My 3 and half year old son has been pulling hair (of other children at school). It started a few months ago, until then he would pull my hair only. A few months ago, after repeatedly telling him don't pull hair, he stopped pulling my hair at home but started doing so at school instead and now he does it at home and at school. He is a bright kid, but just does not understand pulling hair, hitting, scratching hurt. He is also in a class where everone (who is over 4) communicates much better than he does, and his behavior seems to have worsened gradually since he was moved to this new class (gradually over a year or so and last week he started hitting and scratching!). No amount of talking, time out, and spanking helps(did it out of frustration and realized its wrong!). While changing environments (school) is an option, what if the behavior does not stop even with that done. Is it the environment, lack of ability to communicate, or in general a stage that some 3 year olds go through? How do I hadle this so that the other children are safe and the root cause of this agression is taken care of so that my son is happy as well?

Hello, I'm new to the site so hope this post finds you well :) I'm still very much learning non-coercion myself, and whilst I solidly believe in the concept, it doesn't always come naturally. I often revert back to labelling people 'bad' and verbally disapproving without even realising I'm doing it, but I hope practice will make pefect.

With this in mind, how would one pass on the philosophy to authoritarians? I am finding acquaintances will follow an example to fit in whilst I'm in their company, but some frown upon 'weak, namby pambying' around children and some will challenge the notion that children aren't simply bad people who need to be forced into good ones!

So how can I reason with parents and carers of children who do not want to change? Or is this just another form of coercion?

As the world slips deeper and deeper into a dependence on Information Technology, the future of online learning and digital technology seem inevitable. Computers are no longer restricted to computer technology classes. They have made their way into every learning environment. Within the next ten years, initiatives such as “One Laptop per Child” promise global access to the internet for all children regardless of their infrastructure and level of poverty. If so, demand for computer-based learning concepts that are adaptable and accessible will likely skyrocket. With children representing such a significant segment of the user demographic, let us examine the advantages and drawbacks of video-game technology. Countless renowned scholars embrace the future of video games as learning tools, but there remains a social stigma that inhibits progress on moral grounds. This blog entry intends to examine the highly popular video games of today for their enormous educative potential. In the process, a series of popular beliefs and misconceptions will be discussed and hopefully clarified.

Games, just like any learning exercises, come with a set of values that ultimately teach a moral lesson. These values, explicit or implicit, may even differ from the intended pedagogical lesson. Below are some simple games that, when applied to a classroom, teach various moral lessons.

Nobel Prize winning mathematician, John Nash (1951) developed a series of games that he applied to mathematical analysis of the patterns of human behaviour known as Game Theory. One of his best known challenges is a game aptly named “Fuck-You, Buddy”, then changed to the more appropriate “So Long, Sucker” (Although most scholars still lovingly refer to it by its original name). The game involves three or more players sitting in a circle. Each player has a set of seven uniquely coloured chips. The fun begins when each player in turn places a chip on the table in a stack. When two chips of the same colour are placed in a row, the corresponding player may collect the stack. When a player has no more chips he or she is eliminated. Players may hold each other’s chips hostage, and any deal may be made or broken at any time as long as it is made at the table. The last player at the table wins.

This game, on a pedagogical level, is effective in teaching strategy, negotiation skills, and cooperation while applying mathematical equations to real life. This basic game structure is used in many mainstream board games such as Monopoly, Risk and Diplomacy to name a few. But, what are the moral values that players take away from this game?