Verified answer

Socialization does not prevent all learning.

You are using a term of art here that may merit some definition. For purposes of this answer, I understand the term “socialization” to mean interfacing with others in a social context.

I do not think socialization in that context prevents students from learning. It may alter what or how they learn and they may even learn different things (such as how to interface with other people), but they will still learn.

On the other hand, too much “socialization” in an educational environment can cause a distraction and that could inhibit the learning process.

The key is balance and discipline (self-discipline and that imposed by parents and teachers).

I suspect that this would be considered shocking and somewhat draconian by many in our educational system and by many parents. I am sure there are studies upon studies that show this or that. (One can always find or commission a study to support any point of view.)

One problem that appears to be occurring in schools is a lack of discipline. This encourages disruptive behavior and interferes with the learning process.

Balance needs to be restored in our educational system, but failure to learn social skills can be a real detriment to a person’s personal and professional development. If too many citizens fail to learn these skills, it could become a problem for the society in general.

Socialization is the one thing that will teach kids how to live on their own....You can have all the book smarts our education system can offer, but if you don't know how to talk and react with people you won't be able to impress the guy hiring you, or get along with your neighbors. You learn life lessons while you're socializing that you can't learn any other way....It takes a life time to learn how to live. Life is much more rewarding when you have social skills.....don't you think?

It does interfere with book learning, but as for the natural rules of life, its the best way to learn. You need to learn how to deal with things like bullying, per-pressure, etc.etc. I think that some of the things you mention like drugs, gangs, and sex, come from the home, and the way they are raised by there family. Not what you learn in socialisation public schools. Don't put the blame on the schools, put it where it belongs.

MOM and DAD!!!!

I agree with you for the most part but I think that it also helps the children more to be in school and MADE to socialize with other children... When they get in the work force it will be VERY VERY hard for them if they do not LEARN how to socialize NOW when they are younger

there is an old story from the 12th or 13th century about a bunch of monks that raised a boy without ever letting him know that women even existed. When he turned 16 they took him into the town,where he saw a bunch of girls coming out of the nun's school. He asked the monks "What are those?"

"Geese" they responded,due to the dark dresses and white wimples the girls wore.

"Can I have one?" the boy asked, " i think they seem really nice"

"which one would you like?" the monks questioned/

" I don't care. Any of them will be fine"

the moral is, that if you raise them together they learn what each other are like. if you isolate them. they don't have the ability to make judgments, good or bad, when they get old.

That kind of socialization DOES interfer with ones learning experience. Yes, kids should be allowed to socialize because otherwise you are going to have some really bored kids, but I think the people your child socializes with should be monitored.

Washington, DC -- About the only thing amusing in the "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" case is imagining that the justices of the U.S. Supreme Court may have had to utter the phrase repeatedly before issuing the 5-4 ruling that squeezed off another breath of free speech.

Oh, to be a fly on the wall as Antonin Scalia and Samuel Alito rolled up their sleeves to bat around the definition of "bong" first as a noun, then as a modifier of "hits" and conclude that their attachment to "4" and "Jesus" constituted an undermining of school officials' efforts to educate students about illegal drugs.

It's hard to believe that not one of the justices chuckled, or at least snickered. So silly an expression must have tickled even the taciturn Clarence Thomas -- or maybe not. Maybe when you get to the sit on the highest bench, you forget there's such a thing as simple youthful mischief.

Evidently, the court's majority has. Otherwise, it would have chucked the case.

But no. A gang of five, including Chief Justice John Roberts, felt the case worthy of attention, using it to chip off a piece of precedence and cheapen a 1969 ruling that said children do not "shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate."

The case began when an Alaska high school principal, peeved that a student hoisted a banner with the phrase along a public sidewalk when the Olympic torch was carried past the school, suspended him. She said he was advocating drug use when all the teenager was doing was trying to get on television. It was a lame attempt to claim his 15 minutes of fame.

He sued, saying his free speech rights were violated and an appeals court agreed that he had cause. The principal and her school board argued they acted correctly because watching the torch relay was school sanctioned and the message on the banner was promoting illegal drug use.

That's as nonsensical as the phrase is vague. Roberts admitted the phrase was "cryptic" but said it wasn't unreasonable for the principal to interpret it as pushing drugs.

He applied a different standard in justifying another of the court's free speech rulings that loosened the chain on political campaign ads paid for by special interest groups.

"Where the first amendment is implicated, the tie goes to the speaker," Roberts said, referring to the groups, and "not the censor," meaning campaign-spending laws.

However, in the "bong hits" case, the tie goes to the censor; the speaker is muzzled.

School officials have the heavy responsibility of maintaining a safe, comfortable campus environment. To do so, they've adopted myriad rules about behavior. They've made long lists of things that aren't acceptable to bring to school and crafted "values" lessons about harassment, hazing and cyberbullying.

Hawaii's Board of Education has been wrestling with conduct codes, tiptoeing through a potential minefield of constitutional issues in proposing to allow school officials to search students' lockers without cause and to expand a drug-detection program.

Some believe limits on students' rights do no harm. After all, they're only kids, which is what the court's majority seems to have overlooked.

"Bong Hits 4 Jesus" does incorporate druggie jargon, but followed by the tech-text substitute for "for" and reference to a deity would hardly induce anyone to start puffing pot, as the court and Alaska school officials argue. Maybe it wasn't just the "bong hits" part that disturbed them.

Cynthia Oi has been on the staff of the Star-Bulletin since 1976

The only thing that socialization does is make excuses for all behaviour. It takes the responsibility out of the hands of people. The next step is Fascism. You don't want to go down that road.

Nothing , in any case teacher is superior to student , only students learn from teachers , but nowadays teachers are learning from students its very sad .

It's all about 'choice'. If a child wants to learn something, right or wrong, they will. And the same goes for adults.