To think that if we charged for schooling here(146 Posts)
Worraliberty: you mean Y8 pupils were on group tables and not sitting at desks?
Jeez. Children and teenagers are easily distracted. Some are easily led. I know! Let's put them on group tables where they can all distract and easily lead each other!
I can absolutely understand your frustration. Your logic, however is flawed. My parents would never have paid for my education. I was a model pupil, first in the family to go on to higher education, etc etc. But my parents could not give a shiny shit about how well I did, and if they'd had to pay, I would have had to stay home. So how would that have helped, exactly?
Its not about 'handwringing' those 'disruptive' children are being failed.
If their needs were dealt with properly, it would be better for everyone.
TBH some teachers are fab, lots are fab, most are fab,but some are shit and their ineffectuality leads to ongoing problems for all pupils.
Reading this thread, I'm surprised that nobody has commented that teaching is more than imparting knowledge to those who are interested (isn't it?)
Isn't there also something about developing the child in primary teaching (if not secondary)? I get that it's physically and sometimes emotionally gruelling teaching 30+ kids day in/out. And you have a right to off load. And I agree that most don't appreciate what they get for free in this country's classrooms. I also know that we can only teach well when we consider the child's developmental needs too. This is achieved well in some countries. No-one has mentioned or asked why a boy stormed out of his class?
Well.... It's not the kids fault, is it?
Amber: they're leading to the failure of other children too. Deal with their problems - long term solution. Short term solution - limit the disruption. Or this year's model child could turn into next year's disillusioned disruptor.
Brycie no not group tables.
The teacher just decided to sit the handful of pupils who really wanted to learn - together.
Then she punished/ignored the rest of the class and just wrote them off as destructive.
I don't know where the hell the management team were and why they didn't step in and put a stricter teacher in the class who could control and teach them all.
If I were paying for my DCs education, I would expect better value for money. I would expect DD2 not to be bullied. I would have expected DD1s teacher to have not told me 'I don't notice any hearing problems' two weeks after a hearing test which showed 30% hearing loss which I told her about at the time.
I would expect the teachers to not keep telling me about things my DD2 is doing (repeatedly getting up and going to the loo as an excuse to walk around, humming and annoying the other kids, delaying group learning by having to do things like put a pencil away as just some examples) and then tell me when I talk about going for assesment that they see no problems.
Maybe we should lower the school leaving age to 12 but give everyone the rjght to 6 years free education over that age. Those who want to learn more stay on, those not interested could leave, so wouldn't be disturbing the learners.
A few years down the line, when the 12 year old leavers had grown up a bit and realised the handicap of a lack of education, they could go back and take up their remaining entitlement of a further 6 years study.
The trouble now is that by the time the wasters realise their mistake it's too late to rectify it.
You are being unreasonable to ask for us to charge (money) for education (and you know it) - but your point is completely valid.
What is given for free is taken for granted and generally undervalued. Many, many parents don't see the value and therefore neither do their kids.
There are strong arguments for a (new version) of the grammar system for kids who are more academically able (or willing) and there are strong arguments for an education system which delivers to all but which doesn't test AT ALL at 16 unless you want to go on into further / higher education.
Of course this debate leads into vocational training being properly valued alongside pure academia - and then maybe into a (new) notion of national service.
I understand where the OP is coming from, hoping that if the parents had to put out hard earned money to send the kids to school they would insist the kids behave and pay attention but I doubt it would happen in reality.
We have what they call alternative high schools here. Anyone who is constantly disruptive, violent, doing drugs or continually fails to do any work has the chance to continue their education at these schools, basic classes needed to graduate are offered and smaller class size, many of the kids are behind in their education at these schools and need extra help. There is a stigma attached to going to "alternative high" and so it becomes a last resort most kids pull it together pretty quick when they are brought in for a meeting and told they will be sent there if xyz doesn't happen by a certain date. So even though there are some disruptions they are not daily and not as bad as I hear about in UK high schools.
We pay here and there are still disruptive unruly kids in my DDs classes.
I can see why you feel the way you do OP, I just don't think it would change the student's attitudes unless they were in danger of being murdered, or had to walk the miles the other students did to get to school.
I think it's more to do with prospects. If you can see that gettig an education means you will earn more and have a better life than your parents ten there is motivation.
My DD has only ever (apart from one year) been to fee paying schools. We've never paid since DH is a teacher and gets a free place.
IME, children at those schools are equally disruptive and reluctant to learn. The sweeping generalization has been those schools in Asia.
Education is seen as a gift rather than a right and the pupils on the whole strive and want to learn.
It's been good for my DD to come here and see that. She was getting a bit jaded for the year we were in England.
Sorry, sweeping generalization of wanting to learn. I am a bit tired and in pain, I hope you get the gist.
Schools need to work to plan lessons which will interest and engage all pupils and work to help them achieve their potential. Sometimes I think it's to easy to write children off as trouble makers without looking beyond that
You could plan a trip to the f'ing moon and some children would still mess about and spoil it for everyone else. Some children are just unpleasant brats and nothing a school offers will ever change that.
95% of their behaviour and attitude comes from their home.
But kitty a school shouldn't just accept that they should work to change things for that child
Sometimes what the child needs is a change of parents.
There are some dreadfully entitled and rude children out there who are disruptive because they like to entertain and be the centre of attention, and if that desire is fed and supported at home, it takes a lot to turn it around in school.
Although it is very entertaining to see the polite, mature and lovely children in my class metamorphose into shrieking, demanding, whining and tantrumming brats as soon as they meet their mothers in the playground.
Mamala wasn't shot because she wanted an education. On Aljazeera yesterday a Taliban spokesman denied that, saying if that was the case the other girls on the bus would've been shot too. The reason she was shot was she encouraged others to think for themselves and embrace secularism.
It is in people's nature to not really respect what's for free, IMO.
However, I think free education (and free healthcare) are essential to a civilised nation.
Talking about paying for schools, or grammar schools, I think the big pull of those schools is not only of academic nature, class size, or status or sports, but mainly the fact that you know, as a parent, that most parents of the kids at those school really care about education, and that is the underlying root of the problem, I think, about bad behaviour: kids get away with it, cause parents don't care how they behave at school. teachers need the back up of parents when it comes to discipline.
"You could plan a trip to the f'ing moon and some children would still mess about and spoil it for everyone else."
"a school shouldn't just accept that they should work to change things for that child"
Only if they have the resources to do that in a way that also changes things for the 29 other pupils who want to enjoy their lunar adventure.
Schools should not accept, or be expected to accept, that one child can damage the learning opportunities and future prospects of diligent classmates.
"teachers need the back up of parents when it comes to discipline."
That is so, so far from being the problem.
In many cases teachers are being expected to "discipline" pupils that the police can't deal with adequately.
Pupils are being expected to go to school with people who have attacked and seriously injured them.
Some people on this thread seem to think that it is only children who are struggling to access the curriculum that play up and therefore it's the teacher's fault.
Firstly: It's not always the teacher's fault that a student can't access the curriculum. Sometimes the child is completely out of place in mainstream and can't access any curriculum without 1-1 support - lack of this is nothing to do with teachers who have a whole class of children to teach.
Secondly: Inability to access the curriculum is not a reason to be a pain in the arse. I've taught the most delightful, well-behaved kids who don't have a clue what's going on.
Thirdly: Some kids who piss about are perfectly able to access the curriculum but choose not to. I've taught kids in every set who choose to disrupt lessons.
kim - sorry to hear you had a bad day and I can totally see why that must be demoralising.
I do pay for my childrens education as they go to private school - which is by no means an elite institution. In a way you are right. I pay so I expect certain things to happen and if other children were disrupting my children's education I would be straight into the school demanding it be sorted out. In addition, when we sent our children to the school we signed a contract that states we agree to school rules - that includes full attendance, proper uniform amd good behaviour. It also states the school has a right to exclude pupils on a temporary or permanent basis.
Both sides have expectations and those are enshrined in a contract and the monetary transaction is the bedrock behind that.
In my view, I would like to see a voucher system in the UK with an 11+ exam where the children who came out at the top of the exam tables being given a choice where they go to school. I know many people hate the entire Grammar school system but I do think it jas got to the point that if we could get the top 50% of academically able children into streamed education with disruptive children excluded that really would allow more childen from poorer backgrounds to have the sort of decent education my children get. People would value that and the schools would see a real money flow benefit form being good schools and attracting good pupils.
We just nee dto work out how to give a good eductaion to teh other 505 who are less academically able or who cannot for social or behavioural reaosns fit into a traditional school setting.
Join the discussion
Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.Register now
Already registered with Mumsnet? Log in to leave your comment or alternatively, sign in with Facebook or Google.
Please login first.