1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Hi Guest, welcome to the TES Community!

    Connect with like-minded education professionals and have your say on the issues that matter to you.

    Don't forget to look at the how to guide.

    Dismiss Notice


Discussion in 'Behaviour' started by sniffybear, Oct 29, 2008.

  1. Hi,

    This is a simple one. Every teacher I have ever heard complian about the way the kids are disruptive and unsettled are not very good at teaching.

    Have you ever known a good teacher to complain about a child.

    My advice is if you have had problems then quit your job and do something you can do. Don't rely on the SMT rely on your own abilities and if you are not up to it then please stop screwing up our childrens education.

    Children do matter so lets get rid of the **** that we have in the classroom that we call teachers.

  2. Hi,

    This is a simple one. Every teacher I have ever heard complian about the way the kids are disruptive and unsettled are not very good at teaching.

    Have you ever known a good teacher to complain about a child.

    My advice is if you have had problems then quit your job and do something you can do. Don't rely on the SMT rely on your own abilities and if you are not up to it then please stop screwing up our childrens education.

    Children do matter so lets get rid of the **** that we have in the classroom that we call teachers.

  3. Is there a punchline?
  4. no it is just a fact that you should not teach if you can not teach. Is there an argument against this
  5. Okay everybody, nothing to see here.
    Don't feed the troll and it will go away.

    pepper5 and CatnipEvergreen like this.
  6. You have a very blinkered view. I pity your plight and the development of those around you. You may also wish to address your grasp of SPAG too if we are to remain on the subject of:

    Ahhhh *** it, I shall humour you and ask (what, in your opinion) are the factors that lead to bad behaviour and the universal measures employed to obviate such issues?
  7. Absolute nonsense, and I do feel like feeding the troll ,so here goes.

    You are obviously an extremely self-righteous and arrogant person (I assume that you would rate yourself as a good teacher). We have a serious problem, perhaps even a crisis,with respect to youth disaffection. We have a multiplicity of youth sub-cultures, ranging from the drug-induced diffident to the pathological gang-violent. These are symptoms of a broader process of social and economic decay that stems from economic marginalisation, family breakdown, the emergence of a distinct and growing underclass of poorly-skilled no-hopers (who breed more profusely then their m/c counterparts) and an overly permissive and even perverse popular culture (cultural elites have a lot to answer for, but, like the cigarette industry in the 1960s, the cynical swines disavow a link between what is broadcast and how people behave...so why do companies advertise?). To top it off, the ideology of child-centric education,and the related concept of child rights, has inverted the natural order of authority in human affairs: the pre- and pubescent tail wagging the adult dog.

    Education as a field is also ideologically misguided, perhaps even harmful to public order,since, from a kid´s point of view, the only people who are really held to account are the teachers...by Ofsted commissars and the insidious and privately-politicised world of observations and performance management. From what I saw, these bureaucratic bludgeons were as likely to be employed out of malice as out of a desire for universal competence.

    Upsum: cultural rot, fueled by moral anarchy in the media, combined with the displacement of the industrial working class and their replacement by an underclass, these are your real causes,and schools are not equipped to cope with them.

    By the way, my classes were generally orderly, and I worked in North London in one of the area´s hardest institutions. I miss the place and the lads, but not the imbecilic moral zealots who have stamped out the individual and his/her talent and replaced it with a series of robotic slogans and fashionable ideological postures.


  8. Nicely put. I have a feeling its not a troll but either a plucky NQT in middle Englad who has just had their first term without too many upsets or someone who has managed to avoid the education sector beyond the safety of cyberspace.
    pepper5 likes this.
  9. Aaah I see it's school holiday time again [​IMG]
    pepper5 likes this.
  10. lovely to see such friendly people on this forum...

    i just want to say that it always surprises me how horrible/twisted/unsupportive people are on here. either it is a teacher and then i am worried that children are being taught by them, or it is not a teacher, then i am worried why they are hanging round a teaching forum.

    obviously mostly they are just an attention seeker and i am not taking what they say to heart.

    what i will say is this: teaching is a challenging profession. we should suport each other rather than attack each other. no wonder parents/general public etc are so quick to jump on the teacher bashing band wagon, blaming us for everything, when we cant even unite together.

    its sad that some people just want to spread misery.

    for those who dont like misery, have a lovely weekend! i am off to the theatre!
    pepper5 likes this.
  11. I'd guess the OP is not actually a teacher but rather one of two things;

    A child who thinks they have a right to be entertained in school


    A parent who undermines the school when thier usually very naughty children are punished.

    If the OP is indeed a teacher then I ask;

    What qualities do you have that the erm '**** in the classroom we call teachers' do not?
  12. eha


    '''.....without them education would grind to a halt....'

    I understood it already had?

  13. Hi,

    Okay point taken I did rather change the point a little.

    I find it rather exciting that teacher have this natural ability to stand up for a profession in a rather blanket way.

    Behaviour is a exceptionally important part of the job and teaching can not be completed without behaviour control. Is it not as simple as that. I mean put it in simple terms a fire man might be great with a hose, very fit and very strong but if he can ot climb a ladder then he can not do the job. Does being good at 95% of the job mean that you can dismiss the 5% that matters.

  14. Why thank you very much, I haven´t heard many nice things in the last few years and in the waning moments of my "career" I felt deliberately marginalised by my line superiors, largely on account of the views that I held (not part of the team, and all that guff).

    The deterioration of the wider environment in which our state schools operate is a very complicated thing to try to pin down, and any attempt to do so is bound to be a lengthy operation. In essence, however, we have a situation where political control over teachers and teaching was put in place in the late 1980s and early '90s, in the wake of a class war that left hundreds of thousands of families without employment, whilst traditional patterns of social control atrophied. This was done at a time when the economy underwent a violent "restructuring", this in turn occuring in the context of an increasingly decadent culture.

    The economy that has developed in the wake of the industrial one generates service-sector jobs (generally not to the liking of boys) and does not produce upward social mobility. The gap between rich and poor has grown, and most people recognise that a significant slice of society has little or no prospect of escaping from poverty and social pathology. Protected social sectors (those in professions, for example) can hold out real prospects for their privately-educated progeny, as demonstrated by the growing gap in performance between the private and state systems (and under an ostensibly Labour government, too), but parts of our society cannot offer much to their kids by way of a transition from school to a materially bountiful adulthood, and in this context school seems irrelevant to many youngsters.

    They are not wrong. The NC was fashioned by a group of conservative academics led by Prof. Roger Scruton, if memory serves, and it is, in essence, a grammar school concoction. Many kids, and employers, will tell you that they need far more work-related components in the NC, especially in an age where there are few apprenticips (sp) to connect school and work.

    This lack of relevance explains why some misbehave, but there is a lot more to it than that, for the cultural cues picked up by youth today are far more base and venal than anything that was around in my period of childhood socialisation. Last but not least...drugs, responsible for who-knows-what percentage of all crime, and indulged in by our youth to a surprisingly high level (no pun intended). Feral youngsters, ill-disciplined at home, in school and by society, boys especially, no motivation, don´t see a future. They are not as dumb as some would believe, and they are being allowed to grow up in an environment that is so permissive there are not even credible deterrents (punishments) to delinquent and criminal behaviour.

    Hope that isn't too long-winded for some of you...

    As to "do", I´ve published, earned a doctoral degree, won a national strength sport title, lived in four different countries, taught uni and high school, attended and presented in high-level academic conferences, I´ve been a cook, a bouncer and a warehouseman, spent time unemployed, been shot at, have friends who are illiterate and unemployable and friends who´ve written books, and I've upset a fair few people over the years, one or two in high places. Never did know when to keep my mouth shut.

  15. Too true, in-school factors can put a big dent in the behaviour problem that most people see as having broader social and economic origins, and your last question is particularly pertinent to the debate. There are teachers who can be salvaged, a few cannot; there are supreme disciplinarians who are ineffective as communicators of knowledge and facilitators of learning.

    One has to admit, however, that for all the examples of schools where your "blue-sky" scenario is the case, there are many more that border on war zones. Anyway, an incisive post.
  16. eha


    '...Does being good at 95% of the job mean that you can dismiss the 5% that matters....'

    Forgive my obtuseness. Are you saying that behaviour management is the ONLY part of the job that matters? So any idiot with minimal knowledge, awareness, etc, but who can control a classroom, is a 'better' teacher than someone with a high level of personal and academic development, but who expects people to behave like civilized human beings, and doesn't see that outcome as his/her sole responsibility? In other words, are you saying that knowledge, beliefs, personal development,etc DON'T matter, because the one thing that you claim to be good at, is what matters?

    Surely you mean it's the other way around: just because you're good at 5% of the job, does that mean you can dismiss the 95% that are what the core of the job REALLY is?
  17. eha


    Oh, and, yes, I HAVE heard good teachers complain --- bitterly--- about student behaviour. That's because good teachers are usually, before anything else, intelligent people, who can see what's going on around them, and who have some awareness of the world outside of their school and classroom.
  18. Sniffybear,

    Thanks for replying again.

    Clearly for you the buck stops with the person at the chalkface which I guess is a fine premise on it's own. Using it then one would suppose that hopeless cases should be sacked.

    The problem is that approximately one third of the core standards for teachers all relate to team work. You say don't bother SMT, the standards say we should always be working with SMT and everyone else for that matter.

    I would say that you follow a very different philosophy to everyone else here. My objection to that philosophy is that I consider myself part of a team (a team thats extends beyond the school gate if you believe the governments guff) and as such should not be blamed for things that are beyond my circle of influence - behaviour of some children being one of them. I teach the odd burglar and convicted criminal, no one is sacked because of their out of school actions and I resent your suggestion that I (as one of many dealing with them) should be sacked for the burglars lack of interest in my lessons.

    I think your idea gives teachers culpability for events over which they have very little control or influence. That's not a fair situation but is probably an accurate description of what goes on in many schools where SMT blame staff for things which they are also responsible for, I'd say it also partly explains the hostility to your OP.

    I'd really like to know what you do? Are you on SMT? If so do teachers have the power discipline properly in their lessons? Or are you a classroom teacher? If so you are obviously amazing and again please give us some methods and tips for bringing the most disruptive of children under your spell. Thus far you have provided nothing.

  19. 'please stop screwing up our childrens education.' Surely a strong teacher should also know how to spell - an apostrophe is required in 'children's'.
  20. Eha, enjoy reading your posts (how do you spell apprenticeship, by the way...?). Anyway, to the point. I think it is true to say that some of the most adept in the profession understand that there is a growing gap between what teachers would tend to regard as acceptable behavioural norms, and what society, or at least some elements of it, regard as modal. A national principals' conference, some years back, noted this. So it is not surprising that some of the ablest are at once the most bitter in their condemnations of those who vandalise lessons (among other things).

    Another contributor laments the tendency of some to lash out at colleagues, when most of us realise that a little sensible and empowering support can do the trick (I hate the word empowering, but it is at least widely understood). Sadly, there does seem to be a percentage of teachers who perhaps are not particularly sensitive to, or aware of, the bigger picture, and who in turn grasp for the easiest explanation for poor behaviour--an explanation that is so simplistic it is no explanation at all. In my experience, such people are the first to jump on the children's rights bandwagon, as if that justifies vindictiveness.

    In previous posts, I made a lot of noise about out-of-school factors, but there are some in-school factors that also account for the behavioural malaise. Many will not agree with the consequence implicit in the following observation, but the government-imposed limitation on permanent exclusions ties the hands of principals and makes a mockery of the idea of discipline. The concept that underpins this virtual moratorium--social exclusion-- was cultivated by Prof. Giddens and taken as gospel by New Labour. It is well intentioned, at least prima facie, but it also saves Westminster from having to consider institutional reform, as if all types of kids can be packed into one type of school, as if pitching more cash into the current system will lead to significantly reduced levels of crime and delinquency. Kids today are not receiving punishments/consequences proportional to their crimes/actions, and those that do follow the rules and try their best often end up asking, "what is the point?"

    One system that I have seen work is the isolation room, made up of a series of individual booths, and to which a persistent offender (3 strikes rule) can be referred, for part of a day, a whole day or even more. It works because it takes the child out of his/her friendship and peer network, and it also makes life more bearable for classroom teachers by dampening down the overall level of disruption. It is not a cure-all, but it can have a salutary effect.
    tgom likes this.

Share This Page