It is not a school's job to control your children, it is a school's job to educate them - it is a parent's job to get them to school with the right behavioural attitudes and social abilities to learn

[activate]

(excluding diagnosed behavioural SN) your thoughts?

A 12 year old calmly said to me: "No one can make us behave - our parents can't, the schools can't, and the police can't. I know who's in charge - we are."

I gave up teaching not long after that. I'd been doing it for 23 years, I'd had a lot of good feedback from students and parents, but without any support from SMT (it was always the teachers' fault if pupils misbehaved) it wasn't a job I could carry on doing.

I have sacrificed the odd lesson (not literacy and numeracy though) to sort out playground issues and have a chat about something that is affecting the class as a whole. Its not the end of the world but then, I don't have to do it every week - its very rare that something arises.

If one child is having problems at home, for instance, I would not feel qualified to address them in the classroom. I would only address behaviour/incidents that happened in school.

There is a lot of pressure to cover the syllabus at breakneck speed though - its huge!!

A colleague recently commented that she was getting fed up of spending time working with the not 'school ready' at the expense of the progress of the 'school ready'. Teachers get a lot of criticism, some of it justified, IMO, but we can't be everything for everybody.

TFO - do you think the syllabus is age appropriate? Are children learning things that have some relevance to their lives and their needs?

A 12 year old calmly said to me: "No one can make us behave - our parents can't, the schools can't, and the police can't. I know who's in charge - we are."

And that is the crux of the problem. It only takes ONE child with that attitude in a class to disrupt the entire lesson, and get all attention on them.

:(

In my Swedish school book on child development (compulsory subject in secondary schools in the 70s) it states categorically that children are not ready to start school until the age of 7 for developmental reasons. Took a lot of pressure off parents and teachers that did.

When I was a child in the 70's, children were more than ready development wise to start school at the age of 5. So what has changed?

Most of my class could read, write their name, and do basic sums.

And the ones who couldnt, got taught, while the rest of us got on with our work, quietly, because we knew that we were in school and you did what the teacher told you to do.

Exactly, squeakytoy

That class (and many others) were impossible to teach properly because of that prevailing attitude, but according to the HT, it was down to the staff. The year I left two others left on ill health grounds - we had nearly 70 years' experience between us. I gather things haven't changed there much.

If SMT always back the pupils/parents when misbehaviour disupts lessons it simply hacks off those pupils who have been taught how to behave at home and come to school ready to learn.

And I believe that child's attitude is down to a fundamental lack of respect - for his parents, his teachers, the police and the social system.

I know that when we were at school (ok it was aeons ago but still) we still called our teachers Mr., Mrs., Miss., Dr or whatever. At my sister's state school some of the "hip" teachers liked to be called by their first name, the start of the "get down wiv da kids" thing. It didn't help the discipline in their classrooms whereas our school, despite the lack of detentions (rife in my sister's school) had much better discipline.

There is so little respect around, despite the kids' demands for "rispeck" for themselves, that many of them think they have the right to do what they damn well please because no one is going to do much to stop them. And you know the saddest bit - they're mostly right.

we knew that we were in school and you did what the teacher told you to do

That is the crux of the matter, isn't it? The trouble is that so many now have a massive sense of entitlement to do as they like - ask them to stop talking so the lesson can begin and you get "But I haven't finished yet!" - and that can only have been learned at home.

many of them think they have the right to do what they damn well please because no one is going to do much to stop them. And you know the saddest bit - they're mostly right

I have the utmost respect for anyone who is brave enough to be a secondary school teacher these days, or even a junior school teacher.

The attitude of so many children, and their expectations of entitlement is astoundingly arrogant.

This only seems to apply to the UK too.

I have seen classrooms in the USA and there is a hell of a lot more respect for the teacher, and for their education in most establishments (obviously there will be "problem" schools, but they are not the norm, as it seems to be in this country.

absolutely!

I notice more and more that children can't/don't distinguish between home/classroom/playground behaviour, which seems to be what some others are saying, too.

The attitude of so many children, and their expectations of entitlement is astoundingly arrogant

And it starts in the home. I agree with OP, but unfortuately they can't educate without DCs willing to listen and learn so they end up doing the parent's job.

And whether it's nature or nurture to blame, there's really not the teacher can do, apart from gripe on MN!

Is it more important to coax a student who doesn't even want to stand up, to walk, or to show a student who's already running, how to fly? And how can you do both at the same time?

I only have one pupil who is officially SN, but about half the pupils in all the classes I teach have issues which will inhibit their success as they progress through the school, because there is no provision for dealing with their 'issues'. On the contrary, the SN pupil is doing very well, because his needs are being addressed in the correct way.

activate? yes, up to a point. But it does have to be ajoint operation. I have learned more on mumsnet about parent teacher relationships,than anywhere else

I agree with the OP. It is the responsibility of parents to enusre their children are well behaved and educable. But why did it go wrong. IMO it was the liberal touchy feely philosophies of the 1970's and the time when teachers (and social workers and medics) jumped on the anything goes bandwagon. Three generations have had flexible boundaries and it is only just about pulling back again. I was astounded at my dc's primary that it was the younger teachers who were coming in better educated, smarter, sharper and more on the ball than those in their 40's and 50's. I do think the training colleges and their management have a lot to answer for and that a root and branch approach needs to be taken. I never remember being so shocked as when I was a governor of a large inner city failing school and the deputy head said "we can't possibly tell them that drugs and marajuana are wrong things becasue that is what their parents do". I shall never forget the discomfort of some of the other governors when I said you can and you should because using drugs and aspiring to sell them is illegal and will profoundly affect their life chances if they end up with a criminal record. Yes often parents do fail children, especially when they are deprived themselves but if the parents can't do the job then it behoves those in the teaching professiona to point out right from wrong. If they will not because their own sensibilities are blurred then some of them regrettably have only themselves to blame.

Our dd went to a state secondary two years ago and is leaving this summer for the independent sector. The staff at her school are marvellous, lovely people but the power to sanction and discipline effectively has been removed from them. That is why children at the school get away with disrupting lessons continually, swearing, insolence and foul and feral behaviour. There are no longer any consequences.

activate - I've just realised that you are the poster who works in a behavioural unit attached to a secondary school.

I'm confused.

Are you saying that it is your opinion that the children you deal with could all be sorted out with firm parenting?

And that that is the conclusion you have drawn from your work?

Surely some of the children in your unit have come from homes where the parents don't know how to parent? For a wide variety of reasons. Do none of the children in your unit have SEN, undiagnosed (for a variety of reasons)?

Presumably, you have a great deal of experience, since this is your job, and so, if your conclusions are that it really is as simple as just a sharp word with the parents, and then, off to school with the children, it can all be sorted out quite easily.

I agree.

We had to move both dc's schools because of the poor levels of behaviour. They're now attending schools where the kids don't have behavioural issues and parents who are too scared to discipline them.

The schools they attend are more than capable of helping the children who have SN and both schools are very well run.

I think you've all got rose-tinted glasses on. My brothers have very funny stories about their own and peers' naughty behaviour in primary and high school (1960s-70s). I remember chronic awful behaviour from my peers all the way thru school (1970s-80s). And sometimes into University, too. My dad tells stories about antics that he got up in school below the age of ten (1940s) that would make your jaws drop off.

Whether parents or teachers/schools gave each other more support in the past I dunno. Whether schools are expected to do too much now vs. the past -- probably. But I do believe it's wrong to say that the children are much worse behaved than past. I have a theory that as kids we don't notice or think about it because it's normal. And optimistic young teachers take misbehaviour rather differently from jaded old ones, too.

YANBU! Good thread.