Turn on thread page Beta

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

    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PendulumBoB)
    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.
    People are shaped and created by their society. (The home life, and then their experiences elsewhere). You can very much blame the fact that there are **** people on society, it's how they are created.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PendulumBoB)
    when actually society is the victim
    But that is somewhat the point.
    In many cases, society is both the victim and the cause.
    You can do whatever you want, but unless you sort out the causes, you will not stop the problems that occur.

    (Original post by PendulumBoB)
    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.
    Yes, one person is not sufficient proof.
    But I am not the only example.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ich Dien)
    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.
    If they act up in the real world arrest them and give them hard labour in return for food and a bed-simples
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by WelshBluebird)
    Not as expensive (both in cost and in the impact to society) as the consequences of not supporting them.
    Statistical evidence?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by EggmanD)
    Why do most people who are saying it disrupts learning coming across as some Orwellian slaves who are opposed to the agenda being disrupted by those unable to serve the masters..?

    'we must learn, those that disrupt the learning must be punished!'

    If the 'disruptive kid is bored, thats a natural reaction and something that cannot be seen as a punishable offense. Find out why kids are bored and give them more options so they can find a place in this world rather than becoming an empty vessel working a dead end 9 - 5 because they couldn't find anything fun to do in school and/or rely on the weekend/fights/drinks/girls/football/excessive drug use/job seekers/housing benefits to try and find some enjoyment in life.

    Obviously kids need a base learning of certain subjects to communicate, work out basic sums on a day to day basis or to have some idea of how the world we live on works but there needs to be more nurture and reason and less blanket punishment IMO.
    One Wednesday Night I got "bored" and started shouting, screaming and got into a fight, fine I thought. It's a natural reaction and something that cannot be seen as a punishable offense. Funnily enough that excuse didn't do me any favours in front of the JPs I can tell you...
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    lol OP... wtf
    nothing should be done. the best students learn most at home. well i definitely do
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by im so academic)
    Yes you are! You blatantly said it was acceptable for a CCDU student to go to student.

    Oh? Define a "great" teacher? One the fulfils bull**** Ofsted criteria?
    the teacher in question dis likes ofstead actually
    he left the school because it was becoming an acadamy, and he things schools should be there to help the pupils.

    he was a great teacher because he could get everyone to listen and behave hin what i see as a difficult subject - RE. again its a compulsary, but i had him in year 8 and he had everyone gripped.
    hes a no nonsence teacher, when he says something he means it.

    he follows through his actions.
    everyone knew when theyed crossed the line with him, and he was well respected.

    BUT the older pupils could have a laugh with him. he didnt think he was high and mighty, especially not higher than the pupils.
    he respected peoples choices, if you didnt want to go to lesson, then he didnt force you...
    he was someone who would listen and give great advice at the same time.
    many people went to him for stuff.

    this is why he was a brilliant teacher.
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by cooldudeman)
    lol OP... wtf
    nothing should be done. the best students learn most at home. well i definitely do
    You are actually 100% correct. :yep:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Well, firstly, I think the idea that if a kid is acting up, you should simply exile them from education, is ridiculous. Your education is pretty damn important, and by doing that, you're pretty much condemning someone to a limited life. Ok, there's the argument that they don't want to be there, so it's fair to follow that path. At 18, that would be a valid argument, because you're an adult and you can make that decision, but at 16 and below, it's not. A child isn't qualified to make that decision and exert that much control over their life. I didn't want to eat my veg when I was growing up, and I wouldn't have given the choice, but rightly so, it wasn't my choice, so I did.

    I think it's important too to recognise here that in secondary school, you're dealing with children. When you're a kid you act up, but that doesn't make it acceptable for a parent to up and leave. Between 11 and 16 every kid is gonna exhibit some unruly behaviour, and that includes at school, but that doesn't make them inherently bad. It just means they need some discipline, and with, perhaps they'd thrive, and even be beneficial parts of the class.

    Having said all that, I don't at all think that other people should have to suffer, but it is important to accept that first and foremost difficult behaviour shouldn't mean someone being cast out. I think there needs to be a reassessment of how schools educate and discipline, and there needs to be reform in both those areas, particularly the last. I also think schools and teachers need to reconsider their roles and how they see themselves. There's the argument that being a teacher is ultimately just a job, and therefore teachers shouldn't be expected to do anything other then teach; discipline isn't part of the package. Whilst perhaps principally that may hold true, practically it doesn't, and never will be a reality. Every job involving working with human beings is going to demand the ability to work and deal with people, especially those involved with kids.
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by PonchoKid)
    the teacher in question dis likes ofstead actually
    he left the school because it was becoming an acadamy, and he things schools should be there to help the pupils.

    he was a great teacher because he could get everyone to listen and behave hin what i see as a difficult subject - RE. again its a compulsary, but i had him in year 8 and he had everyone gripped.
    hes a no nonsence teacher, when he says something he means it.

    he follows through his actions.
    everyone knew when theyed crossed the line with him, and he was well respected.

    BUT the older pupils could have a laugh with him. he didnt think he was high and mighty, especially not higher than the pupils.
    he respected peoples choices, if you didnt want to go to lesson, then he didnt force you...
    he was someone who would listen and give great advice at the same time.
    many people went to him for stuff.

    this is why he was a brilliant teacher.
    Academies don't help students?!
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    Cat o' nine tails
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by im so academic)
    Academies don't help students?!
    a money grabbing scheme when the school was doing perfectly fine as it was.

    i love how this was the only thing you picked up on, not the fact a teacher with "sh*t" grades is actually a really good teacher...
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jamesey)
    One Wednesday Night I got "bored" and started shouting, screaming and got into a fight, fine I thought. It's a natural reaction and something that cannot be seen as a punishable offense. Funnily enough that excuse didn't do me any favours in front of the JPs I can tell you...
    Sigh..

    First.. we are talking about CHILDREN... not fully developed adults who know what is acceptable and not acceptable in society making your mirrored 'not punishable' and your whole basic 'change the scenario' argument useless.

    Second.. bordom creates disruption because it leads to frustration and anger which are either cured by annoying the teacher/other pupils or released from bullying or fighting. If the child displayed bordom to a certain subject at a certain age (im not a developmental psychologist so i dont know anything about this) they could opt in to do something they enjoy rather than suffer.. of course this should not allow them to do nothing as i did say "Obviously kids need a base learning of certain subjects to communicate, work out basic sums on a day to day basis or to have some idea of how the world we live on works but there needs to be more nurture and reason and less blanket punishment IMO."

    Example.. I have never used advanced equations or long devision in my life since i did maths at GCSE and i dont think ill ever come across more than 5 times when i will and i will probably ask my mate who does maths at uni to do it for me lol.. if i had done something i wanted to in place of something not considered a necessity then maybe i would be on a better path.

    At my old school my mates brother has the option to do something called groundworking which is some outdoor activities/studies **** as well as a greater range of gcse subjects.. including one i enjoyed at a level which is photography.

    In theory this should make pupils at this age less disruptive because those who are only bored will have more options and those pupils who are disruptive because they are brought up by scum and have no manners will be punished because they deserve it.

    This is only an idea and how i feel about this subject.. changing the scenario and ignoring others points is useless, stupid and if anything recessive.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PendulumBoB)
    If they act up in the real world arrest them and give them hard labour in return for food and a bed-simples
    Whos paying for their conviction and inprisonment..
    Shouldnt we save jailspace for people who've actually committed a crime? :rolleyes:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PendulumBoB)
    Yes but the taxpayer will have to pay the teacher for overtime; why should that be the case?

    Chucking out bad students will solve the problem as they won't be in school; they should be forced to get a job or starve for their insolence

    You're not expelling them for being poor, your expelling them for the benefit of the rest of the class

    Why should they receive an education if it's going to be wasted-Furthermore the law says that they can be home schooled- perhaps forcing them to be "home schooled" is the answer and if they fail then it's up to them.
    Teachers are normally willing to take their time out for dedicated students. If you were in a state school you would know that this is almost always the case... no tax payer money being wasted.
    In fact paying a little more taxes wouldn't help if you wanted to help social mobility; no need to let the bright state schoolers be robbed of education when they could just come in after school hours to revise.

    Jobs in these times? Good luck.
    Best educate them to try to give them some help, unless you genuinely want a visible class divide in society.

    The appalling behaviour of these students will most certainly stem from their household -- their poor household. So yes, essentially, you'd be exspelling them for being poor with the tagged reason being "for the benefit of the rest of the class".
    Would be interesting if your solution was applied to 'bad' areas, you'd have like more than half the school chucked out.

    You want some homeless people around? Why not give them some qualifications to make do with that?
    Home schooling, yeah if its poor pupils that are the disruptive ones then good luck having the parents pay for their home schooling.

    If they fail it is up to them, yes. But your idea wouldn't be the best way to deal with schools in poorer areas.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-12168122 Going by this your idea of simply chucking out bad pupils would be completely irrational for a school like Marlowe Academy.
    So we can only really try to help the better pupils rather than waste energy on the bad ones.

    Whether any ideas work, now that's up for debate.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cooldudeman)
    lol OP... wtf
    nothing should be done. the best students learn most at home. well i definitely do
    Well you must have **** teachers then.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PendulumBoB)
    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.
    Huh? What does this have to do with rape? I would blame the rapist to an extent, but I would also blame society for the fact that that person - who at 2 was probably the sweetest kid on earth - became something so horrid.

    Like I said, it's a balancing act - helping messed up kids now so they don't cost us more in the future (and its humane), and being financially stable and able to help other kids too - but we shouldn't just give up on them.

    Btw whether you blame society really depends a lot on the nature vss. nurture argument. I believe nurture counts for something like 90% of how we turn out, but obv. that's really just a matter of opinion.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PendulumBoB)
    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
    well there is always an element of choice. But we're talking about children here (and teenagers who haven't grown up) who will often have been brought up in an undisicplined household, probably in poverty, without any family support for their education. and even people who go on to commit crime - there is a theory that all crime is a form of tantrum. Watching something like 'A Home for Maisie' the other day is really revealing - this is an angry, violent little girl who, without support, would probably become a hardened criminal one day, but when you hear what she's been through, and you see the devestating effect of it, you can hardly blame her for that.

    Of course we emphasise that they've done wrong, we even have a form of punishment, but it benefits nobody if they don't improve, and ultimately we have to be pragmatic rather than vengeful.
    Offline

    15
    They should all be sent to a remote island
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Emaemmaemily)
    People are shaped and created by their society. (The home life, and then their experiences elsewhere). You can very much blame the fact that there are **** people on society, it's how they are created.
    True, some people are innately bad; if 2 people are violently abused and one turns out to be aggressive it does not mean that the other will.
 
 
 
Poll
Is the Big Bang theory correct?
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.