The Student Room Group

What do you think should be done about disruptive students in lessons?

Scroll to see replies

Reply 440
THE CANE!
Muahahhahahahaah :P
Original post by patientology
You clearly never had an asperger child in your class. There is no way you can deal with them. They interrupt the classes and annoy everyone. Why should they allowed to do this?


Aspergers kids have issues, it's not they're fault. And besides, if it bothers you so much- work hard so you're not put in the class with numpties.
Original post by Emaemmaemily
This just shows that you haven't read my points at all.
Yes, you send them out of the classroom... then someone else deals with them, both in a diciplinary way, and in a way that helps them change if necessary. After this they will be allowed back in to behave. If they begin to misbehave again, they will be sent out again.
This causes next to no disruption of the other children's education.


Yes but the somebody else needs paying, this in my opinion is one of the issues, why should the government pay out to have someone supervising ill behaved children when that money would be better spent teacheing those who actually want to learn; at my school if a child was sent to time out (as it was called) many boasted about how much they enjoyed being able to mess around with other naughty pupils. This in itself is not a problem (As they are not in the class disrupting lessons), but what is a problem is the fact that the school was paying someone to look after them whilst they were out of the classroom.
Original post by PendulumBoB
Yes but the somebody else needs paying, this in my opinion is one of the issues, why should the government pay out to have someone supervising ill behaved children when that money would be better spent teacheing those who actually want to learn; at my school if a child was sent to time out (as it was called) many boasted about how much they enjoyed being able to mess around with other naughty pupils. This in itself is not a problem (As they are not in the class disrupting lessons), but what is a problem is the fact that the school was paying someone to look after them whilst they were out of the classroom.


Because looking after them, punishing them, and then giving them the opportunity to better themselves is worth the money, and is what schools are FOR.
The money can be better spent teaching those who want to learn? It's already being spent on that. There's already a good teacher in that classroom talking to the class about Romeo and Juliette, and paying someone (and I actually meant someone like head of groups who already exist) to deal with and sort out the naughty kids means that teacher can carry on AND you don't necessarily have to have another failure who's a hindrance to society when they leave.
Original post by Knowledgemofo
Train teachers to deal with them or toughen up disciplinary procedures which aim to rehabilitate those pupils. That's the most an education establishment can do.

A change in their home environment is the only real thing that can change the conduct of these disruptive pupils. But that will cost money. And there are a range of factors which may cause children to be disruptive (some which seem to be overlooked), so really you can't truly ever stop them.
The idea that those pupils should be chucked out, no questions asked, just represents the elitist value system by those who propone that idea.

So if you can't eliminate disruptive pupils, more opportunities should be given to the dedicated pupils such as the availability of homework clubs.


Just permanently excluding disruptive pupils will only generate controversy, especially if the majority of those pupils happen to come from the lower socio-economic groups; the elitist thinking that we should chuck out the 'weak' - disruptive - pupils whom hold back progress would doubtlessly generate that controversy.


So I'd side with more opportunities for brighter children, especially since tougher school disciplinary systems will hardly do anything for schools or colleges in 'bad areas'.


No no no no no, your idea of homework clubs for dedicated pupils is absurd; why should the school have to hire teachers to teach lessons for those who want to learn outside school hours. Do you realise how expensive that would be? What's wrong with controversy? If a pupil is ruining there own education and that of someone else; for the benefit of the majority remove him/her from the class. If they mess around they will probably fail anyway so why delay the inevitable when other people's future is at stake?
Reply 445
There really is no easy answer.
Original post by Emaemmaemily
Because looking after them, punishing them, and then giving them the opportunity to better themselves is worth the money, and is what schools are FOR.
The money can be better spent teaching those who want to learn? It's already being spent on that. There's already a good teacher in that classroom talking to the class about Romeo and Juliette, and paying someone (and I actually meant someone like head of groups who already exist) to deal with and sort out the naughty kids means that teacher can carry on AND you don't necessarily have to have another failure who's a hindrance to society when they leave.


You have no evidence that it is good for society; if they are naughty they will probably get s*** results anyway, but will also ruin it for the rest of the class. Schools are there to teach not to babysit juvenile deliquents-Disce aut Discede. There are already a hinderence to society in that society is paying out for them to go to school where they ruin the experience for others.

PS. Please clarify you point about head of groups who already exist
Original post by py0alb
There really is no easy answer.


Yes there is; expel them and force them to go straight into the world of work.
Reply 448
Original post by PendulumBoB
Yes there is; expel them and force them to go straight into the world of work.


What, at 13 years old?
Original post by SophiaKeuning
No. It's more wet to think 'woe to me, some kids are chatting and I CANT LEARN!', it's pathetic if you suffer because some kids are talking (and that's all they'd be doing; the real distruptive kids are dealt with. ) Wake up, that's real life. Not all sunshine and loveliness, you can't remove everything you dislike. Little goes your way, deal with it. People on this forum are so conservative, it's hilarious. You act like some stern backward school master from a Dickens novel.


The real disruptions are not dealt with effectively; why because what can the teacher do when the pupil who is told to leave the classroom refuses to leave the classroom. You call the poster wet when he is the victim, not the little s*** who is wasting governement money and ruining other peoples education.
Original post by PendulumBoB
You have no evidence that it is good for society; if they are naughty they will probably get s*** results anyway, but will also ruin it for the rest of the class. Schools are there to teach not to babysit juvenile deliquents-Disce aut Discede. There are already a hinderence to society in that society is paying out for them to go to school where they ruin the experience for others.

PS. Please clarify you point about head of groups who already exist


As I've explained... Many "naughty" children won't STAY that way if you discipline them and teach them. Yes, schools are for teaching, and that include the children who resist at first because they don't UNDERSTAND the implications... I've explained all of this before.
It makes perfect sociological sense.

In our school we had "head of hall" or "head of faculty"... These people mostly sat around in their office doing stuff, and if someone was particularly naughty they would be sent to them for discipline and "a talk". It worked for a lot of them.
Original post by SophiaKeuning
No. It's more wet to think 'woe to me, some kids are chatting and I CANT LEARN!', it's pathetic if you suffer because some kids are talking (and that's all they'd be doing; the real distruptive kids are dealt with. ) Wake up, that's real life. Not all sunshine and loveliness, you can't remove everything you dislike. Little goes your way, deal with it. People on this forum are so conservative, it's hilarious. You act like some stern backward school master from a Dickens novel.



'Little goes your way, deal with it'? Sure, I'll deal with it by making those idiots shut up.

Have you ever thought that kids can't learn because the teacher has to tell some stupid moron to shut up every few minutes? Back in yr 9 the class I was in was so disruptive with a teacher we only managed to cover an eighth of the work we were meant to. 'Real life' was when those little tits got a cane to the the neck and did not talk again. In the real world these morons would never get employed or would be fired.
Original post by Emaemmaemily
As I've explained... Many "naughty" children won't STAY that way if you discipline them and teach them. Yes, schools are for teaching, and that include the children who resist at first because they don't UNDERSTAND the implications... I've explained all of this before.
It makes perfect sociological sense.

In our school we had "head of hall" or "head of faculty"... These people mostly sat around in their office doing stuff, and if someone was particularly naughty they would be sent to them for discipline and "a talk". It worked for a lot of them.


It may make sociological sense but does it make economic sense; they are wasting government money in being at school-so expel them, if this leads to a life of crime then chain them up and force them to work on the road side for 16 hours a day until they learn their lesson.

Why should a busy head of department have his/her schedule messed up just to take to some kid who has not quite mastered social regualtion?

Provide me with evidence that bad behaved pupils do change-If someone is too stupid to understand the implications of doing badly at school, then they probably too stupid to be in school.
Original post by py0alb
What, at 13 years old?


Why not? I've that small hands are often usefull in the cotton mills.
They ought to be hung, drawn and quartered :wink:
Original post by PendulumBoB
The real disruptions are not dealt with effectively; why because what can the teacher do when the pupil who is told to leave the classroom refuses to leave the classroom. You call the poster wet when he is the victim, not the little s*** who is wasting governement money and ruining other peoples education.


:teehee: Naw, he called me wet first for being liberal. And seriously, he's a victim? If all you and him have in your lives that classify any kind of reason for being victimized is naughty kids in school, then I.. well what can I say?
What kind of school did you go to? I went to the typical state school, and yeah at the beginning kids were idiots and you did get the few who would piss about and get suspended and eventually expelled. But that was when the work really wasn't hard, concentration wasn't needed at all so no one really took it that seriously. Later on when things become important you get put into sets, no one's really disruptive in the higher sets and in the lower, no one really cares. I really doubt that you couldn't reach you're full potential because some people would talk a bit too loud for your liking.
(edited 12 years ago)
Original post by PendulumBoB
It may make sociological sense but does it make economic sense; they are wasting government money in being at school-so expel them, if this leads to a life of crime then chain them up and force them to work on the road side for 16 hours a day until they learn their lesson.

Why should a busy head of department have his/her schedule messed up just to take to some kid who has not quite mastered social regualtion?

Provide me with evidence that bad behaved pupils do change-If someone is too stupid to understand the implications of doing badly at school, then they probably too stupid to be in school.


You're just being un-realistic now. Chaining them up? God.
Like I said, it's not all about the money. This is sustainable.
A life of crime makes it worse for the rest of us.

As I've said, lots of children mature and get over it. I don't see how you think none of them do.
Original post by Ich Dien
Pay for their education, then kick them out of school -> Pay for their benfits instead.
They dont magically disappear.. Your just setting the precedence for the rest of their lives. poverty.

Your choice. Out of sight, out of mind?
The system will never work, there is no final solution :rolleyes:


Didn't make an effort in school, a black mark should be put next to their name and they should receive no benefits-easy
Original post by PonchoKid
my french teacher did this once :')
she told everyone to get out if they hadnt done their homework, i think there was maximum of 5 people left IN the room. our year head happened to walk past at that moment in time, and asked why we were all stood outside.
pretty classic really!

but it doesnt work...


If 5 people want to learn and the rest don't, let the others go and allow the teacher to focus his/her time on those who want to get somewhere in life.
My foster brother has learning difficulties and came to my old secondary school for a short stint (I was in year 11 at the time and he was in year 7). He found learning and behaving incredibly hard and just didn't turn up to lessons. It wouldn't be at all odd to look out the window in a maths lesson to see him crawling around under parked cars with 2 or 3 learning assistants desperately trying to find him. He got moved to a special school (they just seem to go bowling and to the cinema constantly) and he finds it much less stressful.

I don't think these kids should just be chucked out the education system, apart from anything else, later in life they'll be living at the tax payers expense. At the same time though, I used to hate the fact that the teachers in my classes often had to wait for some idiot in the back to behave, or pause halfway through what they were saying to tell them off, or listen to them talking during a test. It is off-putting and it isn't fair to those kids who really do want to learn.

Most disruptive kids already have 1-1's and extra learning support, I'm not sure what else the government could be doing. The system isn't perfect by any means but at the same time I can't see how they would improve it without negative counter-effects elsewhere.

Quick Reply

Latest