Re: Die, die, die.

On 7 May, 14:47, Cynic <cynic_...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Fri, 7 May 2010 01:32:32 -0700 (PDT), Ste <ste_ro...@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

You are correct.  I taught in Rhodesia, which at the time followed the
British methods and curriculum.
And look at how that country turned out.

But you cannot blame the way it turned out on the system as it was
then.  That happened because of a forced regime change that completely
altered the existing systems.

It was forced regime change because the old regime had failed to
compromise earlier.



The kids in Rhodesia sat the same "O" and "A" level exams as were
taken at the time in the UK.  We had to accomodate having the exams at
strange times of the day because they had to be taken at exactly the
same time as they were taken in the UK (otherwise an international
phone call or fax would allow cheating).

The UK education board had become increasingly suspicious that there
may be widespread institutional cheating in Rhodesia because the
average results from Rhodesian schools had consistently remained very
much better than the average results over the UK.  So, with the
complete co-operation of the Rhodesian education board, they sent over
a team of inspectors who observed classes and conducted oral and
written spot tests on a random selection of pupils in various schools
over (IIRC) a two week period.

Their conclusion was that the examination results were entirely honest
and due to a superior standard of education.  A conclusion which
obviously quickly got buried.

Would I be correct in assuming that the pupils in these schools at the
time were predominantly middle class whites?



The problem is what do you do after you've worn down your own reserves
and brought reinforcements for the 3rd time that week, disrupting
other staff from their teaching (and in doing so probably wiping out
the lions share of your teaching time with that class, and that of the
other teachers you disturb), and the child is back again the next day
and intends to continue basically the same behavour. What are you
going to do? Exclude? That's a very difficult option to enforce these
days. So what else are you going to do?

In a word - resign.  What possible other choice does *anyone* have
after realising that they are in a job that they are unlikely to be
able to ever cope with?

Well frankly that would be my ultimate answer, but that's also why I
wouldn't join in the first place as a teacher these days. The problem
is that if every teacher took that approach, there wouldn't be hardly
any teachers left, and more to the point like I've said, it's just not
an option for some teachers, especially those coming up to retirement,
to throw their careers and pensions to the wind. A lot of teachers of
Harvey's vintage will have joined the profession under quite different
circumstances, and have clearly functioned well for many years - so
there's no case for saying that they "knew what they were getting
into" or anything like that.



Moving or combining classes takes time, and believe me in modern schooling
there isn't another member of staff available at the drop of a hat to take
over from you immediately. The solutions you propose have the potential to
take a bad situation and make it much worse. The fact of the matter is, no
matter how stressed you feel, you pretty much have to deal with it - walking
away isn't a realistic option.
We had quite a few options available, from grabbing a teacher who had
a free period to grabbing a trustworthy "alpha male" prefect from a
sixth form class.  If you have recent experience in UK schools, I bow
to your superior knowlege, but I find it incredulous that no perfectly
viable options exist.
But what sort of scenario do you have in mind? I get the impression
you have in mind the odd pupil (perhaps only a handful in a whole
secondary school), who are basically good kids who are more
challenging than most but who will ultimately respond to discipline.

I have in mind a situation that the teacher will be able to correct,
yes.  If you are talking about a situation that the teacher will
*never* be able to correct, then you may as well give the kids a free
period and allow the teacher some peace.

I'm afraid that is what many teachers are now doing, but obviously it
stores up problems for the future as pupils become even more
accustomed to defying teachers, and less gets taught - after all, it's
rarely a whole school that is uncontrollable, just an element within
it.

I remember one lad in a particular school, probably Year 4 if I
remember correctly so he'd have been about 8 or 9, swinging back on
his chair. I think perhaps he was on a detention, because I remember
the classroom being almost empty. The teacher said "stop swinging on
your chair", and the lad just smiles and carries on, and at that point
she was going to leave it at that. So I then told him to put the four
legs of the chair on the floor, and he did. But I paused long enough
to know that the teacher would otherwise have left it at that.

This was a school in what I perceive as probably one of the most
deprived areas of town. Incidentally, this was the same school as the
one I was talking about with the lad who had a tendency to "kick and
punch". Incidentally, I just reviewed the Ofsted reports for the
school online - they don't go back to when I was there, but the one
from 2004 puts achievement as "well below average" (which is the
lowest rating possible).

It also talks of the improvements since the last inspection for pupils
with SEN:
"Since the previous inspection there has been significant progress to
improve the assessment
of special educational needs and to identify and support individual
pupils’ needs. There is now
good support for these pupils, enabling them to make good progress in
relation to their
individual learning targets. Pupils are no longer withdrawn from
lessons, as at the time of the
previous inspection. Their learning is supported by teaching
assistants and special support
assistants, who play a full part in planning activities appropriate
for pupils with differing levels of
prior attainment."

Obviously by 2004 things had improved in terms of managing behaviour
of certain pupils, by bringing in additional staff.



The problem, if my own experience of primary schools can be
extrapolated to secondary schools, is that you have a significant
element of kids who do not respond even to the maximum level of
escalation available to the school - and who ultimately get nothing
from school and don't really want to be there, and who have bad
backgrounds and home lives, and so there is really no leverage over
them at all.

By using the word "escalation", you appear to be thinking only in
terms of punishment.  Punishment is only suitable for dealing with
isolated and infrequent bouts of misbehaviour.  While the *threat* of
punishment is a big factor in ensuring that discipline is maintained
in the long term, if that fails (or is unavailable), then I'm afraid
you have to find some way to motivate those kids so that they *do*
want to be at school.  Easier said than done, I know.  But that, after
all, is the teacher's *job*.

I agree wholeheartedly! When I say "escalation", I didn't mean in
terms of harsh punishment, but simply in terms of the teacher being
able to do something about the bad behaviour, like sending the pupil
out of the classroom.



Having said that, I am 100% certain that maintaining discipline was
much easier in my case because I knew and the kids knew that I had
*real* power that I could use, and that I could and would use it for
any extremely serious case of misbehaviour.

Quite probably.



Punishment was *not*
something that a Rhodesian child or his parents could choose to
decline.  If detention interferred with the family plans, then tough.

That is another problem these days. Many parents refuse to cooperate
with detentions, especially if they're having to be levied often or
if, as you say, they interfere with family plans. A lot of parents
won't even have teenage kids walking home on their own these days, and
I've heard anecdotally that some parents have basically said to the
school "we don't have a car, and unless you arrange transport for our
child to get home after the detention, and at the school's cost, then
he can't stay".



(Within reason of course - negotiation would always be possible in
exceptional circumstances).  Because the power was there and was real,
it acted as a deterrant and serious punishments seldom needed to be
used.  Yes, there were certainly teachers who abused their power, but
IMO that is not reason enough to take it from schools entirely.

I think there is a case for having some controls on what punishments a
school is allowed to use and in what circumstances.



I mean, if the press and anecdotal reports are to be believed, there
are a significant number of inner-city secondaries where a significant
minority of kids are carrying *knives* on a regular basis now, and
where teachers are perceiving real threats of violence. How would you
react to a pupil who alluded to the fact that he would knife you if
you didn't behave yourself (and you're the teacher)? And more to the
point, how would you react if this threat or similar had been issued
many times, not by the same pupil, but by many different pupils, so
that there is no one troublemaker, no one ringleader who can be
singled out?

Yes, I've seen those movies as well.  The class of high school
children (who all appear to be at least 20 years old), who are running
a drug operation or similar from the classroom and control the whole
school.  Then the hero teacher arrives and turns them all into little
angels by either (1) teaching them the joys of ballroom dancing or (2)
killing half the class in a full-scale firefight involving machine
guns and grenades in front of the blackboard.  It would appear that
the teacher in question subscribed to the latter genre.

Lol. I would not be so quick to jest. A statistic a few years back
said that something like 1 in 4 of pupils in inner-London schools had
at some point carried a knife to school.



Of course, I'm characterising the most extreme end of the scale when I
talk of knives, but only because I think you're describing the typical
school as they were 30 years ago, not as they are today.

Sorry, I don't believe that any but a few schools (if any at all) are
anything like that.  If they are, then it's something that the police
need to be involved in to sort out, not the teaching staff.

That's what the teachers say, too!



And today,
even if not every school has a problem with outright violence and
weapons, many are suffering significant discipline problems over long
periods that are beyond the emotional tolerance of normal adults.

My advice to many of the teachers who taught my children (both raised
in the UK), and who I know were frequently subjected to things that
would have been a serious caning offence in the schools I taught,
would be to start dressing and acting like a teacher, and maybe you'll
be treated like one.  Instead I saw teachers with long unkempt hair in
jeans and trainers who seemed to be more interested in joining the
kids' social groupings than being seen as an authority figure.  Had I
arrived at school dressed like that, the headmaster would have sent me
home with a flea in my ear and I doubt I would have been teaching the
following term.

It's a professional job.  Wear a clean, smart jacket and tie, ironed
shirt and polished shoes.  Get a conservative haircut and keep it
combed.  Shave every morning.  While at work, maintain a professional
aloofness and set an example that reflects the attitudes and
moralities of what society *should* be like, even if that's not the
way you normally behave away from school.  Use correct grammatical
English when you speak, and never swear in front of the children.
Ensure that your classroom is kept clean and tidy - even if you have
to do it yourself.  Especially your own desk.  Make it known that you
set high standards for yourself and expect the children to abide by
them as well.  If you don't treat *yourself* with respect, you cannot
expect anyone else to do so.  And whilst it is OK to have the
occassional social chat with a child or a class and be on reasonably
friendly terms with the children, don't fraternise.  You're their
teacher, not their older brother or best buddy.

Yes, terribly old-fashioned, I know.

I don't disagree.



ISTM that he had lost control of the class to the degree that any of
those things were just as possible whether he remained in the room or
not.  In such a situation you need to do something that is immediately
attention-grabbing/diverting.  Which preferably does not involve the
use of a dumb-bell and a child's head.  I think my reaction in such a
situation would be to get the kids out of the classroom and running
laps around the playing field.  YMMV.
What happens if a number of pupils say "sod off, I'm not running any
laps for you"?

It should never be permitted to get to that stage.  I would be
outraged.  It would warrant immediate draconian action to show the
child (or children) that it is considered an extremely serious matter.
I'd have to see what's available to a UK teacher these days - but if
the child(ren) cannot be made to repent and apologise PDQ after you
spell out the consequences and ask them to reconsider, then probably a
phone call to a parent(s) (even if the parent is at work) and a
request for that parent(s) to come and collect his/her child from the
school office immediately, followed by an appointment for a meeting to
discuss their child's future.  If a *parent* doesn't co-operate
sufficiently, I'd get social services involved, even though I don't
much care for either their methods or their solutions.

Haha. I'm bent double laughing here, because while I agree with your
sentiments, you are utterly naive as to what many teachers are facing
these days.



A physical cane is not the only type of stick that exists.

At the end of the day if a pupil consistently refuses point-blank to
carry out reasonable instructions from a teacher, then no teaching can
take place until that situation is corrected.  So you have an
extremely serious situation that you need to correct quickly and
decisively, and get such children out of the classroom until it *is*
corrected.

But where do you send them? We're back to square one, of saying where
do you send them, if there's not just one but a number of them, you
have no spare staff to watch them, no spare staff to supervise your
class, no support from the parents (and indeed the parents are likely
to remonstrate with the teacher instead of the child), you can't
exclude because the behaviour is not considered severe enough to
warrant it, etc. etc..
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Article: American kids, dumber than dirt
    ... happens to be a longtime Oakland high school teacher, ... loves education and learning and watching young ... It's not the kids' fault. ... I wonder if your Oakland school teacher friend wonders what he did wrong. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: OT: Be carfeul who you annoy on the internet
    ... They'd just import someone from India to teach our kids how ... I've witnessed first hand in Cleveland a teacher ... When that occurs I'm confident a company or school can once ... >Development teacher for grades 1-5 at the school she taught 5th grade ...
    (rec.games.video.arcade.collecting)
  • Re: Principals Claim Right to Search Cell Phones
    ... When a teacher takes a note ... Reading the note is mostly to embarass the kids doing it ... Reading a notebook while in class is to ensure the student is working ... As to the key issue here, my high school had pay phones which kids ...
    (comp.dcom.telecom)
  • Re: Sixth grade science teaching
    ... >>>(like 'new math') that didn't work. ... >>I was in school at that time and I'm sure I had to ... table memorization is going to turn many kids off. ... His 8th grade history teacher was great and showed him that even history ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: The importance of Fruit and Vegetable Juices in your Diet
    ... --George W. Bush, discussing the controversy surrounding ... and the teacher repeatedly told him he didn't have time to ... after school to answer questions. ... other kids were complaining, too. ...
    (rec.gardens)