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

Teaching in a special school.............

Discussion in 'Personal' started by BelleDuJour, Nov 2, 2010.

  1. I think that Belle was trying to say that these children would benefit more from learning certain skills that aren't included in the curriculum. She wasn't saying that they didn't deserve to access it, just that an alternative 'curriculum' my be more appopriate. To be honest, I work in a very mainstream secondary and half the time I think that some of our students would do much better if the constraints of the curriculum were not an issue. That's a different matter altogether. The point is that Belle's posts have not come across to me as being derogatory. I am astonished at how some posters have kept on and on and on at her. It's just weird!
  2. Anonymous

    Anonymous New commenter

    It's like you're reading a different thread in that case. ONE poster was "going on at her" - others were discussing the issues quite successfully until they had the brass neck to disagree with her.
  3. dande

    dande New commenter

    In your opinion, which you are entitled to have. Belle has not afforded others that luxury if they disagree with her, including parents and established teachers within the sector.
  4. I think that you are confusing specification with curriculum. The national curriculum summary includes section on subjects, the rest is about being a confident individual etc. Not having a curriculum is a bad thing, trust me.
  5. Don't you think that Belle may have been upset by certain comments too? You didn't really give her much of a chance at all and rather than discuss the issue, you have, both last night and tonight, carried on with your nitpicking.
    I found dinx's post totally interesting and thought the thread was finally getting back onto topic. Can't you just leave the argy bargy now?

  6. I have confronted her often on things she has said. Perhaps I do it differently to you, without going gung ho and hitting her with a concrete welly, time and time again, when she is trying to have a conversation.
    And Belle - stop getting dragged into arguments. Concentrate on the useful posts you have had and the help posters have offered you xxx
  7. The young people in Belle's current school are aged 16-19, I think she said. Post-16 education isn't compulsory and the curriculum offered to young people of that age can be very varied, with a number of different vocational, academic and accreditation routes. There are several 'life skills' programmes available that are designed for use in special schools with pupils in this particular age range. So if an educational setting is still pushing the national curriculum for post-16 learners, then someone should really be asking why they are doing that when it's not appropriate.
  8. Doglover

    Doglover Occasional commenter

    I don't think that anyone was denying that there are other life skills that these children or young adults could be learning, which could quite easily be tied into areas of numeracy or literacy.
    The part I objected to was belle's comment that numeracy or literacy were likely to be of little value to them in their lives, so they should therefore be allowed to get on with having some fun in the kitchen instead.

  9. I didn't interpret it that way - I interpreted as her saying "not in the way the NC is normally taught in mainstream".
    As she has not had so much experience of teaching in this enviroment, I think dinx's post about how elements of the NC can still be approached and made accessible was very helpful - as Belle said herself.

  10. Doglover

    Doglover Occasional commenter

    That's fine CQ, you are free to interpret it whatever way you want. Other people didn't interpret it that way. That is fine too.
  11. Sadly there are some people working in special schools who do think like that. I put it down to lack of understanding on their part, they don't have the knowledge or understanding of child development and consequently have no idea of what skills should be emerging at different ages/stages of development - or even what those skills are and where and how they fit into things like literacy, numeracy, science, etc. When you work with children with a developmental disorder it's vital that you can pinpoint their stage of development and work to develop the skills that are appropriate to that particular stage.
  12. dande

    dande New commenter

    Such as? Do you care to expand?
    Nitpicking? Please give an example, and whilst you are at it perhaps you would like to read my posts again.
    However, I doubt I will get a response as you have both repeatedly failed to answer any of the questions that I have asked of you.
  13. dande

    dande New commenter

    As pointed out, did she need to swear? What about the offensive comments that she has been making about the children in her care? I do not believe I have seen you respond to her for these.

  14. anotherauntsally

    anotherauntsally Lead commenter

    I haven't seen you comment when others say the same thing. Why single out BdJ?

    Well, who'd have thought it? It seems the only one who agrees with you on this is QT. Hmmm...
    Not sure what you mean. I haven't noticed her being offensive but I will re-read.
  15. Gosh AuntSally - it's a while since I've seen you posting: Welcome back to the mad house!
  16. Dande, isn't it time to let this go?
    Somewhere in amongst all this bickering, there is an interesting discussion trying to get out.
    I would like to read about autism and the curriculum in special schools, not wade through post after post of who said what to whom several days ago.
  17. :)
  18. dande

    dande New commenter

    Hello. It was not me who originally mentioned her swearing on this thread, one of which was directed at me. I think it is fair to then pick her up on it. Furthermore, her response of 'scuse me was either an apology or not realising that she had actually been swearing. As for the link that you provided, might have been more appropraite if I'd even posted on it. And, to save you the hassle, I do not object to swearing, and have used such words on here. My point was Belle's swearing on this thread.
    Some posters took offence with her comments about crying about what the children might have been. I say offence but will be ready to accept that the posters in question may prefer to give their own vocabulary. I also draw your attention to the opening post where she refers to the children...
    or seeing them pee (or worse!) in front of you in the playground
    I don't think this is a very pleasant way of describing the actions of the children, regardless if it is what happens.
    I think you should also look at post 11 which some posters have picked up on relating to comments about what education the children need.
    Also, consider the sweeping statement about some 'research/report/study relating to all people being on the autism spectrum. It would appear that no such report etc has been published, but I rely on others to provide this information, but await for her to correct me by providing the evidence.
  19. dande

    dande New commenter

    I would rather people did not make comments about me and what I have posted that cannot be supported by the evidence on here. Simply defending my position. If others would acknowledge what has been posted and respond accordingly we could move on.
    Some posters have made some very useful contributions, but it would seem that they are not allowed to disagree with the OP.
  20. Hettys

    Hettys New commenter


Share This Page