Should Stress/Anger Management be a required course in school?

[Goldeneye]

Given with all of the sensational violence lately, as well as some smaller incidents such as school fights and such, I think that Stress/Anger Management be a required course at some point most likely in high school.

It probably should be a quarter-year/half-year course (of each) in the first year of high school, but I would not be opposed to giving such a class earlier in life, perhaps even the first year of middle school (usually Grade 6). Yes, there is a separate health class that schools do teach, but I think there should be more emphasis on stress and anger management these days.

Now, I know that some would say that this is more of a issue that should be addressed at home, but there are quite a bit of homes that are so dysfunctional that they are breeding grounds for such stress and anger.

[winneythepooh7]

I think it could be helpful for anyone, because who is never stressed and angry at some point in their lives? However, there's also a major difference between being stressed and angry on occasion, vs. when it is becoming a psychological problem to the point where you are dangerous to yourself/others. I think more funding in general should be put into schools and the community at large for mental health services. Not just a "class" here and there.

[PenforPrez]

I think it could be helpful for anyone, because who is never stressed and angry at some point in their lives? However, there's also a major difference between being stressed and angry on occasion, vs. when it is becoming a psychological problem to the point where you are dangerous to yourself/others. I think more funding in general should be put into schools and the community at large for mental health services. Not just a "class" here and there.

I agree with this. That's why help is there.

Any required class should be for the benefit of all, not a preventative measure for a certain few.

Paul

[capella]

99.9% of kids would blow it off as a joke class and not pay attention anyhow. Just how it is in schools in reality. Good idea on paper, but like many... it wouldn't work.

[meatwad]

What's with all this namby-pamby feel bad about good wet-work bulls***?

[Ciderhillnh]

Sorry but this is something that should be taught at home, just like sex education.

It’s a tiresome debate about what should be taught in schools about sex education (abstinence, contraception, abortion) and everyone debates because there are so many personal moral choices that families want or don’t want their children to hear or be exposed to.

With all that debate, how on earth do you decide what coping skills to teach in a room of many varied individuals?
Some parents might want their children to punch and scream into pillows, another family might want their child to draw or take a walk.
Yet another might want the kid to go play some basketball.
Still another might want the child to discuss their feelings with someone or a few people.

When did it become the schools responsibility to teach human behavior to its pupils? School is there for education; reading, writing, math.

Manners, sex ed, anger management--those should be taught at home. Yes there are dysfunctional families, but it should be up to them if they cant accomplish these tasks to seek help, and not from the school system, it should be from someone that holds their same moral system.

[Winter Storm]

I'm going to have to go with no, it shouldn't be required. Elective, maybe, required naw. I say that becuase I wouldn't have needed it. Growing up, I never had issues with stress or managing anger. Just wasn't my temperament to get that bent out of shape about anything. I've always been really easy-going.

[redav]

This reminds me of some other proposed 'required' material:

- how to take notes in class
- how to effectively study
- how to find a job
- etc

Sure, they're all useful, but with a limited amount of time in school, some things you just need to figure out for yourself.

[Q21]

When did it become the schools responsibility to teach human behavior to its pupils?

School is supposed to be a place to develop children into products suitable for jobs in the economy. What we should do is get of so many years of math to be able to fit in a human relations course, or a series of them. So much of the HS curriculum is pure crap when the most important thing kids need to know is how to deal with other people.

This article (http://www.martynemko.com/articles/reinventing-high-school-curriculum_id1246)calls it a Psychology For Life class:

Psychology for Life. Using common real-life situations and extensive use of role-playing, this course would help students develop new understanding and skills in such areas as conflict resolution, coping with anxieties, teasing/cliquishness, self-esteem, drug abuse, and sexuality.

That article has a lot of great stuff in there, also calls for a career exploration class. A great idea to have less cases of QLC in the future.

I think a class like this would be helpful because there are so many dysfunctional families and workaholic parents who don't teach their kids this. I don't think this will have the effects of a sex ed class because morals are not really as prevalent here. We can all pretty much agree that you can either paint, draw, play basketball, take a walk, or talk it out. It's not really a one way street, just tell the kids to just pick one they like and go with it. Not everyone will blow it off, some kids do pay attention.

And yes, they should absolutely fund mental health more. It's just as serious sometimes as physical health.

[sparky88]

School is supposed to be a place to develop children into products suitable for jobs in the economy. What we should do is get of so many years of math to be able to fit in a human relations course, or a series of them. So much of the HS curriculum is pure crap when the most important thing kids need to know is how to deal with other people.



Sorry to say, but most of the classes I'd consider pure crap are the ones that teach relational skills actually (home econ, life management, etc). Take those out and replace them with things like MORE math & science so our country does not continue to fall behind other developed nations There is (and will be) a huge shortage of SMART workers in this country if we don't focus more on the basics. Trust me, the field of engineering is WAY behind. I work with hundreds of technology focused companies and their number one complaint is that they can't find SKILLED workers (with the ability to THINK, they're not asking for much).

As for the school stepping in to do the parents job: The rest of us should not pay the price (in taxes, teachers salary, etc) to fund dysfunctional families. Somehow, funding mandatory high school programs for children who's parents fail to assimilate them into society them makes that behavior seem acceptable, when clearly it is not.

[PenforPrez]

If a specific child needs help with it, there are any number of people who should take note and help the kid deal with it.

Yes!!

[old_school_soul]

Sorry but this is something that should be taught at home, just like sex education.

It’s a tiresome debate about what should be taught in schools about sex education (abstinence, contraception, abortion) and everyone debates because there are so many personal moral choices that families want or don’t want their children to hear or be exposed to.


Huh? Penis + Vagina + Semen = Babies. I think that's important for teenagers to hear. That is not a moral choice, that's just how life works.

I guess we should stop teaching evolution too?

[Ciderhillnh]

OSS....while that is something a child should hear and learn.......the issue is that SOME families DO NOT want their children to be taught this in school.

Some families want their children to learn about contraception, some want their children to only learn and hear ABSTINENCE!

Because of these differences, I dont think sex ed should be part of school curriculum at all, it should be TAUGHT AT HOME, so that the parents can decide what the child hears and learns about what is acceptable morally in THEIR family.

So if a parent doesnt want their child to know the logistics of sex, they wont. And they will hear abstain abstain abstain !!!
If another family wants to teach their child about the logistics of sex and how to use a condom and other methods of birth control, then that family will teach and tell their child those things.

Its a moral choice of what the family tells the child or does not tell the child.

[wordsmith]

OSS....while that is something a child should hear and learn.......the issue is that SOME families DO NOT want their children to be taught this in school.

Some families want their children to learn about contraception, some want their children to only learn and hear ABSTINENCE!

Because of these differences, I dont think sex ed should be part of school curriculum at all, it should be TAUGHT AT HOME, so that the parents can decide what the child hears and learns about what is acceptable morally in THEIR family.

So if a parent doesnt want their child to know the logistics of sex, they wont. And they will hear abstain abstain abstain !!!
If another family wants to teach their child about the logistics of sex and how to use a condom and other methods of birth control, then that family will teach and tell their child those things.

Its a moral choice of what the family tells the child or does not tell the child.

I don't agree at all. For many reasons, but this one, that public school has both the right and responsibility to teach health, and reproduction is part of that, would be reason enough. A family can deal with personal views on morality however they'd like, but it's in public schools' best interest to at least teach the basics of human reproduction, as a public health issue if nothing else.

[Ciderhillnh]

Right there is where most of the arguments about sexual education in schools come from.
Bush wants to teach abstinence only, so kids only hear DONT HAVE SEX, they never get to hear about their options of birth control etc.

So certain families might want more taught and thus there is an argument and tempers flare.

Another family might agree with the abstinence only teaching and they are fine...but they argue with those people that want contraception discussed as part of the learning process.

Then another family might not want their children to hear about sex at all....and they argue with both the abstinence only teaching as well as the contraception.

To avoid all these tempers and issues, TEACH IT AT HOME!!!

I personally feel that its the PARENTS responsibility to teach their children about health and public health issues.

And again...since when did public schools have to take on these tasks?

Are we going to start asking nursery schools to teach the kids how to wipe their asses too?

[Winter Storm]

I don't agree at all. For many reasons, but this one, that public school has both the right and responsibility to teach health, and reproduction is part of that, would be reason enough. A family can deal with personal views on morality however they'd like, but it's in public schools' best interest to at least teach the basics of human reproduction, as a public health issue if nothing else.

Co-sign. And I also think many parents are grateful they offer sex ed in schools so they won't have to have those embarrasing talks. Plus, it gives a complete education on all aspects of reproduction and anatomy that parents my not have the correct education in.

And I cannot think of any moral dilemma in teaching the basics of human reproduction. And if I recall, parents also had to option to opt-out their child, if they weren't comfortable with it.

I say give the choice to learn, so at least its offered. Otherwise, we might have more people walking around ignorant.

[wordsmith]

Right there is where most of the arguments about sexual education in schools come from.
Bush wants to teach abstinence only, so kids only hear DONT HAVE SEX, they never get to hear about their options of birth control etc.

So certain families might want more taught and thus there is an argument and tempers flare.

Another family might agree with the abstinence only teaching and they are fine...but they argue with those people that want contraception discussed as part of the learning process.

Then another family might not want their children to hear about sex at all....and they argue with both the abstinence only teaching as well as the contraception.

To avoid all these tempers and issues, TEACH IT AT HOME!!!

I personally feel that its the PARENTS responsibility to teach their children about health and public health issues.

And again...since when did public schools have to take on these tasks?

Are we going to start asking nursery schools to teach the kids how to wipe their asses too?

Since public schools (and society as a whole) have to deal with the fallout of irresponsible parenting, schools are increasingly taking on things that have been a given in the past as family-handled responsibilities. This isn't new. Many schools in low-income areas provide breakfast when parents don't/can't. Many also provide free dental checkups and health care clinics for the same reason. Schools provide social workers to help with the fallout from kids who need services that parents don't/won't/can't provide.

And, yeah, preschools also teach hygiene, since you asked.

[wordsmith]

Co-sign. And I also think many parents are grateful they offer sex ed in schools so they won't have to have those embarrasing talks. Plus, it gives a complete education on all aspects of reproduction and anatomy that parents my not have the correct education in.

And I cannot think of any moral dilemma in teaching the basics of human reproduction. And if I recall, parents also had to option to opt-out their child, if they weren't comfortable with it.

Same here.

A high incidence of teen pregnancy affects schools negatively, particularly in attendence/graduation/dropout rates. It's in their best interest to address these issues.

[sparky88]

Co-sign. And I also think many parents are grateful they offer sex ed in schools so they won't have to have those embarrasing talks.

I agree with your overall post, however, parents who feel 'embarrassed' about talking to their kids about sex should learn ways to communicate. They should not expect the government to do their job because a certain aspect of parent-hood is a little too uncomfortable for them to handle. I just think it is a shame that so many parents have dropped the ball that it is now necessary for the state to provide all these things that parents should be providing, and for whatever reason, can't/don't/won't.

[Winter Storm]

I agree with your overall post, however, parents who feel 'embarrassed' about talking to their kids about sex should learn ways to communicate. They should not expect the government to do their job because a certain aspect of parent-hood is a little too uncomfortable for them to handle.
And while they should. Lot's of them just won't. I mean we had a thread here (http://www.quarterlifecrisis.com/forums/showthread.php?t=15487&) were plenty of us admitted our parents skipped it for whatever reasons, so it was a good thing we got educated elsewhere.

Either way, its a good way to give all children a fair start despite what home training they're getting. It give the less advantaged, more of an advantage.

[Ciderhillnh]

I dont disagree that some services are beneficial like dental hygene check ups if they cant or arent provided at home, but there doesnt seem to be any religion or moral debate about healthy teeth.

Agreed, that just because parents are embarrassed to talk to their kids, doesnt mean they should pass the buck to someone else. Sorry but as a parent, there are things your children are going to need to learn from you such as basic life fundamentals.

I also have issue with pre-schools teaching children how to wipe their asses correctly.....I firmly stand beind schools that REQUIRE that children be potty trained to be in their classrooms.....again something that should be taught at home.

We're just going to have to agree to disagree.

As far as opting children out of sex ed classes, yes parents have that option but there are 2 fall out points
1) the child will most likely be teased heavily due to not being in those classes, and thats tough to deal with
2) 6th graders with new sex education like to talk, you cant tell me they wont give the information or highly fabricated bits of it to the child not in the class, so they will hear it anyway.

Way to solve all of these problems? TEACH it at home!

Leave the schools to teach academics, leave the personal and moral teachings to within the 4 walls of the home and the parents responsibility.

Part of BEING a parent is being responsible for teaching your child how to live and exist in society....ever stop to think that maybe part of the issue is we lean to heavily on the education system and THATS why things have spun so far out of control?
If we made parents responsbile again, maybe things would go back to how they SHOULD be.

[wordsmith]

I dont disagree that some services are beneficial like dental hygene check ups if they cant or arent provided at home, but there doesnt seem to be any religion or moral debate about healthy teeth.

You seem to be glossing over the fact that I never claimed that public schools should teach about the morality of sexuality. And thus, missed the entire point of my analogy.


Leave the schools to teach academics, leave the personal and moral teachings to within the 4 walls of the home and the parents responsibility.

Not when there is considerable overlap in functioning in society and personal choices. Schools don't just teach academics, they teach life skills as well.

Part of BEING a parent is being responsible for teaching your child how to live and exist in society....ever stop to think that maybe part of the issue is we lean to heavily on the education system and THATS why things have spun so far out of control?
If we made parents responsbile again, maybe things would go back to how they SHOULD be.

Ideally, yes. Realistically, not even close to happening. It's not realistic to expect that all parents will step up to the plate, and do their jobs, and not having any safety net to handle the issues of those children of the parents who don't is simply contributing to societal ills. Do you feel that children should be at the mercy of bad parents? Or do you feel that the education system is somehow not benefitted by teaching life skills to children when they are not getting them at home? It seems like you're advocating children who are at the mercy of poor parenting being further disadvantaged. Is "sink or swim, if your parents aren't going to do their jobs, nobody else should fill that void" really a positive concept to promote, for the betterment of society as a whole and for the good of the children? I find it interesting that you would take that stance, as somebody who has ostensibly worked with children.

The "If we made parents responsible" thing again just shows your naivete. You are shying away from educating CHILDREN on responsible choices, but somehow think it's a walk in the park to teach POOR PARENTS responsible choices? You can't "make parents responsible." However, it's fairly simple to explain to young people the physical ramifications of sexual activity.

Let's stop this ridiculousness, it's not going anywhere.

[cache]

We already teach health in school, and look what healthy eaters and physically fit people we are...:rolleyes:

Stress management class is a good idea in theory only.

[Ciderhillnh]

In certain instances yes, others should step in for children. Such as dental hygene, or if a child is being abused at home.......

BUt when you're talking about life lessons that can be affected by a religion, or moral standing, I dont think the school should be the one to teach these fundamentals.

Some parents dont want their children to know about the logistics of sex until they are 15......so if a school district deems that it should be taught in the 6th grade, when most children are 11 and 12, its stepping on that parents morals and fundamentals.

I take this stance BECAUSE I have worked with children. I have heard the insanity they have passed to one another from their 'classes' and they dont take the understanding we would hope they would walk away with.
They laugh at the names of body parts, and focus on how to ridicule others about the lessons, than on the ACTUAL lessons.
The adults that create the cirriculum that is taught seem to think that its an adult audience they are speaking to.
The kids dont listen about responsibility and consequences, especially if these 2 fundamentals have not been study within THE HOME.

So it starts and ends at home. If you have parents that dont make their children responsible or understand consequences, how on earth can you expect a child in a classroom to understand responsibility and consequences about decisions concerning their 'urges'.....they will do it anyway and feel invincible.

If you look at statistics comparing the USA, Netherlands, France and Germany....you can see the DRASTIC difference in our pregnancy rates, abortions, STD transmission, etc etc etc. We are on the very high end of the scale.

I personally feel that its because the lessons at home have become societys problem and issue, and not something the parent is supposed to take care of.

Im an advocate for parents to BE responsible, and hey if they dont want to teach their children these things, maybe they shouldnt have become parents in the first place.

[wordsmith]

Stress management class is a good idea in theory only.

Stress management can be easily taught via physical education, and things like study skills in academic classes, and life skills in various electives. It would be extremely easy to incorporate/integrate with regular core subject teaching. It's wholly appropriate to work on time management with students, when you're doling out projects and assignments. Part and parcel of teaching.

[wordsmith]

Im an advocate for parents to BE responsible, and hey if they dont want to teach their children these things, maybe they shouldnt have become parents in the first place.

But once they are, it's too late, and that's the entire point. Why should those kids be lost causes?

Your attitudes amaze me. And not in a good way.

[Winter Storm]

But once they are, it's too late, and that's the entire point. Why should those kids be lost causes?

Your attitudes amaze me. And not in a good way.
Astounding, isn't it?

While responsible parenting would be the preventative measure, educating outside the home would then be the next alternative if kids aren't getting it in the home.

Im an advocate for parents to BE responsible, and hey if they dont want to teach their children these things, maybe they shouldnt have become parents in the first place.

So if there were no in-school sex ed for kids, how would children whose parents fail to teach them these lessons, then get the correct education on this? TV? Word-of-mouth? Porn?

And jumping to the conclusion that parents who don't talk to their kids about sex shouldn't have kids to begin with is a bit extreme. And actually quite stupid.

[Ciderhillnh]

Those kids would probably have to learn from peers, reading or other materials.

In other countries sex isnt viewed as something taboo, sex education is on billboards, television ads, incorporated within television programming etc...so its easy to see, hear and obtain, and its accurate information.

Also in other countries families speak to their children about sex from a very early age, which is why they typically hold off on having sex until much older or if they have sex are much more likely to protect themselves, and because of these factors they have lower teen pregnancy rates than the US.

The point is, if you're going to have children you are going to have to talk to them about things that make YOU uncomfortable, when thinking about becoming a parent, one has to examine if they are comfortable with taking on THOSE responsibilities.

I think its stupid that parents CANT talk to their children about sex, its a normal human function of procreation......explain the hows and why's. Just like you explain how to wipe your ass, take a bath etc.

[wordsmith]

I don't think anybody's arguing with those points. But somebody's got to pick up the slack, and I'd rather kids learn about sex from educators than from unequipped sources/peers/questionable media.

[Winter Storm]

Those kids would probably have to learn from peers, reading or other materials.

And that would unfortunate. Good thing, we actually do have sex ed here so we can at least attempt to educate kids the right way.

The point is, if you're going to have children you are going to have to talk to them about things that make YOU uncomfortable, when thinking about becoming a parent, one has to examine if they are comfortable with taking on THOSE responsibilities.

I think its stupid that parents CANT talk to their children about sex, its a normal human function of procreation......explain the hows and why's. Just like you explain how to wipe your ass, take a bath etc.

I think its stupid that anyone would think sex education, which involves the "normal human function or procreation" would see it as a "moral issue" and would rather leave that soley in the untrained and sometimes uneducated parents' hands.

Good thing that's not the case everywhere.

[Ciderhillnh]

THe moral part that comes into question is what parents want their children to learn.

Some parents want their children to think that the stork brings a baby, or that its something similar to the story of Mary and Jesus.

Thats where the arguments come into play, and why its something that should be left to learn in the home.

Its the same with the argument about evolution...while its accepted as scientific fact, there are schools that have stickers in the books stating that evolution IS just a THEORY.......

People in these towns/states feel that its God's creation not science and they want their children to learn the same.....which is why the stickers were placed inside the books.

[wordsmith]

Sorry, but it's too bad. If parents' religious or moral beliefs fly in the face of health issues that are perfectly justifiably taught in school, it's time to go with homeschool or private education. Public schools can't be expected to act irresponsibly simply because parents would like for them to.

[wordsmith]

I'm also a little curious as to why you're so hung up on sex ed on a thread about stress and anger management.

[Winter Storm]

There are no moral considerations involving teaching human reproduction. It is the same as health, anatomy, science, mathematics or language. Human reproduction is the same no matter the spiritual background.

If a parent is opposed, that is a personal choice. It is neither moral nor immoral.

[Ciderhillnh]

Then I guess the sex ed class should last 30 minutes.

This is a penis it is what boys have.

This is a vagina it is what girls have.

The penis goes into the vagina and spem are expelled. The sperm go to the egg, fertilize and then a baby is created.

Any questions?

Okay please open your math book to page 234.

[Winter Storm]

I do NOT think, though, that public grade schools should explicitly or implicitly support morality or immorality involved with consensual sex. I think teaching the prevention of STDs is important. Contraception, emotional attachment, spiritual/religious beliefs, etc., is up to doctors and parents, not the state, IMO.
Totally agree. And it wasn't when I had it. It was the basics of intercourse, anatomy and how babies are made. Also pregnancy and childbirth, STDs. Though we were taught about birth control.

But never any mention of marriage, when to have sex, what is right or wrong etc. Just the physical process of sex and all its ramifications.

[and1grad]

I'm also a little curious as to why you're so hung up on sex ed on a thread about stress and anger management.
Angry sex is hot. At least...thats what I've heard.

Just as an aside, can you reasonably teach sex ed without the morality and/or religious aspects coming into play? I mean...I know you can try but it seems like a losing battle, especially when kids start with the whys.

Why use protection? You can go with STDs here but the pregnancy issue can become a religious argument.
Why abstain? Seems like you can get caught up with a morality issue with this question.
Why stop now? Assuming a kid is already having "safe sex," it kinda becomes a morality issue with the "You're too young to understand/handle it"-type stuff.

Not that there isnt technical factbook ways of answering but it seems like those moral/religious issues can always be injected. Might be really hard for a teacher not to inject some form of opinion with the material.

[Winter Storm]

Just as an aside, can you reasonably teach sex ed without the morality and/or religious aspects coming into play? I mean...I know you can try but it seems like a losing battle, especially when kids start with the whys.

I don't recall there being any moral or religious aspects when I had sex ed.

Why use protection? You can go with STDs here but the pregnancy issue can become a religious argument.
To prevent unwanted pregnancy. That's a personal choice.
Why abstain? Seems like you can get caught up with a morality issue with this question.
Again personal choice. They usually don't teach you to not have sex, but give you the option of abstaining and discuss the benefits.
Why stop now? Assuming a kid is already having "safe sex," it kinda becomes a morality issue with the "You're too young to understand/handle it"-type stuff.

Again, I don't think sex ed. programs teach kids to stop having sex if they already are but let them know of the consequences if they are. I was never told don't do this and you should do that. Just was is birth control, what is abstinance and the varies options you have.

Might be really hard for a teacher not to inject some form of opinion with the material.

Well the teacher has to learn to stay neutral and keep their spiritual beliefs out of it, like anything else. Or if students prod any further, that may be a good opportunity for the teachers to tell them to turn to their famalies for spiritual guidance on this.

[Ciderhillnh]

In some religions using a condom isnt moral. Contraception isnt moral either, and its not discussed.

The prevention of pregnancy to some is seen as a moral issue.

Comdoms are seen as prevention of pregnancy and thus cannot be used. Its an act of God that you become pregnant.

[embrassezla]

In some religions using a condom isnt moral. Contraception isnt moral either, and its not discussed.
Arguing that schools shouldn't necessarily promote contraception is different from arguing that they shouldn't teach their students what the word means.

[Ciderhillnh]

The point is, if you teach the word questions are going to be asked about what it is, and how its used and different kinds......

THe point here is that because of moral differences between families, if you teach everything in school (which gives the most education) some families are going to be upset.
If you teach abstinence only, other families are going to be upset.

Best way to resovle and have no families upset....TEACH IT TO YOUR OWN CHILDREN.

[and1grad]

Well...cant please everyone, right? So pick your poison. Would you rather parents be angry b/c their kids are too informed or b/c they're under-informed? I'd rather the former.

[wordsmith]

I agree. I do NOT think, though, that public grade schools should explicitly or implicitly support morality or immorality involved with consensual sex. I think teaching the prevention of STDs is important. Contraception, emotional attachment, spiritual/religious beliefs, etc., is up to doctors and parents, not the state, IMO.

Bingo.

Public school will never be tailored to individual families' moral preferences. If parents have issues with that, they can certainly opt out of public education (and often do). Simple as that.

[teeny]

my sex ed course in 6th grade mainly centered around "changes of the body" that we'd be experiencing, and what happens during reproduction. We had to watch a childbirth video, etc. A little bit about being safe about sex, but not too much information on sex itself, and we learned reasons to wait as well.

I understand that some parents might not want their 12 year old to learn this- but this is around the average age a girl first gets her period (maybe even younger now due to all the hormones in foods these days) and for them to not know why is just cruel in my opinion. Yes, maybe its the parents place to teach this, but not all will and every kid deserves an education on this outside of peers/internet/porn. I got the "birds and bees" speach, but my sex ed class filled in a lot of the gaps. I can't even believe any parents are opposing this- that is absurd to me and will surely create only problems.