. It sucks. Its the hardest thing I do every day. Unfortunately there is not an option other than driving. Pretty soon my daughter is going to be shoved into driving as well because I can't always get her to things and the public transportation system is non existent in my town. Taxi's etc are not financially viable options either. That all being said, I think that people like myself and my daughter are exceptions rather than the rule and I think this program is very valuable to teenagers and they should see it. There just should be a small window of opting out for those already having gone through it.
|
|
|
Post by SweetieBugs on May 4, 2017 23:52:15 GMT
Our high schools have been doing this for years. It's called 15 Minutes. But our schools notify parents ahead of time. I think it is a very worthwhile program. Yes, here too. I think most California high schools do this "15 Minutes" program and there is notification to the parents. I think if you feel your student needs to be excused from this program because it would be too difficult, then they shouldn't be driving (or riding with friends who are driving) until they can handle the subject matter.
|
|
Mary Kay Lady
Pearl Clutcher
PeaNut 367,913 Refupea number 1,638
Posts: 3,077
Jun 27, 2014 4:11:36 GMT
|
Post by Mary Kay Lady on May 4, 2017 23:57:16 GMT
I'm the mom of 2 sons. Oldest is 23 and youngest is 17. To my knowledge neither one if them has participated in an assembly like you've described.
If I knew of such an assembly I would force both of my sons to attend it. It sounds to me like it's similar to the "scared straight" type of programs.
I'm all for it. Teens and young adults have the mentality of "It won't happen to me." Sadly, they're wrong.
I realize that the students were traumatized by watching such a graphic display. However, in this situation the end is absolutely justified.
I would much rather that one of my sons be traumatized by viewing such a program than bury one or have to provide care to one who was seriously injured because of making a poor choice.
|
|
georgiapea
Drama Llama
![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_green.png)
Posts: 6,846
Jun 27, 2014 18:02:10 GMT
|
Post by georgiapea on May 5, 2017 0:02:22 GMT
It's a needed lesson. All kids think they are invincible. Actually seeing what they will look like after they are in a more than likely preventable accident should be taught in every school. Sure they cried, it's a natural response to think of someone your own age dying violently. But it's still a valuable lesson. One has to look at the bigger picture, not tailor learning to the few.
|
|
|
Post by leftturnonly on May 5, 2017 0:50:39 GMT
I hear you, and the parents in our school district are much more interested in having enough space in high schoolers' schedules for the academics needed to get into top-tier universities than in physical education. High School here is viewed as College prep, so, unlike K thru 8, phys ed takes a back seat to academics. Kids who are less academically inclined can take phys ed as an elective and/or participate in team sports. Whether you agree with the philosophy or not, it is the reality here. The policy sucks. I doubled up on my high level academic courses, had driver's ed, health class, was in all kinds of sports as well as marching band... and still had good old PE classes. If it was good enough for me...
|
|
DEX
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,357
Aug 9, 2014 23:13:22 GMT
|
Post by DEX on May 5, 2017 0:53:05 GMT
That's why they really should do it here because the legal drinking age is 18 in Alberta so illegal drinking age is even younger. So kids can be getting in vehicles with kids that have been drinking. They have to be lining up designated drivers, no public transportation in the rural area and that DD needs to stay sober. Kids need to know to not get in a vehicle and to call for a ride or get in with a sober person instead if their ride ends up drinking. A bunch of things need to happen: -We need to lower the drinking age. It's 19 in BC and even that's a bit high... 21 is ridiculous. -Stop demonizing drinking and making alcohol taboo for your kids. At least here in BC, even before it's formally 'legal' parents have some leeway to allow their kids to drink in supervised, controlled situations. Allow that. Don't put kids in a situation where they're heading out to a schoolground, like the Portland example, or worse, somewhere dangerous like the woods. Teach them early how to have a healthy, responsible relationship with alcohol. -Parents need to change their attitudes to underage drinking. Kids shouldn't HAVE to sneak out. Make it safe for your kid to call you if they need you to come & get them. THOSE are the types of things that will address the problem, not these ineffective, moralistic, Scared Straight type programs, which are the alcohol & drug equivalent of abstinence only sex education. Harm reduction keeps kids safe. This other stuff doesn't work. I am old enough to remember when many States lowered the drinking age to 18 during the Vietnam war. It had to be raised again because 18 year olds were not mature enough to handle the responsibility that comes with drinking. I could not disagree with you more about allowing your kids to drink before legal age. There is no way I would allow any child of mine to do something illegal. Not gonna happen. I respect your opinion but we will have to disagree. In my case, vehemently!
|
|
|
Post by leftturnonly on May 5, 2017 1:01:19 GMT
That's why they really should do it here because the legal drinking age is 18 in Alberta so illegal drinking age is even younger. So kids can be getting in vehicles with kids that have been drinking. They have to be lining up designated drivers, no public transportation in the rural area and that DD needs to stay sober. Kids need to know to not get in a vehicle and to call for a ride or get in with a sober person instead if their ride ends up drinking. A bunch of things need to happen: -We need to lower the drinking age. It's 19 in BC and even that's a bit high... 21 is ridiculous. -Stop demonizing drinking and making alcohol taboo for your kids. At least here in BC, even before it's formally 'legal' parents have some leeway to allow their kids to drink in supervised, controlled situations. Allow that. Don't put kids in a situation where they're heading out to a schoolground, like the Portland example, or worse, somewhere dangerous like the woods. Teach them early how to have a healthy, responsible relationship with alcohol. -Parents need to change their attitudes to underage drinking. Kids shouldn't HAVE to sneak out. Make it safe for your kid to call you if they need you to come & get them. THOSE are the types of things that will address the problem, not these ineffective, moralistic, Scared Straight type programs, which are the alcohol & drug equivalent of abstinence only sex education. Harm reduction keeps kids safe. This other stuff doesn't work. eh.... I don't think it's an either or type of thing. The movies/demo's made a difference in how I behaved. Having alcohol at special family meals took all the mystery out of it. There's room for both. A 21 drinking age was more obviously questionable back when we had a draft. You could be sent to war in Vietnam but you weren't old enough to have a beer.
|
|
|
Post by elaine on May 5, 2017 1:03:41 GMT
I hear you, and the parents in our school district are much more interested in having enough space in high schoolers' schedules for the academics needed to get into top-tier universities than in physical education. High School here is viewed as College prep, so, unlike K thru 8, phys ed takes a back seat to academics. Kids who are less academically inclined can take phys ed as an elective and/or participate in team sports. Whether you agree with the philosophy or not, it is the reality here. The policy sucks. I doubled up on my high level academic courses, had driver's ed, health class, was in all kinds of sports as well as marching band... and still had good old PE classes. If it was good enough for me... I hear you, but that is the policy here. In my high school in the 70s, marching band and cheerleading counted for PE, so I never took regular PE in high school. But, I only went to a UC school for college, I didn't try for Stanford or Ivy League like here.
|
|
|
Post by leftturnonly on May 5, 2017 1:04:32 GMT
That all being said, I think that people like myself and my daughter are exceptions rather than the rule and I think this program is very valuable to teenagers and they should see it. There just should be a small window of opting out for those already having gone through it. Exactly.
|
|
|
Post by leftturnonly on May 5, 2017 1:07:58 GMT
I didn't try for Stanford or Ivy League like here. ![:laugh:](http://i61.tinypic.com/4ghu10.jpg) So basically, what you're saying is that the snootiest Ivy League schools are filled with scrawny, weak kids who couldn't run across the quad if you paid them. ![](http://i1168.photobucket.com/albums/r481/2peasrefugees/Smilies/giggle.gif) ******THAT WAS A JOKE, FOLKS ******* REPEAT ***** THIS WAS ONLY A JOKE. ********
|
|
|
Post by elaine on May 5, 2017 1:10:54 GMT
I didn't try for Stanford or Ivy League like here. ![:laugh:](http://i61.tinypic.com/4ghu10.jpg) So basically, what you're saying is that the snootiest Ivy League schools are filled with scrawny, weak kids who couldn't run across the quad if you paid them. ![](http://i1168.photobucket.com/albums/r481/2peasrefugees/Smilies/giggle.gif) ******THAT WAS A JOKE, FOLKS ******* REPEAT ***** THIS WAS ONLY A JOKE. ******** LOL!!! ![](http://i1168.photobucket.com/albums/r481/2peasrefugees/Smilies/roflmao.gif)
|
|
|
Post by theroadlesstraveledp on May 5, 2017 1:18:22 GMT
So let me give you some backstory. Every 15 Minutes in just one of the numerous nonprofits that work across the country to educate about drinking and driving. April is distracted driving month, while everyone wants to do things during that month logistically it doesn't always work out. We have this organization visit our city in April and May. They work in tandem with our local PD every year.
I will also add that I think it was poor form to not notify the parents. I can see how this could be an issue for someone who has been through it. Over here info about the program is in the newspaper, on FB, etc. The nonprofit Every 15 Minutes is currently being used at many high schools in SoCal. It was used when I was in high school, they showed up with a car that was wrecked with fake blood and mannequins, and actors. Even went as far as to have us walk by a casket with a mirror inside. For the year 2000 that was graphic. I imagine it is even more so today with technological advances. I understand your point of view, however, the NHTSA stats for drunk driving are scary.
I agree with others who say you can't bubble wrap your kids. Heck I still remember the accident of a classmate that lived on my street. One of my friends saw the accident and called 911. The passenger was wearing a seat belt, and lived, (the driver who lived on my street wasn't) it was so very sad. The reality here is that as time goes on, your children might know someone from high school or college that passed from an auto accident.
Moving on to another topic. As someone who wrote successful grant for another cause texting and driving-- I can tell you that this is an issue that doesn't just affect teens. However, teens were the ones we chose to educate. The woman who came to speak to them, that also has a nonprofit for this cause, is forever changed by another person's actions to text and drive. She is the sole survivor of a wreck that killed her immediate family, and has lasting effects due to the accident. In this case parents were notified, about the assemblies, and students signed a pledge to not text and drive. It was well received by the community.
|
|
|
Post by txdancermom on May 5, 2017 1:22:39 GMT
No, imho the kids need to see this. they think they are invincible, and that drinking (which they should not do) is ok and that driving afterwards is not an issue.
they also need the lesson that if you think a friend who is driving is drunk, you let someone know and don't let them behind the wheel.
|
|