Turn on thread page Beta

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

    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PendulumBoB)
    Didn't make an effort in school, a black mark should be put next to their name and they should receive no benefits-easy
    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.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Emaemmaemily)
    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.

    I forgot to mention, human rights are a human construct anyway; who should get to say what rights people have? Also how is hard labour against any human rights? It happens in the US, and if my historical knowledge serves me correctly the US was one of the countries which wrote the UN delcaration of human rights.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PendulumBoB)
    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.
    Oh yes, no evidence. Except that I witness it every day I'm at work, and most teachers from decent school would probably back it up?
    It's not rocket science... Immature children generally grow up.

    Work houses... Oh yes, a very viable and realistic answer. And not exploiting human rights at all.
    You're just coming up with things that seriously don't make sense, and don't fix the problem. We need to fix these issues, not bury them and doom children to a life of hell.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ich Dien)
    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.
    What problem? Little s*** syndrome.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by limetang)
    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.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SparksInTheSky)
    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.
    My point exactly
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Emaemmaemily)
    Oh yes, no evidence. Except that I witness it every day I'm at work, and most teachers from decent school would probably back it up?
    It's not rocket science... Immature children generally grow up.

    Work houses... Oh yes, a very viable and realistic answer. And not exploiting human rights at all.
    You're just coming up with things that seriously don't make sense, and don't fix the problem. We need to fix these issues, not bury them and doom children to a life of hell.
    You only have anecdotal evidence, which to be frank is a load of crap; at my school those who were naughty in lower years grew up to be even worse as they "grew up" to point of being dangerous.

    The problem is such, many state schooled pupils have to contend with distractions and abuse from ill-behaved children. Ignoring my work house comment hard labour for school drop-outs who turn to crime is viable.

    You talk about fixing the problem by sometimes the answer is to cut them loose; if someone does not want to be in school learning, why force them to be there?
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PendulumBoB)
    What problem? Little s*** syndrome.
    Your not gonna understand my argument.
    Poverty hurts society as a whole, you have to help them or you have to help them. You cant simply cast them aside and hope nobody else in the world notices. They dont go away.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PendulumBoB)
    You only have anecdotal evidence, which to be frank is a load of crap; at my school those who were naughty in lower years grew up to be even worse as they "grew up" to point of being dangerous.

    The problem is such, many state schooled pupils have to contend with distractions and abuse from ill-behaved children. Ignoring my work house comment hard labour for school drop-outs who turn to crime is viable.

    You talk about fixing the problem by sometimes the answer is to cut them loose; if someone does not want to be in school learning, why force them to be there?
    SOMETIMES the answer is to cut them loose. I've already agreed to that.

    My evidence isn't a load of crap. Maybe your school was **** and didn't do it properly?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PendulumBoB)
    You only have anecdotal evidence, which to be frank is a load of crap; at my school those who were naughty in lower years grew up to be even worse as they "grew up" to point of being dangerous
    Then I am proof that you are wrong.
    I played up a fair bit when I was younger, mainly because I was bullied a lot and couldn't deal with it.
    Yet I changed, I got my head down and worked.

    Yes it doesn't happen to everyone who is "naughty". But to say it can't or doesn't happen is just bull****.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SparksInTheSky)
    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.
    No just no, support is too expensive, why should it be given to undeserving brats when those who want to learn are forced to learn in classroms of over 30 people? If someone does not want to be in school let them leave and allow the rest of the class to learn; if they turn to crime, put them in a chain gang and get them working, like they do in the states.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PendulumBoB)
    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)
    I think the thing is, ideally we would just give the money to those students who work hard. But practically if we don't sort out these kids problems now (and the various social ones causing these problems) they will end up costing us a lot more money in the future. Plus it's also limited to suggest that these kids have the choice - they don't - we are all irrevocably determined by our environment and upbringing. But I agree, it's a hard one, cus the kids at the top need just as much support, and they often don't get it.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PendulumBoB)
    No just no, support is too expensive
    Not as expensive (both in cost and in the impact to society) as the consequences of not supporting them.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by im so academic)
    Imo, disruptive students who are at university should be kicked out immediately.

    Why come to university to be disruptive?

    No excuses.
    Absolutely. Over here in the states it's a serious problem... I'm not against going out, maybe partying a little, and having some fun, however that should be kept off of school grounds.

    Of course, depending on what you're doing (campaigning or something) would merit being loud (outside of course) and interacting with people. However just being loud, screaming, and acting stupid because nobody is there to tell you otherwise should never happen.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PendulumBoB)
    No just no, support is too expensive, why should it be given to undeserving brats when those who want to learn are forced to learn in classroms of over 30 people? If someone does not want to be in school let them leave and allow the rest of the class to learn; if they turn to crime, put them in a chain gang and get them working, like they do in the states.
    Is it fair to do that? when the nature of these kids is determined by the society they grow up in? If you'd been born in an unstable, working-class faminly, would you like to be treated that way? Or do you think you should get extra help to overcome the extra obstacles in your life?
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by WelshBluebird)
    Then I am proof that you are wrong.
    I played up a fair bit when I was younger, mainly because I was bullied a lot and couldn't deal with it.
    Yet I changed, I got my head down and worked.

    Yes it doesn't happen to everyone who is "naughty". But to say it can't or doesn't happen is just bull****.
    One person is not sufficient proof; you are just anecdotal evidence. Besides is bullies were banned from school anyway then your behaviour (If what you say is true) would have been better, and you would not have negatively impacted the education of yourself and others.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PendulumBoB)
    undeserving brats
    Nobody is TRULY undeserving. If you do not extend that help in the first place they will never learn
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SparksInTheSky)
    I think the thing is, ideally we would just give the money to those students who work hard. But practically if we don't sort out these kids problems now (and the various social ones causing these problems) they will end up costing us a lot more money in the future. Plus it's also limited to suggest that these kids have the choice - they don't - we are all irrevocably determined by our environment and upbringing. But I agree, it's a hard one, cus the kids at the top need just as much support, and they often don't get it.
    Ah we find some common ground, if those who cause social problems were also dealt with appropriately then for the well behaved citizen things would be a lot better.

    I agree that our behaviour is determined by our genetic make up and our environment, but using that as an excuse sets a dangerous precedent that any bad behaviour is not the fault of the perpetrator (As he/she provided none of these things) but is the fault of society, when actually society is the victim
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SparksInTheSky)
    Is it fair to do that? when the nature of these kids is determined by the society they grow up in? If you'd been born in an unstable, working-class faminly, would you like to be treated that way? Or do you think you should get extra help to overcome the extra obstacles in your life?
    This is ridiculous, you are blaming society for the ills of individuals (You wouldn't blame a rape victim when the rapist is at fault). Ideally everyone would get a tailor made education to suit them, but the system does not have enough money to pay to overcome every obsticle in each childs way. Serious decisions have to be made when it comes to the allocation of resources, and if it's between smaller class sizes to benefit the majority or pay out get ill behaved children to be good then I know what I would choose.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Emaemmaemily)
    SOMETIMES the answer is to cut them loose. I've already agreed to that.

    My evidence isn't a load of crap. Maybe your school was **** and didn't do it properly?
    You blame schools when you should blame the child?:confused:
 
 
 
The home of Results and Clearing

4,002

people online now

1,567,000

students helped last year
Poll
Will you be tempted to trade up and get out of your firm offer on results day?
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.