Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Schools should not bend over backwards for disruptive kids. Discuss Watch

    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by doodle_333)
    I am not saying naughty children should have no boundaries or punishment and we shouldn't attempt to get them to behave acceptably. What I am saying is that giving constant negative feedback (via punishment) while ignoring the root issues (low self esteem, trauma, attachment difficulties, anxiety, etc) doesn't work. You only turn that young person off to education and all the people around them who could have made a positive impact. For the extremes of behaviour the root issue needs to be dealt with and doing that is going to have more of a positive impact than threatening them to have to spend more time at home.

    As for children doing well in dire circumstances, yes, of course. Some people deal with horrible abuse and come out as a pretty well rounded and healthy individual but others don't. You can't erase one child's pain and say they aren't allowed to struggle just because another child managed better.

    I see nothing in those links I have specifically disagreed with. The question was whether schools should put resources into difficult kids, i.e. whether they 'deserve' time/money. I have said I believe they do due to the reasons I've explained. Punishment must be consistent but it must always come with the opportunity to make reparations and improve with a clean slate (i.e. the child should ALWAYS apologise and then get to come in to a member of staff who is cheerful as if nothing happened the following lesson).
    It seems we don't actually disagree that much. Except "I've said that threats to send them home will not help and they won't. " = Not every child may see it as a punishment, but it will at least protect the other children, who have the right to be safe, too. You can send them to a PRU if you prefer this.

    Now, making a child "apologise", IMO that is something that does not work. Either they mean it, in which case it is not necessary, or they don't mean it, in which case they are just mocking their victims. In neither case it is a "reparation".
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    I've been to a few schools in my life and in a selfish way I say no not at all. Landing to the misbehaving creates a system of tailoring to the lowest in the class, creates a system where those of greater potential do not get to achieve that potential because teachers are too busy trying to pick up people who seemingly don't care how low they are going.

    And I don't mean that in a I blame others for my failings I don't. Fortunately I had Very wealthy grandparents to back me up, where school failed me then by fortune of birth I was able to achieve much that I would have been able to at school without the worst in the class. The ones it effects the most are those that don't have that advantage, whom have potential but not money to back it up and as such are effectively held back by their misbehaving classmates.

    But then on the opposing side maybe bending over backwards for the disruptive stops them becoming criminals and so on. The answer I give to that is it probably doesn't. The most disruptive from my schools became the most disruptive for society.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    I think children should be intensely streamed according to their behaviour rather than 'ability'. Quieter kids suffer a lot in classrooms, sometimes it's unbearable and (in my case) can lead to social anxiety. Mixing quiet kids with loud moron kids always leads to teasing and bullying. If you dread every single lesson because of the people in your class, you're more likely to under-perform. It's appalling that little is done about this and that being quiet is actually considered a concern by most teachers. Not everyone is a social butterfly. So many children at secondary school would be less miserable if only state schools realised that and addressed it.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    If the purpose of schooling is to help the young prepare for adult life generally then should not some of schools' budgets be allocated to addressing pupils' difficulties, even if many of these derive from their upbringing at home?

    If the purpose of schooling is to prepare the young for a life of compliant submission to authorities (bosses, politicians, bankers..) then should not some of schools' budgets be allocated to addressing the disruptive behaviour with a view to turning it round?
    Offline

    17
    I think they should be at least separated from other hard working students.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    my old school took a pretty sensible line if you had finished the course work but got expelled you could come back for the GCSE you would be escorted to the exam and escorted off the premises again afterwards you also would not be allowed back to collect your results on results day and your books would be taken at the end of exams in stead of signing out all in one go.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by doodle_333)
    I think probably the people it's hardest for are those in lower sets at school (where the naughty kids are) who are hard working and have to cope with half a class of trouble makers. Those are the kids who miss out on support because it's all going to controlling the loud kids. We should also be making those students a priority. It's also a potential argument for scrapping setting as then badly behaved students would be more spread out, watering down their effect on others.
    Spreading the badly behaved kids out doesn't work either. All it takes is a couple of troublemakers to ruin it for everyone. It's better to round up all those kids into a 'naughty' class with some horrible teacher, so at least the quieter kids won't have to worry about being picked on.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by llys)
    It seems we don't actually disagree that much. Except "I've said that threats to send them home will not help and they won't. " = Not every child may see it as a punishment, but it will at least protect the other children, who have the right to be safe, too. You can send them to a PRU if you prefer this.

    Now, making a child "apologise", IMO that is something that does not work. Either they mean it, in which case it is not necessary, or they don't mean it, in which case they are just mocking their victims. In neither case it is a "reparation".
    eh, I think shoving them all in a PRU doesn't work, you'll expose more minor offenders to much worse ones and create a place where the culture is for poor behaviour and little is expected, they won't acheive anything there

    I don't think safety is a massive concern, it's not common for the really bad kids to suddenly attack a nice, well behaved kid... they tend to fight among themselves

    I'm sure most kids who apologise don't mean it but it's still demonstrating what they need to do, practicing social norms and to be honest in life sometimes we have to apologise when we don't mean it in order to fix a situation and it's good practice for that

    (Original post by MaskOfKeaton)
    I think children should be intensely streamed according to their behaviour rather than 'ability'. Quieter kids suffer a lot in classrooms, sometimes it's unbearable and (in my case) can lead to social anxiety. Mixing quiet kids with loud moron kids always leads to teasing and bullying. If you dread every single lesson because of the people in your class, you're more likely to under-perform. It's appalling that little is done about this and that being quiet is actually considered a concern by most teachers. Not everyone is a social butterfly. So many children at secondary school would be less miserable if only state schools realised that and addressed it.
    Quiet kids do need to learn how to cope with being around loud and abrasive people, they're going to have to deal with them at work and I say that as someone who was very quiet at school

    (Original post by MaskOfKeaton)
    Spreading the badly behaved kids out doesn't work either. All it takes is a couple of troublemakers to ruin it for everyone. It's better to round up all those kids into a 'naughty' class with some horrible teacher, so at least the quieter kids won't have to worry about being picked on.
    bullying needs to be dealt with if it occurs and money should go towards making sure quiet kids get extra activities and so on to boost their confidence but shoving all the bad kids in a room together and writing them off is not a solution, some of those kids could be decent people given the chance and I believe all kids should be given the chance
    • TSR Support Team
    • Very Important Poster
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by doodle_333)
    bullying needs to be dealt with if it occurs and money should go towards making sure quiet kids get extra activities and so on to boost their confidence but shoving all the bad kids in a room together and writing them off is not a solution, some of those kids could be decent people given the chance and I believe all kids should be given the chance
    So, what is the solution?

    My school did nothing. Their response to bullying was to ignore it. I was told they'd sort it out if I did come in. They didn't. In the end, I had to change tutor groups just to get away from the bullies.

    Oh, and I was told that sexual harassment was ok too.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tiger Rag)
    So, what is the solution?

    My school did nothing. Their response to bullying was to ignore it. I was told they'd sort it out if I did come in. They didn't. In the end, I had to change tutor groups just to get away from the bullies.

    Oh, and I was told that sexual harassment was ok too.
    There isn't a perfect one. Ideally between punishment, mediation, interventions for the kids problems and modelling good behaviour you can get a handle on the bullying. Obviously that won't work in every case, but I still don't think that means we should write off every kid who seems a bit nasty... working in a school I see the other side of those kids a lot and I'm not saying their behaviour is okay but a lot of them have the potential to be good people and have been through a lot of tough stuff.

    I would support students being removed if they are a genuine danger to others - i.e. physically attacking other students, sexual harassment etc.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Brussels sprouts
    Useful resources
    Uni match

    Applying to uni?

    Our tool will help you find the perfect course

    Articles:

    Debate and current affairs guidelinesDebate and current affairs wiki

    Quick link:

    Educational debate unanswered threads

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.