Oh dear

[Mike-L]

warren zevon rip wrote:

> Mike-L wrote:
>
>
> >
> > Teachers are allowed to use reasonable force without
> resorting
> > to corporal punishment according to this article.
> >
>
>
> If a teacher ALLEGEDLY uses any force whatsoever for any
> reason, they get suspended (for weeks) and police go to their
> house. So in practice no sensible adult will touch a kid. As
> already stated, I know this to be true, regardless of your
> link.

How can it be true though if the education secretary has passed a rule allowing reasonable physical force?

> > This whole point is bollocks! If you think putting a child in
> > care will improve a childs behavior then as a teacher you are
> > seriously out of touch with your students.
>
> If parents cannot bring children up properly they should not be
> allowed to do so badly. See my point below about care homes -
> you seem to believe that care homes have to be bad.

So what all knowing person/people has the right to pass rules on who is a suitable parent or not? You? Care homes are not the way to go. I worked as youth worker with alot of troubled teens who have been taken into care and I am telling you it is not the answer, I have never known a kid to suddenly get better behavioural skills from being put into care only worse.

> > So you can have an informed opinion of how every parent
> should
> > bring up thier kids, but a parent can't have an opinion on
> how
> > their children are being taught at schools?
>
> Yeah. Exactly - they can have an OPINION, but they have to
> realise their opinion is UNINFORMED - they went to school 20
> years ago plus, so their experience is not up to date. And
> their experience in bringing up their kids is nothing like
> teaching 30 kids of varius degrees of ability, etc. in a
> classroom. Just like when you get your car fixed, you may have
> an opinion about it, but you would usually accept the garage's
> opinion.

I'm a little concerned how you compare a child to a car in your job as a teacher, but sticking with this rather odd analogy, I have been to many garages or mechanics that are incompetent or simply don't give a damn about the job they are doing and ended up getting a second opinion.

> > How the hell does divorce or bereavement even come into the
> > same league as drug addiction as far as being a capable
> parent
> > is concerned? Yes the child affected by it, but he/she is far
> > better off with a loving parent than in care trust me on
> this.
>
> My point is that teachers are constantly told to turn a blind
> eye to off the wall behaviour by kids because their parents are
> splitting up, etc. My view is that if things are so bad at
> home for WHATEVER reason that kids can't cope, then they should
> not be at home. It is just cruelty to make a kid fail at
> school, and make other kids fail at school, by keeping kids at
> home.

If teachers are being told to completely turn a blind eye to a childs behaviour then thats an issue with either the educactional system or your superiors. I grew up with divorced parents yes, it did affect me, but no teacher EVER turned a blind eye to me and the teachers still treated me like shit but I certainly wouldn't have been better off in home that I can promise you.


> > >4) All drugs would be legalised and distribution supervised
> by
> > govt.
> >
> > Yes a nation of monged out morons or spun out pscychos is
> just
> > what the nation needs to solve its behavior and crime rate
> > issues.
>
> We already have that - and that is with draconian drug laws,
> which divert resources from other crimes, and also prevent
> police supervising the legal age laws for e.g alcohol.


> I would say that in a good care home, run by properly trained, well-paid
> and supervised professional staff, most "troubled" kids would
> prosper

Well that is supposed to be the situation now in regards to properly trained and supervised professional staff and the kids aren't prospering are they?

I'm not saying kids can't be a nightmare but ss a teacher if you have trouble controlling a class because they don't respect you then perhaps you need just as much training in your job as a teacher as they do as parents. In my experience there are the teachers the kids respect and then there are useless idiots calling themselves teachers who get chewed up and spat out by the very pupils they are supposed to be trained to deal with.

[mike johnson]

One wonders, in yank ignorance, just what the hell 'sharking' might be....
Or perhaps that is 'getting old' ignorance??

[Mike-L]

warren zevon rip wrote:

> Mike-L wrote:
>
> > How can it be true though if the education secretary has
> passed
> > a rule allowing reasonable physical force?
>
> All I am doing is telling you what actually happens in practice
> - you can choose to believe it or not, but if you want to check
> it, just ask a teacher who is working in high school today.
> >
> > So what all knowing person/people has the right to pass rules
> > on who is a suitable parent or not? You? Care homes are not
> > the way to go. I worked as youth worker with alot of
> troubled
> > teens who have been taken into care and I am telling you it
> is
> > not the answer, I have never known a kid to suddenly get
> better
> > behavioural skills from being put into care only worse.
>
> Yes. You "worked." In the past. My point exactly - so we need
> to improve the system, not use it as an excuse to force kids to
> stay in terrible homes. I would rather it was me, or another
> trained professional that made this decision rather than the
> accountants at the council that keep kids in terrible homes to
> save money.

Yes, but the past wasn't that long ago mate lol! I still know these kids well and unfortunately the care system doesn't put a kid on the straight and narrow. I agree if the child is in situation where they are abused or neglected in anyway then there is no choice to remove them from their homes. I totally disagree that a bereaved or divorced parent should have their chldren taken off them.


> > I'm a little concerned how you compare a child to a car in
> your
> > job as a teacher, but sticking with this rather odd analogy,
> I
> > have been to many garages or mechanics that are incompetent
> or
> > simply don't give a damn about the job they are doing and
> ended
> > up getting a second opinion.
>
> Why is the analogy odd? Experts are experts regardless of their
> sphere of knowledge. You obviously agree - you go for a "second
> opinion" - presumably from another mechanic, not a farmer or a
> parking attendant.

A teacher may be a professional at thier job inside the school but they are no expert to the matters at hand that go on outside of school hours. Your opinion on whether children should be put in care homes is beyond and outside your profession as a teacher (as its not a part of your job) therefore your's is not an expert opinion.

> > If teachers are being told to completely turn a blind eye to
> a
> > childs behaviour then thats an issue with either the
> > educactional system or your superiors. I grew up with
> divorced
> > parents yes, it did affect me, but no teacher EVER turned a
> > blind eye to me and the teachers still treated me like shit
> but
> > I certainly wouldn't have been better off in home that I can
> > promise you.
>
> How can you say that, without being brought up in a home in a
> parallel universe?

Parallel universe? I'm not completely sure of your meaning here. My parents were divorced and the people I were taught by never took that into account and in fact I probably got in more trouble at school than most kids due to being easily distracted - As I said no blind eye was turned and no time was spent with me during school hours in regard to my troubles.



> I would say the kids I each who are in care are much better off
> than many of the kids who have difficult home lives but remain
> at home to save the council some cash.

As I already said, I only agree with this if the child is abused or neglected in any way.

>
> Well, I am sure there are incompetent teachers, but remember a
> teacher's job is to teach, not to control classes - if you get
> into teaching to control classes, you are probably some sort of
> psycho who wants to bring back the belt, and show the kids who
> is in power over them. I am not that type of person, and
> believe my classes should contain kids who have been brought up
> to do what they are asked to do without threats of, or actual,
> violence.

I never once said a teacher should assert some sort of physical power over them to control a class. I just think good teachers are able gain respect and control without resorting physical or verbal abuse. Being able to maintain respectable authority to control a class room is part of your job as it was mine when teenagers were under my supervision. During school hours a child or children is left under your supervision and professional care, you are therefore responsible for being the authority figure in place of the parents during that time.


> Teachers do get training - before they qualify, during their
> first year, and ongoing. How much training do parents get?

Parents have been learning how to bring up kids since the beginning of mankind the last time I checked.

This takes me to my next point, one of the biggest issues we have are kids parenting kids without actually growing up themselves, I think these young parents should be given the time and training classes with government funding(to give incentive), in order to help them deal with thier new responsibilities. I definitely don't think that there should be some sort of examination to see whether or not a child should be taken away and shoved into care.

[Mike-L]

warren zevon rip wrote:

> Bereaved or divorced parents should of course only lose their
> kids (and often only for a short time) if their kids are not
> able to cope with any ensuing chaos (far from inevitable) at
> home and this results in poor behaviour at school.

Rubbish, a child belongs with a loving parent and not being put into care home regardless of the outcome of the marriage. A child is better off with one loving parent at at time rather than two arguing parents who don't love each other anymore, this would just encourage more unhappy marriages due to the fact that they are too afraid to break up because of the risk of losing their child.

> > A teacher may be a professional at thier job inside
> the
> > school but they are no expert to the matters at hand that go
> on
> > outside of school hours. Your opinion on whether children
> > should be put in care homes is beyond and outside your
> > profession as a teacher (as its not a part of your job)
> > therefore your's is not an expert opinion.
>
> My expert opinion is about whether a child can cope with
> school. Given that social workers and parents do not see the
> kid in class, I am at a loss as to who could possibly be a
> better person to adjudicate on whether a child should be
> removed from difficult home circumstances (temporarily?) than
> their classroom teacher.

Unless your training deals with issues that children at home then I am at loss as to why you ould assume yourself to be in a position to pass judgement on a childs home life.

> > Parallel universe? I'm not completely sure of your meaning
> > here. My parents were divorced and the people I were taught
> by
> > never took that into account and in fact I probably got in
> more
> > trouble at school than most kids due to being easily
> distracted
>
> My meaning was that you can only say a care home would have not
> been an improvement if you had had experience of both
> situations simultaneously and could later compare them - that
> would require a parallel universe.

I don't need a parallel universe to remember how I felt as child and I KNOW being taken away from parents would have had a negative impact on me. No child wants to be taken away from thier parents who love them. I had two former friends that ended up in care one is in prison and the other died a herion addict. Both thier problems began at an early age and definitely worsened in a "care" home. You can also include the teenagers who ended up in care that I have tried to help as youth superviser. So I can safely say that I was better off with my parents and out of care.

Statistics from last year show around 50% young offenders in custody have experienced being put into care.

> I think the fact you got into trouble at school suggests you
> are using this debate just to get back at teachers, rather than
> taking responsibility for either your parents actions or your
> own actions. It is oh so easy to say "I wasn't a bad kid, but
> the teacher was not tough enough, so I messed about..."

How the hell does some debate on a porn forum constitute as my "getting back at teachers". Does psychology come as a part of your expertise? You completely misread what I said, teachers still came down on hard on me as kid before and after my parents were divorced none ever turned a blind eye. My point in relation to me was that some teachers deal out punishment through humilation and I was subjected to that as child in classrooms due to a learning disability which I have learned to overcome as an adult, but i'm not the issue here. Another thing that makes your comment about me completely reduntant is that I am in university studying journalism and media, and plan on going into teacher training after I have obtained my degree. I plan on not making the same mistakes with kids under my supervision as were made with me.

Perhaps I can make an analysis of you and say that you are using this debate as an excuse for your lack of skills in a teaching enviroment so instead of accepting the responsibilty of not being to handle your students you shift the blame onto the parents. Then again perhaps my analysis is just as crap as yours.


> Any kid that is allowed to spoil their own learning and that of
> others by their parents is abused and neglected.

Thats your misguided opinion but from my experienced opinion I was NOT abused or neglected as a result of divorce or any bereavement.

> > I never once said a teacher should assert some sort of
> physical
> > power over them to control a class. I just think good
> teachers
> > are able gain respect and control without resorting physical
> or
> > verbal abuse.
>
> True. But this post is mainly about physical responses to
> misbehaviour. I would like you to tell me how you would deal
> with a drunk kid (age 11) who turns up to school with an air
> rifle. Just how would you gain respect and control over that
> kid. Personally, I would call the police. Again, tell me
> what YOU would do if you wanted to get a kid out of your
> classroom for failing to follow basic instructions? (This is a
> favourite teaching interview question by the way, and a very
> common situation!).

Firstly a drunk kid with damn air rifle thats probably the same size as him at aged 11 should have been spotted by the schools officials before he got into school property, I believe thats an issue with your schools security and possible negligence. Secondly if thats an occurance in your school then your schools security is clearly lacking. Obviously the police should have been called if they weren't already.

Children respond to courtesy and respect and treating them in that manner will often contribute greatly to the behavior they demonstrate and respond with. One of the things you should have been taught whilst training to become a teacher is a positive classroom atmosphere is the first step towards avoiding behavioural problems. Perhaps if you incited this respect in your classroom you wouldn't get disrespected in the first place, but with the possibilty of child not removing themselves from the classroom under my supervision since confrontation should be avoided at all costs ie handcuffing a child, then I would obviously refer to the principle/Head Of Year as the ultimate decision rests with them when the situation has gone beyond my control.

> If it is a question of not being a good teacher that causes
> this poor behaviour then I would say there are NO good teachers
> in my school whatsoever, as we all have had poor behaviour in
> our classes at some time. If you want to believe that 100 staff
> in a "good" comprehensive (as ajudged by the Inspectorate) are
> incompetent and all the kids are misunderstood, then so be it.

The same thing applies that there must be no good parents in the world either, because every kid misbehaves at some point or another.

> > Being able to maintain respectable authority to
> > control a class room is part of your job as it was mine when
> > teenagers were under my supervision. During school hours a
> > child or children is left under your supervision and
> > professional care, you are therefore responsible for being
> the
> > authority figure in place of the parents during that time.
>
> Yes, the trouble is, if the parents are not much of an
> authority figure then the kids do not see good teachers as
> people to respect but as people who are authoritarian and they
> react badly to these rules, sometimes the first rules that have
> been enforced in their lives. Also, it sounds like your job
> was to supervise children. Mine, thankfully, is not primarily
> to supervise them - it is to teach them.

If the parents are not much of an authority figure then I am surprised they show up for school at all but anyway I agree on this level that if the parents don't give a damn what their child does then yes perhaps a child should be placed a in better home preferably a family enviroment(relatives, family etc) not a care home.


> > Parents have been learning how to bring up kids since the
> > beginning of mankind the last time I checked.
>
> Learning is not the same as training. So your answer is "no
> training" to be a parent, and plenty of training to be a
> teacher. Yet you suggest parents are the experts!

I didn't say that parents are teh experts but a good parent will always feel they know what's best for their own child over the opinion of a teacher. The definition of training is an activity leading to a skill or skilled behaviour,
being educated is also the knowledge or skill obtained or developed by a learning process, your training in the university comes under education does it not?
I would say a parents responsibly bringing up a child the good old fashioned way constitutes as an activity leading to a person becoming a skilled parent. This is something good parents educate themselves and learn as time goes on.
At what point did I say that NO parents should be given a form of training?Go back and read what I said about parents(especially young) being given training, help and guidance where it is needed.

>
> > I definitely don't think that there should
> > be some sort of examination to see whether or not a child
> > should be taken away and shoved into care.
>
> Why not? Do you really want 16 year olds to bring up their kids
> badly, so they can repeat their parents' mistakes and create a
> downwardly spiralling cycle. How cruel is that? Are you
> trying to create some sort of subclass?
> As already stated, care is not inherently a negative choice for
> appropriate kids.

So I suppose all 16 year olds will bring up thier kids badly? As I have said go back and read what I said about young parents being given support and guidance as an alternative to just taking their kids off them.


> I think your bad experience of care has blinded you to my
> constructive suggestions, which rely on care homes being a much
> more positive option than in the past, however recent a past.
> That takes money, training, supervision and political will, but
> is not impossible.

More accurately my experiences have opened my eyes as opposed blinded me to your suggestions. I feel myself just as justified in my opinions as you are of yours I just thank god that my opinion reflects how most people feel about it.

> Also, do you not think parents (the potentially good ones
> anyway) would actually be deterred from poor parenting choices
> by the realisation that the resot of society is not going to
> just stand back and let them do a bad job?

Yes, they would but not under your views of what a bad parent is as far divorce and bereavement is concerned.