Turn on thread page Beta

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

    Offline

    11
    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.
    Being an adolescant male it is natural for me to want sex; doesn't give me the right to rape though.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PonchoKid)
    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...
    I don't know, he put (his own personal) politics in front of the education of the children.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ich Dien)
    Whos paying for their conviction and inprisonment..
    Shouldnt we save jailspace for people who've actually committed a crime? :rolleyes:
    By saying acting up I was refering to crime.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    If you don't want to learn, then don't - that's fair enough. But to infringe on other children trying to learn is criminal - the desire to learn should be cherished and encouraged to flourish, and anyone against that does not belong in a school.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Has anyone mentioned the use of dumbbells yet?
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Knowledgemofo)
    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.
    If they act up in class remove them.

    They can either become an independant student or go to work

    If they don't get a job, let them starve

    If they turn to crime chain them up anf roce them to work-easy


    If a teacher works after school hours they get paid overtime-I know, my twilight latin teacher told me.

    They is not enough time in the school day to run 2 sets of lessons, one for everyone and one for only those who wish to learn.
    Many students from poor backgrounds are not naughty as they see school as a way out, there are bad students from all walks of life-not just poor backgrounds (which you are clearly citing for the sympathy vote).

    Why are people so obsessed with social mobility anyway? In life there are winners and losers, there are always going to be people are fail at life-accept it.

    PS. Homeschooling does not need to be expensive:

    Step 1. Buy the textbook

    Step 2. Read it
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SparksInTheSky)
    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.
    Nature counts for far more than 90%-come on

    If everyone recieved Newton's education it would not be the case that 90% would turn out to achive what Isaac Newton achieved.
    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.
    So is it that some people from poor backgrounds, think right I have a chance to do well at school and make a better life for myself and my kids and some say I give a f*** so I may as well ruin it for others.

    Some people are bad people and are not worth helping.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlligatorTears)
    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.
    If someone is acting up they are ruining it for both themselves and others; if they are expelled, onyl they lose out.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PendulumBoB)
    If they act up in class remove them.

    They can either become an independant student or go to work

    If they don't get a job, let them starve

    If they turn to crime chain them up anf roce them to work-easy


    If a teacher works after school hours they get paid overtime-I know, my twilight latin teacher told me.

    They is not enough time in the school day to run 2 sets of lessons, one for everyone and one for only those who wish to learn.
    Many students from poor backgrounds are not naughty as they see school as a way out, there are bad students from all walks of life-not just poor backgrounds (which you are clearly citing for the sympathy vote).

    Why are people so obsessed with social mobility anyway? In life there are winners and losers, there are always going to be people are fail at life-accept it.

    PS. Homeschooling does not need to be expensive:

    Step 1. Buy the textbook

    Step 2. Read it
    As I said, sure for more elite schools (where these educational deviants would be rare).
    For a state school? Your idea would essentially be chucking out the vast majority of the students.

    You'd have to change the law then, reduce the age you can leave education.
    But with the current law, your view hasn't got a really strong standing.

    Starve? They'll just go on benefits.

    We'd have to step back in time, in other words your idea isn't quite right for modernity.

    Then let them, it's normally a teacher's choice when they want to turn up to these after-school sessions.
    Good way to get some extra cash, why not help a few people whom actually want to pass in the process.

    Clearly you didn't you what I meant when I suggested after school sessions or 'homework clubs'. Students take parts of the course they have issues with to the teacher(s), not everything in the lesson.
    Many students from poor backgrounds aren't naughty? That's a strong statement which goes against popular belief, because of that I'll want some credible citation to back up that statement.

    Social mobility doesn't get rid of the idea that there are winners and losers. You're thinking of something like ultrasocialism or communism.
    Social mobility is retains the idea that there are winners and losers, but no-one has a head start due to their social class.

    Sure. But then you need to pay for exams as an external student, that could be a lot of money for poorer people.
    Then you need to get these pupils to do work at home, which is an unlikely possibility if they don't work at school.

    EDIT:

    (Original post by PendulumBoB)
    Nature counts for far more than 90%.
    In which case, consider our argument finished. (You may have the last word, if you must.)
    Clearly my points won't get through if you're pro-nature on the topic; it seemed like you weren't really paying too much attention to my points, if that's right I know why.

    Good debating with you sir, have a nice day.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PendulumBoB)
    Nature counts for far more than 90%-come on

    If everyone recieved Newton's education it would not be the case that 90% would turn out to achive what Isaac Newton achieved.
    I think it's worth looking beyond the exceptions - there will always be 'geniuses', who may well be autistic etc., but considering the average person, they are mostly made up by their nurture. Ie if someone was given Newton's education they may not be 'newton' but they would probably do very well academically and get a great job. Similarly if Newton had been born to a blacksmith he would probably have become...a blacksmith.

    Similarly there will always be people who escape the curse of poverty etc. and go on to Oxbridge - 'miracles' as such, but they are few and far between. for most of us we are determined, mostly, by our upbringing.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Tbh in every school theres always those "bad ass" students that think their all that. Teachers always try and calm the class down and once one student gets it started the whole class gets started after. A teacher rarely loses his/her temper and saying am going to leave the class and i won't teach you normally gets them to shut up for a while, but suspension should do the trick, especially when they get home to tell their parents that "i can't go to school for 2 days" and get a beat down. What else can you do? Not much really.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PendulumBoB)
    So is it that some people from poor backgrounds, think right I have a chance to do well at school and make a better life for myself and my kids and some say I give a f*** so I may as well ruin it for others.

    Some people are bad people and are not worth helping.
    No it doesn't work like that. I don't think you understand psychology and sociology at all.
    They don't think "i don't give a ****", it's not a concious decision. If they are raised in a working-class family and their parents don't care, then the state of mind rubs off. If their parents are always saying how they hate the government and other figures of authority because they "rip them off", then the children will learn that rebelling against authority (like teachers and schools) is the right thing to do because they're hard done by. If it's how the are brought up, they can't help it.
    That's why in schools, we need to try to nip it in the bud, and help them change. It stops the cycle.

    I know this isn't the pattern for ALL working-class children, (although it's a lot more common with boys, with their similar sub-culture), but it is a general cycle.
    Children that go through this and work hard still are great... But it just means their minds coped with it all differently.
    It's not a case of "that child is naturally bad".
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Emaemmaemily)
    No it doesn't work like that. I don't think you understand psychology and sociology at all.
    They don't think "i don't give a ****", it's not a concious decision. If they are raised in a working-class family and their parents don't care, then the state of mind rubs off. If their parents are always saying how they hate the government and other figures of authority because they "rip them off", then the children will learn that rebelling against authority (like teachers and schools) is the right thing to do because they're hard done by. If it's how the are brought up, they can't help it.
    That's why in schools, we need to try to nip it in the bud, and help them change. It stops the cycle.

    I know this isn't the pattern for ALL working-class children, (although it's a lot more common with boys, with their similar sub-culture), but it is a general cycle.
    Children that go through this and work hard still are great... But it just means their minds coped with it all differently.
    It's not a case of "that child is naturally bad".
    This is why I said that you are an idealist; because you don't see that the effort and money put into straightening out these people just isn't worth when there is a class of 29 other people doing what they should be doing, who are losing out in terms os resources to one selfish kid-In an ideal world there would be enough money to help them, in fact in an ideal world there would be 1 to 1 tutition for those want it. The fact of the matter is there just isn't enough money.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PendulumBoB)
    This is why I said that you are an idealist; because you don't see that the effort and money put into straightening out these people just isn't worth when there is a class of 29 other people doing what they should be doing, who are losing out in terms os resources to one selfish kid-In an ideal world there would be enough money to help them, in fact in an ideal world there would be 1 to 1 tutition for those want it. The fact of the matter is there just isn't enough money.
    I'm not an idealist. I understand completely the effort and money needed for it, and it IS worth it in my mind. Creating a better society is worth it.
    It's not just 1 person from every class, by the way. Some of them mature faster than others, for some it only takes a couple of punishments and a little bit of help to make them stop (mostly)... It differs between children.
    But it's our job as a society to SOLVE the problem that a class divided society creates... Not ignore it, and simply make the problem worse.

    There is money for it, that's why it is done.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Honestly, I believe a lot of what i'm so academic said was completely true (although some was... debatable).

    I went to a private and a comprehensive for A-levels... AS was still terrible, since it was a majority asian school so parents wouldn't let their kids drop out at GCSE even if they didn't want to be there but got decent enough grades.

    The disruptive pupils were just told to leave, and it worked. They shut up and worked. It was nothing to do with being a good or bad teacher, it was the pupil who would get other good kids to stop working and join his rebellious cause.

    Even in a private school, the rowdy kids were just told to get out. Although the sheer fact that their parents would find out made most of them shut up.

    It's probably a good idea to bring back grammar schools tbh; kids who want to learn do, and those who don't just walk on and find out why they need an education the hard way.

    Adults shouldn't need to tell kids why they should learn, the kid should know that by the age of 15/16.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Shot
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by wanderlust.xx)

    Adults shouldn't need to tell kids why they should learn, the kid should know that by the age of 15/16.
    We were mostly discussing children aged around 12 though. By 15/16, yeah they should know by them, probably hard to get them to change at that point, but 12 is still quite young.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PendulumBoB)
    I don't know, he put (his own personal) politics in front of the education of the children.
    more is own morals and values....
    why should he be somewhere where hes not happy...

    he turned down a job abroad to stay there, but when the job tore him between his own values and the pupils, its a different story.

    i think he made the right choice...
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PendulumBoB)
    Being an adolescant male it is natural for me to want sex; doesn't give me the right to rape though.
    SIGH..

    this is the third damn post like this..

    WE ARE TALKING ABOUT CHILDREN. Changing the scenario holds no weight in a mature debate so either address the points i raised or stfu please.
 
 
 
The home of Results and Clearing

3,215

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.