News Welcome to Hawthorn Jon Patton : Retired

[Gralin]

View attachment 1054181

That is so fetch

 

[KermitJagger]

i mean why not just put it all on the parents, why even have schools?

What a disingenuous point to make!

The convenience of schools is obviously that it helps to socialise kids and it allows for a reasonable enough line-up between school hours and work hours.

That said, I'd prefer to err on the side of parents taking on more responsibility for their children than schools. Schools acting as a surrogate is a slippery slope to go down.

 

[Gralin]

What a disingenuous point to make!

The convenience of schools is obviously that it helps to socialise kids and it allows for a reasonable enough line-up between school hours and work hours.

That said, I'd prefer to err on the side of parents taking on more responsibility for their children than schools. Schools acting as a surrogate is a slippery slope to go down.

Yeah but we aren't talking about being surrogates we are talking about what schools should be teaching as part of their curriculum

They have sex ed in high school still, consent should 100% be a part of that class

 

[Ned Ryerson]

What a disingenuous point to make!

The convenience of schools is obviously that it helps to socialise kids and it allows for a reasonable enough line-up between school hours and work hours.

That said, I'd prefer to err on the side of parents taking on more responsibility for their children than schools. Schools acting as a surrogate is a slippery slope to go down.

It's really, really not a slippery slope. This is like saying 'let's stop teaching maths at school and just hope that parents bridge the gap'. There are plenty of parents who are sadly ill-equipped to pass on crucial information to kids in the first place. Not saying that teachers are any better - however if fundamental skills aren't covered by either parents or the schools then how do we expect people to learn anything?

 

[Leather Poisoning]

It's really, really not a slippery slope. This is like saying 'let's stop teaching maths at school and just hope that parents bridge the gap'. There are plenty of parents who are sadly ill-equipped to pass on crucial information to kids in the first place. Not saying that teachers are any better - however if fundamental skills aren't covered by either parents or the schools then how do we expect people to learn anything?

Youporn

 

[Ned Ryerson]

Youporn

They have maths tutorials on there now?

 

[rei154]

There's only so many hours in a school day and ultimately the business of teaching kids how to be proper and appropriate human beings should fall to the parents, because they have far more time with their children than the schools do.

The problem with leaving it up to the parents is if the parents are unwilling to educate their kids or unable to for whatever reason we'll then see more situations where an individuals actions can simply be put down to "their parents failed them oh well how sad" as opposed to educating the masses on topics that everyone (in my eyes) needs to have a solid understanding of. Do I think parents should be involved? Absolutely. Do I think we can rely on parents for something such as this? Absolutely not

 

[KermitJagger]

Yeah but we aren't talking about being surrogates we are talking about what schools should be teaching as part of their curriculum

They have sex ed in high school still, consent should 100% be a part of that class

It's really, really not a slippery slope. This is like saying 'let's stop teaching maths at school and just hope that parents bridge the gap'. There are plenty of parents who are sadly ill-equipped to pass on crucial information to kids in the first place. Not saying that teachers are any better - however if fundamental skills aren't covered by either parents or the schools then how do we expect people to learn anything?

The problem with leaving it up to the parents is if the parents are unwilling to educate their kids or unable to for whatever reason we'll then see more situations where an individuals actions can simply be put down to "their parents failed them oh well how sad" as opposed to educating the masses on topics that everyone (in my eyes) needs to have a solid understanding of. Do I think parents should be involved? Absolutely. Do I think we can rely on parents for something such as this? Absolutely not

I brought up the surrogate point because you said "why not let parents do everything?" - by that token, why not do the opposite if parents are ill-equipped and unable?

There's already a lot of question marks about whether the current school format is correct for 21st century kids, and in that format there's only a finite amount to teach. What's going to help reinforce good behaviour? Half an hour a week, at most, in sex-ed? Given to a classroom full of kids hellbent on not taking it seriously, by old teachers who struggle to teach it?

Parents might not be perfect, but they're more fit for purpose when it comes to teaching this stuff than schools are. At least figure out some way to empower parents to have that conversation. The answer isn't more schooling.

 

[Ned Ryerson]

I brought up the surrogate point because you said "why not let parents do everything?" - by that token, why not do the opposite if parents are ill-equipped and unable?

There's already a lot of question marks about whether the current school format is correct for 21st century kids, and in that format there's only a finite amount to teach. What's going to help reinforce good behaviour? Half an hour a week, at most, in sex-ed? Given to a classroom full of kids hellbent on not taking it seriously, by old teachers who struggle to teach it?

Parents might not be perfect, but they're more fit for purpose when it comes to teaching this stuff than schools are. At least figure out some way to empower parents to have that conversation. The answer isn't more schooling.

Awesome strawman creation. All the kids aren't paying attention, all the teachers are too old and ill-equipped so schools clearly just can't do it. You can absolutely use this excuse for teaching anything at schools. Parents aren't more fit for purpose - that is an absolute furphy. I am absolutely hopeless at advanced maths. Once my kid hits about grade 10 I will be fairly useless with helping them in maths overall. Who is better equipped to give my kid help in this instance - someone trained in the maths curriculum who knows the work - or me the parent?

These are crucial life skills in this day and age - and you can't rely on parents to educate kids on this point. Having schools cover these things means some kids who aren't getting this taught at home could then learn it in another environment. Thinking all parents are some utopian knowledge-factories who are equipped to teach complex issues such as the legalities around consent is just absurdly false.

 

[Gralin]

I brought up the surrogate point because you said "why not let parents do everything?" - by that token, why not do the opposite if parents are ill-equipped and unable?

There's already a lot of question marks about whether the current school format is correct for 21st century kids, and in that format there's only a finite amount to teach. What's going to help reinforce good behaviour? Half an hour a week, at most, in sex-ed? Given to a classroom full of kids hellbent on not taking it seriously, by old teachers who struggle to teach it?

Parents might not be perfect, but they're more fit for purpose when it comes to teaching this stuff than schools are. At least figure out some way to empower parents to have that conversation. The answer isn't more schooling.

So who is going to make sure the parents know how to teach it and all agree on what consent is because going just from this thread most of society doesn't have a strong grasp on consent

 

[rei154]

Parents might not be perfect, but they're more fit for purpose when it comes to teaching this stuff than schools are. At least figure out some way to empower parents to have that conversation. The answer isn't more schooling.

How? Parents have no formal training, no regulation, and might not understand the concepts themselves. Relying on the parents for something like this is what we've tried for an incredibly long time and it's not been a great success.
I agree about empowering the parents, but there are very few parents who actively have the time, knowhow, and ability to get further education on this matter. Perfect example is the cycle of bigotry against transgendered people- if a parent has a conservative mindset and doesn't wish to acknowledge the existence of trans people the child is missing out on learning about a complex issue and the parents righteous indignation and lack of care/trust/understanding of the trans-community gets propagated.

Easy solution? Have the institutes that all people attend provide a basic understanding of these topics over the course of several years through their early secondary/late primary education.

 

[Brishawk]

I brought up the surrogate point because you said "why not let parents do everything?" - by that token, why not do the opposite if parents are ill-equipped and unable?

There's already a lot of question marks about whether the current school format is correct for 21st century kids, and in that format there's only a finite amount to teach. What's going to help reinforce good behaviour? Half an hour a week, at most, in sex-ed? Given to a classroom full of kids hellbent on not taking it seriously, by old teachers who struggle to teach it?

Parents might not be perfect, but they're more fit for purpose when it comes to teaching this stuff than schools are. At least figure out some way to empower parents to have that conversation. The answer isn't more schooling.

In my time involved in the school system I can tell you that things that should be the domain of the parents are left to schools all the time. Kids come to school hungry because their parents aren’t able to provide enough food. This compromises learning so schools adapt and start providing food on limited budgets which will inevitably come at a cost to some other program. Some kids come to school with lunch boxes full of left over kfc. The parents genuinely believe providing such vast quantity of rich food is good for their child. Almost all alcoholics start seriously drinking before legal age and the drinking habits of the parents contribute greatly to a child’s attitude towards drinking alcohol. This conversation on Sex education and consent is implicitly one about social disadvantage in the sense that not all households are able to provide the same level of parental support to teach these things to children. Schools are the primary means of addressing social disadvantage.

And to be clear, this kind of social disadvantage does not have to be solely due to economic disadvantage. A friend of mine had been brought up by his father to see women as objects for conquest. It was near impossible for this guy to maintain a meaningful relationship with a women. This is a guy who otherwise had every advantage in life but struggled due to his upbringing.

I completely agree that the best place for children to learn these things is at home with their parents however it is a complete fantasy to think it will happen if only we could empower parents more to have these conversations. Schools are the only place where it can be guaranteed that children would be able to receive these important life lessons.

 

[KermitJagger]

Awesome strawman creation. All the kids aren't paying attention, all the teachers are too old and ill-equipped so schools clearly just can't do it. You can absolutely use this excuse for teaching anything at schools. Parents aren't more fit for purpose - that is an absolute furphy. I am absolutely hopeless at advanced maths. Once my kid hits about grade 10 I will be fairly useless with helping them in maths overall. Who is better equipped to give my kid help in this instance - someone trained in the maths curriculum who knows the work - or me the parent?

These are crucial life skills in this day and age - and you can't rely on parents to educate kids on this point. Having schools cover these things means some kids who aren't getting this taught at home could then learn it in another environment. Thinking all parents are some utopian knowledge-factories who are equipped to teach complex issues such as the legalities around consent is just absurdly false.

I don't think you understand what a strawman is, because you're the one making one. I'm not saying teachers are all too old and ill-equipped, but that in my experience, 2010s high school sex education was delivered by an old, out of touch shop teacher and the class mentality towards the issue was ambivalent at best. The point is that the teachers are trained to teach, but they're trained to teach whatever undergraduate degree they received at university. Parents by extension of having survived to the point of having that child themselves should be equipped to have conversations related to being a functioning human being. In some cases they can't, and schools can do a bit to bridge that gap but they're limited by the structure and format they have.

You can have dedicated biology or sex education teachers, but again there's the limitation in how much exposure kids get to them over the course of a year. You also run into issues with quality of teacher particularly when it comes to public high schools in lower performing areas like the one I went to.

Again, strawman - not saying parents are innately 'utopian knowledge-factories' nor that they'd have to teach the legalities around consent, but they can help inform the concept around it which isn't particularly complex. A grown adult should (for the most part) be able to pass that tribal knowledge onto their kids simply by having lived it.

In my time involved in the school system I can tell you that things that should be the domain of the parents are left to schools all the time. Kids come to school hungry because their parents aren’t able to provide enough food. This compromises learning so schools adapt and start providing food on limited budgets which will inevitably come at a cost to some other program. Some kids come to school with lunch boxes full of left over kfc. The parents genuinely believe providing such vast quantity of rich food is good for their child. Almost all alcoholics start seriously drinking before legal age and the drinking habits of the parents contribute greatly to a child’s attitude towards drinking alcohol. This conversation on Sex education and consent is implicitly one about social disadvantage in the sense that not all households are able to provide the same level of parental support to teach these things to children. Schools are the primary means of addressing social disadvantage.

And to be clear, this kind of social disadvantage does not have to be solely due to economic disadvantage. A friend of mine had been brought up by his father to see women as objects for conquest. It was near impossible for this guy to maintain a meaningful relationship with a women. This is a guy who otherwise had every advantage in life but struggled due to his upbringing.

I completely agree that the best place for children to learn these things is at home with their parents however it is a complete fantasy to think it will happen if only we could empower parents more to have these conversations. Schools are the only place where it can be guaranteed that children would be able to receive these important life lessons.

You can put it in place to teach it at schools and I'm not saying to not do that, but to teach it effectively it requires constant reaffirmation as opposed to being a passing lesson in a half an hour period at school. I understand that parents aren't always able to be there to teach those lessons, nor are they always informed enough to do so, but for the most part that's where patterns of behaviour are learned.

Though these lessons can be presented at school, they're not necessarily learnt. Learning requires more than school can provide in that area, which again, is limited by structure and format.

 

[Brishawk]

.

You can put it in place to teach it at schools and I'm not saying to not do that, but to teach it effectively it requires constant reaffirmation as opposed to being a passing lesson in a half an hour period at school. I understand that parents aren't always able to be there to teach those lessons, nor are they always informed enough to do so, but for the most part that's where patterns of behaviour are learned.

Though these lessons can be presented at school, they're not necessarily learnt. Learning requires more than school can provide in that area, which again, is limited by structure and format.

At this stage, ‘empowering parents’ doesn’t seem to be any sort of solution as you present it. More of an aspiration.

Where I think you miss on schools is to think teaching of values are limited to a lesson format. As a requirement of the Australian national curriculum, Literacy and numeracy are taught in every subject. Aboriginal and Torres Straight Islander culture is imbedded across subjects also. There is no reason why gender issues and consent can’t be imbedded into general subject lessons. This takes a bit of planning on the teacher side but it doesn’t have to detract away from other learning. I think many of you concerns can be addressed.

 

[eldorado]

I'm reliably informed by Andrew Bolt that teachers should NOT attempt to teach 'values', such as 'equality', 'consent', 'respect', 'sharing' etc...as this is pure leftist/brainwashing/social engineering.

Teachers are only there to mold the cogs of capitalism, via creating consumers and producers, with the necessary skills in literacy, numeracy, and other niche fields that will enable them to take their place as little economic units.

I hear some teachers, and schools, ignore this advice to varying degrees.

 

[The Spirit of Cricket]

I'm reliably informed by Andrew Bolt that teachers should NOT attempt to teach 'values', such as 'equality', 'consent', 'respect', 'sharing' etc...as this is pure leftist/brainwashing/social engineering.

Teachers are only there to mold the cogs of capitalism, via creating consumers and producers, with the necessary skills in literacy, numeracy, and other niche fields that will enable them to take their place as little economic units.

I hear some teachers, and schools, ignore this advice to varying degrees.

if only everyone was as well-educated as Mr. Bolt this problem would likely never have arisen

the women would never have complained

 

[rei154]

I'm reliably informed by Andrew Bolt that teachers should NOT attempt to teach 'values', such as 'equality', 'consent', 'respect', 'sharing' etc...as this is pure leftist/brainwashing/social engineering.

Teachers are only there to mold the cogs of capitalism, via creating consumers and producers, with the necessary skills in literacy, numeracy, and other niche fields that will enable them to take their place as little economic units.

I hear some teachers, and schools, ignore this advice to varying degrees.

This might actually be my favourite post on this board.

 

[KermitJagger]

At this stage, ‘empowering parents’ doesn’t seem to be any sort of solution as you present it. More of an aspiration.

Where I think you miss on schools is to think teaching of values are limited to a lesson format. As a requirement of the Australian national curriculum, Literacy and numeracy are taught in every subject. Aboriginal and Torres Straight Islander culture is imbedded across subjects also. There is no reason why gender issues and consent can’t be imbedded into general subject lessons. This takes a bit of planning on the teacher side but it doesn’t have to detract away from other learning. I think many of you concerns can be addressed.

Maybe I am missing on certain points - obviously English, Literature, Biology, Psychology can address components of the issue in a more relatable way through media or whatever else. I still feel as though it's no less aspirational than empowering parents.

Purely from my experience of a public school in a poor area, with the people I knew and were friends with at that school, there were definitely more impacts from their home life than the 8 hours they spent in a classroom. Like you said, if parents are alcoholics kids are pre-disposed that way, mentalities towards people and genders carry over - so at what point is all of the effort at school being overridden by what is happening at home? Particularly in the case of my school where the teachers were somewhat short of role models or inspiring.

The thing is that home life plays a massive role already. How do we help parents empower themselves? Maybe financial incentives for taking adult learning classes and seminars around broaching those issues with your kids? Maybe investment in non-corny media on difficult issues to show kids and young adults? They could all help.

I don't really have an answer, because the more you analyse the issue the more causes you realise - broken families, separated parents, emotional distance between one more than the other. I stand by my opinion that schools can only do so much, and reinforcing how to be a functional human being is something that must be passed on through your parents and family. I also admit I don't have a solution, but schools aren't it.

 

[derp de derp]

Anyone have some insight as to why there is still no outcome from the AFL? Considering he’s been hospitalised their duty of care should be to resolve this sooner rather than later.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[hawkdork83]

Anyone have some insight as to why there is still no outcome from the AFL? Considering he’s been hospitalised their duty of care should be to resolve this sooner rather than later.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Robbo printed last week that the AFL have been unable to talk with Patton yet whilst he is seeking mental health treatment. Likely a few weeks away from an outcome yet.

 

[Ned Ryerson]

Anyone have some insight as to why there is still no outcome from the AFL? Considering he’s been hospitalised their duty of care should be to resolve this sooner rather than later.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

As above - it is because of hospitalisation that the AFL can't resolve this sooner or later because they have a duty of care to make sure Patton is mentally right to be investigated.

 

[Easy Slips Catch]

Anyone have some insight as to why there is still no outcome from the AFL? Considering he’s been hospitalised their duty of care should be to resolve this sooner rather than later.

Assuming he is under mental health care, I'd hope the AFL would respect that and stay away. It's fine to believe JP is a dirtbag but if a doctor has diagnosed mental health that should take precedence over everything.

 

[Mercy Seat]

Anyone have some insight as to why there is still no outcome from the AFL? Considering he’s been hospitalised their duty of care should be to resolve this sooner rather than later.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If were to put money on it, I’d say we don’t hear anything for a few months at least, maybe mid season. Can’t see JP leaving our list until end of the year with some quiet, no nonsense settlement.

 

[MrPremiership]

Can't see how he plays again this year. From a physical POV, it will take too long to get ready, not to mention his mental ailments.

If he doesn't play at all in 2021, gee it makes it tough to play in 2022 and onwards.

 

[Ned Ryerson]

Can't see how he plays again this year. From a physical POV, it will take too long to get ready, not to mention his mental ailments.

If he doesn't play at all in 2021, gee it makes it tough to play in 2022 and onwards.

Personally don't see him ever playing for Hawthorn again. Even if he was found to have no criminal case to answer for - I wouldn't imagine we'd keep him on the list in 2022 given everything that has occurred.