Turn on thread page Beta

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

    Offline

    13
    (Original post by Emaemmaemily)
    It is society's responsibility to TEACH this to them. They aren't going to magically know it. Some parents are idiots and don't teach their children anything useful... That doesn't mean society should shun these children because it's not their own fault.
    What if they don't listen to "society teaching them"?

    If they don't listen to their teachers, who's to say they'll listen to that?

    Schools should teach this to them, guide them, and help them become better people.
    Of course, if this fails and the continue THEN consider expelling them, but it's the school's responsibility to try first. More often then not they'll make another useful member of society, intead of expelling a useless child and dooming them to staying that way.
    They do.

    Like I said yesterday, it's HARD to expell a pupil and schools are RELUNCTANT to do it (due to financial reasons).

    You think schools don't try? Precious funding lost, oh and their reputation is in stake.

    Sometimes the best option IS expulsion.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PendulumBoB)
    Perhaps school should be optional; those who don't want to be there can self study or learn a trade or mess up their own lives, but ultimately as long as they're not messing up other peoples education then fine. Most people who are at school do not really benefit from it intellectuallyperhaps it should be reserved for the elite or creme de la creme (If anyone sees where I am going) so that they can have more resources focused on them so that this country can produce better academics.
    Tell ANY 8 year old that they don't have to go to school any more if they don't want, see what they say. Making school optional is a ridiculous idea. Education IS optional after the age of 16, people are old enough to make life decisions by that age. Lots of kids have parents who don't care because they didn't do well at school. Believe it or not, they are very few children who have their life set out, and are eager to learn and get qualifications and get a good job. Children are more interested in making their friends laugh. If school was optional from a young age, no-one would go.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    Perhaps the solution is segregation? Not necessarily in the negative sense either, give the pupils who want to learn more time with teachers, and segregate individuals who do not want to learn elsewhere, kicking out of school should only be the last resort anyway.

    The first point of segregation should be a return to vocational subjects, at the time a child picks their GCSE subjects, children should have the option if they so wish to go to a vocational college, not only will this help kids who prefer to work with their hands and are not suited to academia find a good, well paid job in the future [as Skilled workers are a rapidly declining luxury nowadays] but also contribute more to society i as opposed to ending up with crap GCSEs at the end of the current system. These vocational colleges would teach basic English language and Math, with any further relevant subjects being taught within the course itself. This is a win-win situation, some pupils are disruptive because they are simply not suited to academia, and are bored because they simply do not want to comprehend it, this then impacts learning of those who ARE suited to academia, and do comprehend what is going on. Splitting these two groups would allow the kids who are much better with their hands, and more suited to vocational things to find a more meaningful education and thus become less disruptive, whilst allowing kids who do like to work with Academia to have an overall more positive experience.
    There is a reason why grammar schools do so well, the selection process does not necessarily weed out disruptive pupils, but it does weed out quite a few and so the overall environment is more positive.
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by lukas1051)
    You are absolutely right.

    People find it hard to understand that kids are disruptive for a large number of reasons. It's not simply a case of not wanting to learn. Maybe this is true in the case of a 15 year old with GCSEs coming up, they're still being disruptive, they don't care about their exams , they think it's all a big laugh - these are people who aren't bothered about their education. These are the people who if you kicked them out it wouldn't make a difference to their lives.

    A 12 year old on the other hand probably hasn't realised the relative importance of their education. A few months before GCSE is when people start to realise that what they're going to do matters, not in year 8. These kids are disruptive because people find it funny. It's important to disclipline them and teach them rather than to give up on them. I know people who a couple of years ago were really disruptive, class clowns, always in trouble... now they're doing their A-levels and planning to go to university. It's not fair just to give up on people after one offence.

    I'm in sixth form and no-one is disruptive now. There's no point, we're all there by choice, we're there to get A-levels for whatever reason. If someone is disruptive, the teacher just tells them to get out, it's their education they are jeapordising, and we have realised this by the age of 17.
    There is a word called "habits".

    If behaviour like that is tolerated at 15, they will still persist at 15.

    Like all students undergo a miraculous change at 15. :rofl: I want to see that happen.
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by lukas1051)
    Tell ANY 8 year old that they don't have to go to school any more if they don't want, see what they say. Making school optional is a ridiculous idea. Education IS optional after the age of 16, people are old enough to make life decisions by that age. Lots of kids have parents who don't care because they didn't do well at school. Believe it or not, they are very few children who have their life set out, and are eager to learn and get qualifications and get a good job. Children are more interested in making their friends laugh. If school was optional from a young age, no-one would go.
    The school leaving age is being raised.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by im so academic)
    It is an excuse. Why should my education be disrupted because there are people within my class who cannot shut up and this is due to their "home issues"?

    Take them out of the classroom then.



    And if they don't co-operate?



    And if they don't co-operate?



    What if they don't want the help?
    What if they misbehave again when they are allowed back in?



    But if they don't co-operate?



    What if they don't change their ways?
    What if they refuse to co-operate?



    Yes, but think about how their presence in the classroom has impacted on other people's education.



    What if they don't want the guidance?
    What if they refuse to co-operate?

    OK, here's a situation for you: a 12 year old brings a knife into a classroom and threatens to stab other students?

    And don't say things like that don't happen.

    "An 11 year old boy had a knife at school and threatened two pupils. The head teacher permanently excluded him but he was reinstated by an independent appeals panel".

    How in God's name could you suggest the boy did not know what he was doing?
    Are you seriously going to use the "family background card" again?
    Don't tell me you agree with the decision of the independent appeals panel.

    Trust me, no kid who brings a knife to school should EVER go near a school again. I don't care if he has changed or not, *******s.

    It's like paedophiles - would you like an ex-paedophile to teach your children?

    And yes, they are comparable. That ******* kid knew FULL WELL what he was doing.

    It's people like you who are ruining the education system in this country.
    How can you compare a naive 12 year old child who is a bit loud... To a disturbed child who stabs someone, or paedophiles.
    A child who threatens to hurt someone that seriously should be removed for everyone's SAFETY, paedophiles are adults so can't be compared.

    You keep repeating "what if they don't co-operate?"... I explained. It's the school's responsibility to TRY, to give them a few chances, and to guide them. As I've already said, if they refuse to and continue regardless, there comes a point where they SHOULD be expelled. But not immediately.
    Like I've said, I agree with removing them from the classroom so they don't distrupt others too much, but that doesn't mean giving up on them completely from there.
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by Emaemmaemily)
    How can you compare a naive 12 year old child who is a bit loud... To a disturbed child who stabs someone, or paedophiles.
    A child who threatens to hurt someone that seriously should be removed for everyone's SAFETY, paedophiles are adults so can't be compared.
    Not all 12 year olds are naive. They know what they are doing - so do paedophiles.

    Exactly, you have advocated expulsion with regards to SAFETY, but what about at the EXPENSE OF OTHER PEOPLE'S EDUCATION?

    How can you expect a teacher to teach when you've got a group of ******* kids at the back holding everyone up?

    You keep repeating "what if they don't co-operate?"... I explained. It's the school's responsibility to TRY, to give them a few chances, and to guide them.
    A few chances? What's a few? 3, 13, infinite?

    The reason I keep repeating that sentence is because you ASSUME the children will co-operate with the school.

    They do not. They can try, but they will not respond.

    As I've already said, if they refuse to and continue regardless, there comes a point where they SHOULD be expelled. But not immediately.
    At what point? After many years and during that time dozens of childrens' education have been disrupted?

    Like I've said, I agree with removing them from the classroom so they don't distrupt others too much, but that doesn't mean giving up on them completely from there.
    Depends on the child - if they are unwilling to co-operate.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by im so academic)
    There is a word called "habits".

    If behaviour like that is tolerated at 15, they will still persist at 15.

    Like all students undergo a miraculous change at 15. :rofl: I want to see that happen.
    What I'm saying is that people change. Maybe not overnight, but if you can start to discipline disruptive children at the age of 12, you can change them by the time they're 15. I am aware that some people will never change, I've been to school, we all know the types... but you can't make the assumption that anyone who is disruptive is not useful to society, and kick them out onto the streets.

    (Original post by im so academic)
    The school leaving age is being raised.
    Yes I am aware, and I never said I agree with it. Personally, I think forcing all students to stay on to the age of 18 is a ridiculous notion, because there are some kids will never care about their education. But some people on this thread are suggesting kicking kids out of school at the age of 10 for being disruptive, which is frankly ridiculous.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Kick them out of education? no.
    Move them to another form of education? yes.

    School comes too soon. There should be a break at the age of 14/15/16, there is then the option to come back and get minimal qualifications. This way people realize the improtance of education.

    School is flawed however, the classroom environment doesnt work for everyone... The compulsory learning stint is abolsutely idiotic. The moment my teachers stopped caring about me is the moment I started caring about myself, and gained the respect of my piers and teachers.

    The whole system needs a bit of an overhaul IMO.



    But to those who think they should be excluded outright. Who the hell do you think you are. If you whine and get your way, you are doing nothing more than disrupting someone elses potential to be educated. Congratulations hypocrit.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by im so academic)
    It is an excuse. Why should my education be disrupted because there are people within my class who cannot shut up and this is due to their "home issues"?

    Take them out of the classroom then.
    it isnt an excuse, it is an actual reason. some people cant deal with things, and as a release of anger/hatred they let it out by disrupting. its a known fact. in my school i had a look at the names on the files in our exclusion department, and i bet you about 99% of those names had issues at home...
    so you gonna tell me now its an excuse?

    (Original post by im so academic)

    And if they don't co-operate?



    And if they don't co-operate?
    your actually starting to sound like a broken record.
    people DO cooperate, even the people that are the worst.
    someone in my year was a known dealer (in school) he was in trouble with the police nearly every weekend, since leaving school hes actually been in prison.
    BUT he listened to the advice teachers gave him, he tried his best, i think he even got GCSEs. does that make him a bad person for trying??


    about your story about the knife. this happened in my school, and yes the girl was excluded, BUT she was still working with the school when she was excluded. yeah she might have known what she was doing. but again she was known to have issues at home, and friendship issues, and lots more underlying things going on...

    you anger me greatly!
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by im so academic)
    Not all 12 year olds are naive. They know what they are doing - so do paedophiles.

    Exactly, you have advocated expulsion with regards to SAFETY, but what about at the EXPENSE OF OTHER PEOPLE'S EDUCATION?

    How can you expect a teacher to teach when you've got a group of ******* kids at the back holding everyone up?



    A few chances? What's a few? 3, 13, infinite?

    The reason I keep repeating that sentence is because you ASSUME the children will co-operate with the school.

    They do not. They can try, but they will not respond.



    At what point? After many years and during that time dozens of childrens' education have been disrupted?



    Depends on the child - if they are unwilling to co-operate.
    You don't listen at all, and it's starting to grate on my patience.
    12 year olds don't understand the implications of that they are doing completely (as I've explained, some of them don't understand the importance of education yet) It's our job to help them see this.
    I don't expect a teacher to teach with a group of kids disrupting... Didn't you read what I said? I said they should be removed from the room.
    also, I haven't assumed they will co-operate... I already said if they continue to not co-operate there comes a point where you give up.

    I just don't think you read my posts at all.
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by lukas1051)
    What I'm saying is that people change. Maybe not overnight, but if you can start to discipline disruptive children at the age of 12, you can change them by the time they're 15. I am aware that some people will never change, I've been to school, we all know the types... but you can't make the assumption that anyone who is disruptive is not useful to society, and kick them out onto the streets.
    During those three years, what happens? Oh, they endanger other students' education.

    Yes I am aware, and I never said I agree with it. Personally, I think forcing all students to stay on to the age of 18 is a ridiculous notion, because there are some kids will never care about their education. But some people on this thread are suggesting kicking kids out of school at the age of 10 for being disruptive, which is frankly ridiculous.
    If the 10 year old was highly violent, then yes, the kid should be taken out of school.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by im so academic)
    During those three years, what happens? Oh, they endanger other students' education.



    .
    But they won't, because they will be removed from the classroom when they are disruptive.
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by PonchoKid)
    it isnt an excuse, it is an actual reason. some people cant deal with things, and as a release of anger/hatred they let it out by disrupting. its a known fact. in my school i had a look at the names on the files in our exclusion department, and i bet you about 99% of those names had issues at home...
    so you gonna tell me now its an excuse?
    Correlation does not equal causation.

    There are people from bad backgrounds who can actually shut up.

    your actually starting to sound like a broken record.
    people DO cooperate, even the people that are the worst.
    someone in my year was a known dealer (in school) he was in trouble with the police nearly every weekend, since leaving school hes actually been in prison.
    BUT he listened to the advice teachers gave him, he tried his best, i think he even got GCSEs. does that make him a bad person for trying??
    No, but think about the time when he was dealing drugs and how many lives he has hindered during that process. Oh well done he got his GCSEs - should've done that earlier.

    about your story about the knife. this happened in my school, and yes the girl was excluded, BUT she was still working with the school when she was excluded. yeah she might have known what she was doing. but again she was known to have issues at home, and friendship issues, and lots more underlying things going on...
    In other words you are tolerating her actions?

    I don't give a **** about the "underlying things that go on" - in what way is it acceptable to bring a knife to school, let alone to attempt to use it?

    you anger me greatly!
    So do you too.
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by Emaemmaemily)
    You don't listen at all, and it's starting to grate on my patience.
    I agree with that statement as well.

    12 year olds don't understand the implications of that they are doing completely (as I've explained, some of them don't understand the importance of education yet) It's our job to help them see this.
    Oh yes they bloody do! Don't speak on behalf of all 12 year olds. They know how to act; they choose not to.

    I don't expect a teacher to teach with a group of kids disrupting... Didn't you read what I said? I said they should be removed from the room.
    OK, they're removed - but after that? Do they get back in? What happens?

    also, I haven't assumed they will co-operate... I already said if they continue to not co-operate there comes a point where you give up.
    AT WHAT POINT? After 6 years and during those 6 years that kid has *******ed up the lives of others?

    I just don't think you read my posts at all.
    Agreed.
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by Emaemmaemily)
    But they won't, because they will be removed from the classroom when they are disruptive.
    What if the teacher has to stop multiple times within a lesson, not because of A disruption, but multiple disruptions?

    What if the student refuses to go out?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by im so academic)
    During those three years, what happens? Oh, they endanger other students' education.
    Let's be realistic though... it's not going to change your life. I certainly wouldn't say anything before year 10 is unimportant, but it's not like every lesson is absolutely vital. I understand what you are trying to say, and maybe it is the case in really bad schools (and I'm only speaking from experience, the school I did my GCSEs at while a state school isn't particularly bad), where the kids learn nothing every lesson, but in most cases it's not the end of the world. So we didn't do the plenary once in a year 8 German lesson because someone was playing up, oh well. In my school at least, I think enough is done, ability sets really help, once it started getting really important, none of the disruptive kids were in my classes anyway.

    (Original post by im so academic)
    If the 10 year old was highly violent, then yes, the kid should be taken out of school.
    Well yes, clearly, but there's a big difference between someone 'disruptive' and someone being highly violent.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by im so academic)
    I agree with that statement as well.



    Oh yes they bloody do! Don't speak on behalf of all 12 year olds. They know how to act; they choose not to.



    OK, they're removed - but after that? Do they get back in? What happens?



    AT WHAT POINT? After 6 years and during those 6 years that kid has *******ed up the lives of others?



    Agreed.
    Don't speak on behalf of 12 year olds? Jesus. How can you not understand that 12 year old children don't really know the implications of chatting and being silly in class? They don't understand exactly what it means to their future, let alone other's.

    After they are removed, they go to specific people who "help" these children. They are both disaplined (detention possibly) and encouraged to do better. They are returned to class when it seems they understand... This usually works. Maybe not perminantly, but if they misbehave again they are removed immediately and the process continues.
    This gives just about no disruption to other children's education, and it gives the disruptive pupils the opportunity to learn from their mistakes.
    Eventually (I don't know EXACTLY when), the school should give up.

    I've read all of your posts and actually responded to each question. You reply with the same question that I've already answered.


    (Original post by im so academic)
    What if the teacher has to stop multiple times within a lesson, not because of A disruption, but multiple disruptions?

    What if the student refuses to go out?
    Students tend to be easy to get to leave when you threaten them with something that will piss them off.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by im so academic)
    The only one destroying the 12 year old's education is the 12 year old itself.

    So you're saying the education system has to tolerate *******s who disrupt in lesson, and the rest have to work at home?
    They're 12 years old, no 12 year old person thinks about the fact that talking in class is even disrupting, never mind planning out their future.

    You should be able to relate anyway, near enough to your own age, right?
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PonchoKid)
    it isnt an excuse, it is an actual reason. some people cant deal with things, and as a release of anger/hatred they let it out by disrupting. its a known fact. in my school i had a look at the names on the files in our exclusion department, and i bet you about 99% of those names had issues at home...
    so you gonna tell me now its an excuse?



    your actually starting to sound like a broken record.
    people DO cooperate, even the people that are the worst.
    someone in my year was a known dealer (in school) he was in trouble with the police nearly every weekend, since leaving school hes actually been in prison.
    BUT he listened to the advice teachers gave him, he tried his best, i think he even got GCSEs. does that make him a bad person for trying??


    about your story about the knife. this happened in my school, and yes the girl was excluded, BUT she was still working with the school when she was excluded. yeah she might have known what she was doing. but again she was known to have issues at home, and friendship issues, and lots more underlying things going on...

    you anger me greatly!
    1. You can't say that 99% of those who behave poorly have "home issues" and it is an insult to those who have home issues but quietly get on and try to better their situation. The majority of badly behaved students care more about getting a few laughs than about getting GCSEs; loads of people have problems many of whom do not use them as an excuse to mess up other peoples lives.

    2. People really don't cooperate; you come out with the extreme example of a drug dealer, who manged to get a few GCSEs and hail it as some kind of success story for the education system. What good did those GCSEs do him; surely he should have been removed from the school for the benefit of the rest of the students. If anything school made the situation worse as it gave him a "patch" on which to sell his wares.

    3. Loads of people have issues; most of them don't go round stabbing people because of them; as for your little friendship issues mention, give me a break-A bunch of naughty school girls start squabbling so one of them turns to knife crime, it's pathetic.
 
 
 
Poll
How are you feeling in the run-up to Results Day 2018?
Useful resources

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

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