'Terroring' - my heart goes out to teachers

[scifisam]

So you didn't actually work as a teacher teaching full classes, then?

I think that if that's true (of course, you might have been a fully-qualified teacher after all), then that may have coloured your opinion in some way, to be honest.

It's the same way with parenting, where the most judgemental parents are those with children younger than the ones exhibiting the problem: Pamela, Mother of Rufus, age 2, has read all the parenting books and knows exactly how to get Jake, aged 5 to behave. She knows this because she's got just enough knowledge to make her think she knows a lot, and not enough experience to realise how little she truly knows.



Pretending that the kids don't play a part in their own learning kinda makes it difficult to understand exactly how to go about encouraging them to learn. Children are not machines, they are not blank slates, they are complex human beings, and they do not start to exist the second they enter the classroom, then cease once they leave.

My first lesson with one class started with four boys entering the classroom in inventive ways: forward roll, sideways roll, cartwheel and somersault. If only I were teaching PE rather than English, this might have been great; as it was, it left me with a steep uphill struggle and only a 1-speed pedal bike to do it on.

 

[chilango]

it isn't any more though.

a teacher's job, now, is to train the kids how to answer the exam paper more efficiently, so that they can deliver the mythical 3% rise in results, year-on-year. There isn't time to inspire the kids anymore.

innit.

a very sad situation indeed.

 

[LilMissHissyFit]

and people wonder why home education is gaining popularity?

 

[Giles]

The thing is though, we are talking about *children.* That is to say, people who have not attained the age of responsibility. Nothing is their fault. If the children don't want to learn, then the natural desire all have children have to learn has somehow been stifled in them. Either by incompetant teachers or an inappropriate curriculum. Certainly my (comprehensive) school was packed with teachers who had not a trace of intelligence or charisma, and it was frankly an insult to the children to put them in front of a class. I had no sympathy for them at all when the kids got bored or disruptive. The children are not, and can never be, the problem.

You are wrong. If kids simply refuse to behave, then they should be chucked out of school. Then the 90% who *do* want to learn can get on with it, without the disruptive wankers ruining it for the rest.

It's their choice in the end: if they want a life of shit jobs or no job at all, then that's up to them. Or their parents who obviously have done a shit job of bringing them up.

Sod them and concentrate on achieving the best results for the majority.

Giles..

 

[phildwyer]

You are wrong. If kids simply refuse to behave, then they should be chucked out of school. Then the 90% who *do* want to learn can get on with it, without the disruptive wankers ruining it for the rest.

It's their choice in the end: if they want a life of shit jobs or no job at all, then that's up to them. Or their parents who obviously have done a shit job of bringing them up.

Sod them and concentrate on achieving the best results for the majority.

Giles..

This is exactly the attitude that needs changing. Education should be comprehensive, with kids of all types and abilities mixed in together. That is in fact the whole point of education as far as I'm concerned. I learned far more from the many different kinds of kid in my comprehensive than I ever did from the teachers.

 

[Giles]

This is exactly the attitude that needs changing. Education should be comprehensive, with kids of all types and abilities mixed in together. That is in fact the whole point of education as far as I'm concerned. I learned far more from the many different kinds of kid in my comprehensive than I ever did from the teachers.

I'm sorry, my attitude does not "need changing" at all.

I would want my kids to go to a school where the majority of the kids are from decent backgrounds and are reasonably well-behaved. I am far from alone in wanting this.

No-one wants their kids to go to the schools full of badly-behaved, ill-disciplined under-achievers. Except loutish and stupid parents who don't really give a stuff about their kids education anyway. You can see this all over the UK in the way that people fight to get their kids into the better schools.

You can see how people vote with their feet.

Giles..

 

[jbob]

You are wrong. If kids simply refuse to behave, then they should be chucked out of school. Then the 90% who *do* want to learn can get on with it, without the disruptive wankers ruining it for the rest.

It's their choice in the end: if they want a life of shit jobs or no job at all, then that's up to them. Or their parents who obviously have done a shit job of bringing them up.

Sod them and concentrate on achieving the best results for the majority.

Giles..

And where do these mythical 10% of students go? As a teacher on this thread has stated, it can be half the class that misbehaves - so then where do the 50% go?

And at 12 or 13, how many kids can think of their future career aspirations? Or even 16-18 year old people? They have very little conception of what the 'real' world entails. Most students at university have little idea, either. And some kids don't have the best of starts in life due to inadequate parenting, so they should be just condemned? There's some really bright kids out there who have major problems not of their own making, they have every right to be allowed to show their talents in an intellectual conducive environment.

It's about looking at why these situations occur and how they can be remedied. Chucking out all disruptive kids is not feasible. There has always been disruptive kids. The seriously dangerous ones need to go, and should be for associated agencies to contend with.

The problem, as has been stated, lies in multiple areas, one of the major areas being the prescriptive curriculum and philosophy of current educational practice.

 

[phildwyer]

I'm sorry, my attitude does not "need changing" at all.

I would want my kids to go to a school where the majority of the kids are from decent backgrounds and are reasonably well-behaved. I am far from alone in wanting this.

No-one wants their kids to go to the schools full of badly-behaved, ill-disciplined under-achievers. Except loutish and stupid parents who don't really give a stuff about their kids education anyway. You can see this all over the UK in the way that people fight to get their kids into the better schools.

You can see how people vote with their feet.

Giles..

People are often selfish and snobbish. That is why comprehensive education should be the only choice.

 

[pk]

A well aimed blackboard rubber chucked at the head would put a stop to that, either that or a smack to the back of the head... in my schooldays anyway.

We were occasionally still utter bastards but invariably the teacher actually deserved it, either for being generally useless and in the wrong job, for being unfair and picking on the kids that were not in his rugby team, or for being sadistic little fuckers - one kid in our class was routinely picked on by a teacher because he thought we all picked on him - we did, it's true, but for the teacher to try and garner respect by victimising this lad was out of order.

Step forward the biggest lad in our class when said teacher crossed the line too far trying to humiliate this smaller lad - biggest lad punched the teacher in the head and broke his cheekbone, and was reinstated after a two day investigation during which teacher was sacked.

But I do think the absolute refusal (for legal reasons) of teachers failing to dole out the occasional well-placed but ultimately harmless slap is the sole reason this country appears to be over-run with little shits who have no respect for adults, and who affect the educational chances of their classmates.

Often the parents are absent or are useless role-models, for whatever reason, and sometimes a guiding hand needs to be able to pick up a child by the scruff of the neck and remind him who is boss.

Because of course, all too often you see kids ganging up on adults in the outside world and then reeling in disbelief when they end up with a broken nose, threatening to call cops, etc.

This isn't violence for the sake of it, it's common sense - if you don't discipline a dog when it bites, then it will keep biting until it gets put down - same rules apply in my opinion.

Failing to bring these kids into line by any means necessary (short of actual bodily harm) is doing them a great disservice, and basically relegating them to the scrapheap of life.

 

[Giles]

People are often selfish and snobbish. That is why comprehensive education should be the only choice.

If wanting the best for your kids is "selfish" then most people ARE selfish.

If you have gone to the bother of bringing up your kids nicely, why should you have to put them in a school with disruptive yobs?

Fortunately, comprehensive education ISN'T the only choice.

Money gives you the power to avoid the yob element. Good.

Giles..

 

[pk]

This is exactly the attitude that needs changing. Education should be comprehensive, with kids of all types and abilities mixed in together. That is in fact the whole point of education as far as I'm concerned. I learned far more from the many different kinds of kid in my comprehensive than I ever did from the teachers.

All this achieves is bringing otherwise smart kids down to the base level, not inspiring them to achieve.

Given that huge amounts of teaching time are wasted on selfish brats who just want to disrupt classes, the more gifted kids would just join in with the disruption out of fear and misplaced "respect" for the gang leaders.

But as usual Phildwyer, you're not exactly going to be taken very seriously on this issue because it is just another excuse for you to lambast people randomly and waste time, just like the disruptive kids do... when you're not bullying people like WoW that is... you should leave this thread for people who actually have to deal with the issues in real life, not some cushy little temp job in the USA where a higher value is placed upon your accent than whatever "wisdom" you choose to impart.

I wouldn't be surprised if your posts here were part of an English lesson in "How To Wind Up Brits On The Internet" - after all, it's not a million miles from the mission statement laid out on the internet article in your real name you threaten to report anyone for reproducing.... (though everyone has a copy anyway).

 

[pk]

People are often selfish and snobbish.

No. Only you are.

I'm leaving this otherwise interesting thread, so don't bother with any replies.

It's clear you want this debate to centre around you again (your selfishness) and you just want to have a dig at people who don't believe in communist style education (your snobbery).

It's up to other people if they want to allow you to fuck this thread, but I'm not going to be a part of it now I've said my bit.

 

[weltweit]

I would want my kids to go to a school where the majority of the kids are from decent backgrounds and are reasonably well-behaved. I am far from alone in wanting this.

No-one wants their kids to go to the schools full of badly-behaved, ill-disciplined under-achievers. Except loutish and stupid parents who don't really give a stuff about their kids education anyway. You can see this all over the UK in the way that people fight to get their kids into the better schools.

You can see how people vote with their feet.

Giles..

You can in fact see this effect in house prices.

I was just yesterday looking at houses in a town with two secondary schools, both apparently good but one with a slightly better reputation than the other, snob value and results tables.

The average house price difference was about £20,000 more in the catchment area of the slightly better regarded school.

Therefore imagine the price differences if one school was much worse than the other.

 

[jbob]

If wanting the best for your kids is "selfish" then most people ARE selfish.

If you have gone to the bother of bringing up your kids nicely, why should you have to put them in a school with disruptive yobs?

Fortunately, comprehensive education ISN'T the only choice.

Money gives you the power to avoid the yob element. Good.

Giles..

It might surprise you to learn that some people think of society in broader terms than your narrow interpretation. Some of us despise your elitist views that only the rich deserve an acceptable standard of living and education. Some of us realise that poorer sections of society cannot just be bracketed as the 'yob element'.

Most people are not selfish per se, culture is informing them that to be selfish is the only way. something you have not resisted with your vile opinions.

 

[christonabike]

Fucking word, jbob

There's some shite on here, funny how you get a bit more right wing the older you get, eh? (Father Ted)

 

[phildwyer]

If you have gone to the bother of bringing up your kids nicely, why should you have to put them in a school with disruptive yobs?

Because disruptive yobs exist, and part of education is learning about them. Just look at PK.

 

[cyberfairy]

Fucking word, jbob

There's some shite on here, funny how you get a bit more right wing the older you get, eh? (Father Ted)

My mum says 'I used to have a narrow waist and a broad mind. Now they've swopped!'
Anyway-word to jbob again

 

[phildwyer]

A well aimed blackboard rubber chucked at the head would put a stop to that, either that or a smack to the back of the head... in my schooldays anyway.

I bet it still works for you.

 

[phildwyer]

It might surprise you to learn that some people think of society in broader terms than your narrow interpretation. Some of us despise your elitist views that only the rich deserve an acceptable standard of living and education. Some of us realise that poorer sections of society cannot just be bracketed as the 'yob element'.

Most people are not selfish per se, culture is informing them that to be selfish is the only way. something you have not resisted with your vile opinions.

Yep. Giles's attitude is deeply engrained in British society, and the main reason for its problems. It won't be eliminated until snobs are *forced* to send their kids to the same schools as the rest of us.

 

[weltweit]

Yep. Giles's attitude is deeply engrained in British society, and the main reason for its problems. It won't be eliminated until snobs are *forced* to send their kids to the same schools as the rest of us.

But that was entirely the reason for the national curriculum, to try to make all the schools the same. Arguably it has either failed or has not yet succeeded.

Perhaps you think my attitude is the same as Giles's, we do intend to move house to be in the cachment area of a good school.

E2A I dont buy that all schools in the states are the same? are you proposing that they are?

 

[Giles]

It might surprise you to learn that some people think of society in broader terms than your narrow interpretation. Some of us despise your elitist views that only the rich deserve an acceptable standard of living and education. Some of us realise that poorer sections of society cannot just be bracketed as the 'yob element'.

Most people are not selfish per se, culture is informing them that to be selfish is the only way. something you have not resisted with your vile opinions.

I just take issue with the idea that everyone somehow should be forced to send their kids to the same place, even if they don't want to.

I am not saying that every kid from a poor family is a yob at all.

Giles..

 

[phildwyer]

But that was entirely the reason for the national curriculum, to try to make all the schools the same. Arguably it has either failed or has not yet succeeded.

The problem is that people like Giles will not send their kids to school with the rest of us. And people like Giles are in charge of the state education system, while having no incentive to improve it.

 

[Giles]

Yep. Giles's attitude is deeply engrained in British society, and the main reason for its problems. It won't be eliminated until snobs are *forced* to send their kids to the same schools as the rest of us.

Well, fortunately this is unlikely to happen.

People have a choice, just as they do with most other things.

I can't see how that choice will be taken away - people will not vote for an intrusive and dictatorial measure.

Giles..

 

[Giles]

The problem is that people like Giles will not send their kids to school with the rest of us. And people like Giles are in charge of the state education system, while having no incentive to improve it.

Eh? I have nothing whatever to do with the education system, except in the sense that I went to a comprehensive school and then a university.

I am not in any way "in charge" of it, nor are most people, except as voters.

Giles..

 

[phildwyer]

Eh? I have nothing whatever to do with the education system, except in the sense that I went to a comprehensive school and then a university.

I am not in any way "in charge" of it, nor are most people, except as voters.

Giles..

People like you are. People who won't send their kids to the very schools of which they are in charge.

 

[christonabike]

Do you mean Blair and Abbott?

As they are in charge and they don't send their kids to the schools that other parents are forced to

 

[phildwyer]

Do you mean Blair and Abbott?

Among many others.

 

[weltweit]

The problem is that people like Giles will not send their kids to school with the rest of us. And people like Giles are in charge of the state education system, while having no incentive to improve it.

Oh well if he can afford the private school system that may be different.

There is an argument that the private school system should be abolished and all children forced into the state system but no political party has advocated that especially perhaps as many political leaders seem to have emerged from the private education system.

Then there was the argument which was put by government that they should increase funding in the state system to put it on parity with private schools, that argument was made and I think pledges were also made but it has not come about.

 

[jbob]

Well, fortunately this is unlikely to happen.

People have a choice, just as they do with most other things.

I can't see how that choice will be taken away - people will not vote for an intrusive and dictatorial measure.

Giles..

No. You're obsessed with this idea that people have equal choices when they don't. You've contradicted yourself from your previous post where you said: 'Money gives you the power to avoid the yob element. Good.'

 

[Giles]

No. You're obsessed with this idea that people have equal choices when they don't. You've contradicted yourself from your previous post where you said: 'Money gives you the power to avoid the yob element. Good.'

I didn't say that people had an equal choice. I said that they had a choice.

Personally I would be in favour of a voucher system whereby each parent could choose to spend their voucher at whichever school they liked.

Then all schools would be "independent" but education would still be taxpayer-funded up to a standard level. That way there would no longer be this artificial split between "state" and "private".

Giles..