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

Teachers Suffer 2,346 Attacks by Pupils in Essex

Discussion in 'Behaviour' started by HonestMike, Aug 13, 2011.

  1. RaymondSoltysek

    RaymondSoltysek New commenter

    Would you deny that a description of schools as "diabolical"
    and of "rioting children" seems characteristic of a teacher
    who views every child with fear and loathing?

    Again, in the deleted post, Mike claimed that young people today
    were “appalling”. No qualification. No “some”. Not even “most”.
    Young people today are appalling.

  2. YesMrBronson

    YesMrBronson New commenter

    You said "teachers" - plural. Are you saying you were only referring to one teacher?
  3. RaymondSoltysek

    RaymondSoltysek New commenter

    As an EE, I visit universities' partner schools, watch students
    and pupils and talk at length to staff. You mean you didn’t
    know that?

    I merely questioned the (a) the proportion of "attacks"
    which were verbal and (b) his portrayal of children as "rioting
    up and down the country". As ever, the chance to disagree
    with me has meant that logic goes out the window and the real issues
    remain undebated.

  4. RaymondSoltysek

    RaymondSoltysek New commenter

    jmntsp agreed with what Mike wrote, despite his later retraction. That's two. And there have been other threads of a similar ilk to which you yourself have contributed.

  5. YesMrBronson

    YesMrBronson New commenter

    Pupils in my area (and many other areas of England) do not go from school to university. they go from school to a separate sixthform college. Thus there would be no need for a university external examiner to visit the secondary school. You mean you didn't know that?
    Or are you talking about teacher training again?
    Yes, I just said that.
  6. YesMrBronson

    YesMrBronson New commenter

    Careful. You can't attribute others' quotes to me (nice sneaky attempt though). Did you contribute to any of the threads to which you're referring?
  7. RaymondSoltysek

    RaymondSoltysek New commenter

    Rather than just acknowledging what I say about visiting English
    schools, you go in for this slippery but unconvincing nit picking.
    No wonder the substantive issues don’t get debated when
    you're around.

    Teacher Training is a university course. Universities work
    in partnership with local schools to deliver three year undergraduate
    and one year postgraduate courses. As external examiner on both
    forms of qualification, I moderate all aspects of the course.
    Hence the "need" for frequent visits to secondary schools.

  8. RaymondSoltysek

    RaymondSoltysek New commenter

    I believe we both contributed to a recent thread in which a poster
    claimed that pupils should not be involved in behaviour management
    CPD because they stabbed people, urinated on teachers' desks, threw
    acid in people's faces and murdered teachers. Is that not of a
    "similar ilk"?

  9. YesMrBronson

    YesMrBronson New commenter

    Perhaps I'd have been less inclined to point out the deficiencies in your claim if you didn't follow it up with attempts to condescend ("You mean you didn't know that"). Totally unnecessary but I can give it back as you know.

    As for your comments about teacher training - I already knew all of that and I'm already aware of why you believe <u>(entirely incorrectly)</u> that this affords you excellent experience of the typical experience of pupils and teachers in schools with regard to behaviour.

    I joined this thread today. The OP was a week (and 26 posts, plus deletions) ago. I can hardly be accused of wrecking the discussion.
  10. YesMrBronson

    YesMrBronson New commenter

    Exactly my point. Neither of us can have those claims (acid etc) ascribed to us just because we contributed to the thread.
  11. RaymondSoltysek

    RaymondSoltysek New commenter

    Therefore your questioning of me saying
    that I visited schools because I was an external examiner for English
    universities was the first salvo in the condescension war, I believe.
    Or perhaps it was even earlier, with the &ldquo;things are different in
    Scotland: do you visit English schools?&rdquo; quip.

    As you know, I give it back too.

  12. RaymondSoltysek

    RaymondSoltysek New commenter

    Did I ascribe those comments to you? I don't believe so. I merely pointed out you must have had knowledge of similar views being expressed.

  13. YesMrBronson

    YesMrBronson New commenter

    You are trully paranoid. That was not a quip; I wondered if things were in fact different. There is a thread about this over on opinion.
    Good grief.
  14. RaymondSoltysek

    RaymondSoltysek New commenter

    Being "paranoid" would suggest I was in some way concerned about what you post. Not in the slightest.

  15. YesMrBronson

    YesMrBronson New commenter

    Ten posts by you today, all in response to me, suggests otherwise.
  16. RaymondSoltysek

    RaymondSoltysek New commenter

    I received a private message from Honest Mike today which read
    "**** u u piece of sh*t" - without the asterisks. I
    have reported him for abuse.

    I also received a friend request from a &ldquo;suzanal- make of that
    what you will &ndash; linked to a profile of of one &ldquo;negy al&rdquo;,
    located in Iran. I suspect the two are linked.

    It is revealing that Mr L, jmstp and Mr Bronson choose to use this
    person's rantings as a way in to attack a poster who tries who bring
    a sense of reason and perspective to a debate about behaviour in

    That they side with this person, gang up on anyone who doesn&rsquo;t
    validate the extreme position set out in this person's posts and
    nit-pick in every conceivable way to undermine any argument against
    this person&rsquo;s views says a lot about their value systems. I have
    heard nothing from them &ndash; other than one mealy-mouthed statement
    from Mr L and admissions that none of them have ever seen "rioting" &ndash; that challenges this extremist, while they have
    pounced on everything I have said .

    It's hardly surprising that I have received a number of e-mails
    from left-wing, liberal-minded posters expressing fear
    about posting on these threads because of the bullying they will
    suffer. Perhaps I should leave the boards too &ndash; it is obvious that
    there are some posters who wish me and others like me to be silent so
    that their views can reign unchallenged on the TES forums and
    continue to poison the teaching profession.

  17. YesMrBronson

    YesMrBronson New commenter

    Do not make out that I have ever or would ever send you or anyone a message of the sort you have described.
    I do not have a "side". I have my own opinions. Sometimes I agree with others and sometimes they agree with me. Although there are other contributors whose opinions I am often in agreement with, I have no loyalty to any other poster. I've even agreed with you on occasion.
    My views are not "poisoning the teaching profession".
    Left wing? ~ I am a card-carrying member of the Labour party.

    You are free to give your opinions. I am free to challenge those opinions and challenge the basis for those opinions (i.e. challenge whether you actually know what you're talking about). I don't recall suggesting otherwise.
  18. I agreed with some of your points about Mike's contributions - any disagreement between us stems from the conversation between us that happened afterwards and the conversations we have had on other boards. I don't think I've even acknowledged any other posters on this thread so I think it is a cheap shot on your part to question my values, accuse me of ganging up on you and link me with the flaming that happened later.
    You are muddling two issues here - views and behaviour.
    I said I didn't agree with Mike's use of extreme examples and anecdotes and I'm sorry but I don't agree with a lot of what you have to say either. This doesn't mean I agreed with some of things that you have said happened later.
    Now I'm sorry you were flamed Raymond but flaming comes with the territory on message boards and is best ignored and left to the moderators - with that in mind I'm not quite sure what you were hoping to hear from me on this matter.
    And an ad hominem to cap it all off. You do realise it is hypocritical to play the victim then make malicious and unfounded accusations against other members of the forum.

  19. RaymondSoltysek

    RaymondSoltysek New commenter

    I didn't. Perhaps MR
    Leonard will now slap your wrists for playing the victim card.

    Whether or not your views poison the
    teaching profession is a matter of opinion. Some will agree with you
    that they do not, some will agree with me that they do.

    Utterly irrelevant. I said left wing, liberal minded posters have
    expressed fear to me about being bullied. The fact that you claim to
    be left wing &ndash; though membership of the Labour Party is hardly cast
    iron proof of that -is beside the point. You may be left wing, but
    are absolutely capable of bullying left wingers. I believe it goes
    on within the Labour Party.

    And you are able to challenge whether I actually know what I am
    talking about because I am honest about who I am and what I do. You,
    on the other hand, prefer anonymity. Therefore, I have no basis
    whatsoever to challenge whether you actually know what you're taking
    about. In fact, come to think of it, I don&rsquo;t think you are a
    teacher at all. Every time you post from now on, Mr B, just reflect
    on the fact that I now imagine you to be a bag lady who's wandered into
    an internet cafe on Camberwell Church Road to get out of the rain.

    And still not one rebuttal of the extremist OP; just attacks on

  20. RaymondSoltysek

    RaymondSoltysek New commenter

    Actually, you did acknowledge the OP &ndash; in post 6 you encouraged
    him and gave him advice on how to attack my rebuttal of his views.

    Besides, why come on to a thread and not acknowledge other
    posters? If your sole intention in the thread is to ignore what
    anyone else says and merely attack my values, then I am entitled to
    infer your values from that.

    Ah. The old &ldquo;you brought it on yourself, what else can you
    expect?&rdquo; line. The fact is the OP seems to have been encouraged by
    your &ldquo;values&rdquo; - &ldquo;Mr L you are absolutely right in all that you
    say from post 37 &ndash; and that encouragement prompted even more
    extremism. But of course, you weren&rsquo;t reading anyone else's posts,
    so you wouldn&rsquo;t know that.

    Ah. Ad hominem. Your favourite riposte.

    When posters e-mail me personally to say that they aren't going to
    contribute to a thread because they are afraid that you &ndash;
    specifically you &ndash; will &ldquo;start on them&rdquo;, I think I have some
    justification for talking about poison.

    And still no rebuttal of the extremism that has been apparent on
    this thread.

Share This Page