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

I'm not saying that I know what the solution is.
Just that violence could easily do the opposite of what you want it to do.

Exactly, and that's what happens. People have an attitude of "I'm untouchable, you can't do anything about it, I'll do what i want!" and it needs to stop.

I agree, although this is cliched I believe that in schools we focus too much on the kids who are not behaving as they should at the expense of everyone else as well as their victims.

True. A school I know rewarded 'bad' kids who hasn't misbehaved for a week by taking them on a trip. This resulted in an A grade student saying "so I might as well piss about for a week and then act nice so I get a trip..."

Thats shocking, although my school does similar things on a somewhat smaller scale, I hope the A grade student made good on his threat.

In regard to corporal punishment, personally I'd suggest it would do the opposite to what you want.
You tend to find that violence results in more violence. People who are subject to violence are taught that violence is the answer, and so use it themselves. Certainly when I was in school, the people who would hit others for no reason etc etc (the chavs if you like) were often the ones who come from violent families.

The Cane. It worked. Discipline and respect for the self and for authority actually existed.

imsoacademic is a realist and you are an idealist; unfortunately we do not live in an ideal world with infinite resources and where everyone will turn out well in the end.

Retake your A-levels then.



Yes, because you are always right yourself.

I am not an idealist at all. And imsoacademic is certainly not living in the real world.




Re-taking A levels isn't always an option. And if you can get into university and take it from there anyway, there's no need.
and I'm not always right, but I generally don't say things that are ridiculous, and get negged all of the time because everyone else can see I'm wrong but me.
I'm sorry I just can't stand people as high and mighty as you, sitting on your high horse thinking you're better than everyone else, and thinking we should help NO ONE who needs it.

You just can't keep away

You are an idealist as you fail to accept that in a country with limited money, it's not financially viable to allow these people into our education system, when they waste not just their own chance of an education but ruin it for others

Why should a university let a student with poor grades in on the off chance that they might not do badly at the degree? She, is not saying that students who are not very bright should not recieve, she is saying that those who should misbehave should be permanently taking out of the classroom; if anything this would be better for those who want to learn but need help.

I feel that you should leave im so academic's negative rep out of the debate as it's meaningless unless you can show that it was justified, furthermore the sort of people who leave -rep are often the sort who can't be bothered to formulate a coherant argument.

Look back over ALL of her posts, it's justified.

The country has limited money, but that doesn't mean it shouldn spend the money it has on making our society better!
I've explained how just kicking them out as children without trying to teach them better will actually cost us money, as they will end up living on the welfare state, being criminals (clearly costing a lot of money), etc. That's not positive in any way.

I've explained how if they are handled properly, they won't "ruin it for others".

No, it isn't it's just an ad hominem attack based on her reputation (Quite literally)

Of course money should be spend on making society better, thats why it should not be wasted on these people, they do not want to be in school learning, so instead of paying for them to be there let them leave, and focus on those who want to learn. If they end up unemployed (Which they shouldn't as there always seems to be a toilet which needs cleaning) slash their benefits, if they didn't want to help themselves at school, why should society help them when they've failed at life. If they turn to crime arrest them and give them hard labour to repay their debt to society.

Firstly they ruin it for others by being naughty, then they ruin for others by having resources (teachers time, textbooks and often rewards for almost normal behaviour) directed at them, which would be better spend on well behaved children who actually want to learn (Even if they are not A* students)

Didn't make an effort in school, a black mark should be put next to their name and they should receive no benefits-easy

I seriously think you're missing the point. It's not WASTING money paying for these children, because they will mostly GET BETTER, and so they won't become a BURDEN to society and DANGEROUS to society.
And btw, even cleaning jobs are difficult to get ahold of at the moment. See the other thread about unemployment.

It's not as simple as "just give them hard labour"... You're talking about changing society a hell of a lot, costing MORE money, and going back several steps in human rights... etc. These things are just impractical.

Workhouses then re-open those, lodgings and a bowl of gruel for anyone willing to work.

It wouldn't cost more money, low skilled jobs currently done by public sector workers would be done by criminal scumbags; in return the government would give more tax cuts to businesses allowed those made redundant to give into new, maybe even better employment.

Why should society tolerate those who refuse to obey the rules; we return to the argument that you have no evidence that the children become reformed characters.

Then you condem a few million more people to life under the poverty line. You create a social underclass. And you still havent dealt with their problems.

I was just wondering what your opinions are on this issue, because I'm sure most of us have experienced students who plain and simple aren't interested in learning and so stop everyone else from learning. I mean personally I think if someone doesnt want to learn and has demonstrated this fact they should be taken out of education as they're a detriment to people who want to learn. Although I do see that there may be some issues with this.

Anyway I was wondering what other students opinions were.

In sixth form, certainly, they should be kicked out. there should be a three strikes or you're out rule. in class, teachers need to be more consistent with giving out punishments/failing students who don't meet deadlines. if kids are still disruptive (and under 16) they need to be taken out of class, get whatever support they need to sort out their problems, incl. home ones, they reinserted into the class, when they can cope with it. and a more positive attitude to education needs to be encouraged.