to think that 'inner city kids' are not 'hardened'?

[CandiStaton]

just read this on another thread about shouty teachers and bringing bullies into line

a poster said you have to shout to get through to some kids, and you have to shout loudly if the individual is a 'hardened inner city kid'

ive heard it before

we are inner-city

kids are kids

you're as likely to find a hideous bully in the country or the leafy suburbs as you are inner-city

and LOUD does not equal naughty...

Im not saying that there aren?t differences between kids in the city and kids in the countryside; they grow in different cultures, so it?s expected that they won?t be ?the same?. But that doesn?t make city-kids, ?less child like? or ?hardened?

I live in London and my son goes to an "inner city secondary school".

I have to say that a majority of the kids that go there are lovely.

Son also has a friend (who has experienced DV in his homelife with his mother and stepfather), he was a very angry boy and got himself excluded due to violent episodes. He now goes to an academy that deals expertly with type of behaviour. 2 years later he's turning into a wonderful young man.

I can see why a lot of these children do become excluded as main stream schools just do not have the expertise needed to deal with their emotional outbursts, it's also very disruptive to the other pupils.

Oh and my son isn't hardened at all, he's what i refer to as "streetwise" now, as in having to be far more aware in keeping himself safe (he's been robbed 3 times!)

do you think that I am saying that one is a negative thing and the other a positive? Or suggesting that children who are more exposed are less nice people? Because if that's what you think my opinion is, you are very, very wrong. I said nothing that could possibly be interpreted that way.

oh, and the word 'hardened' - not coming from me. Just want to make that very clear, since it has been lumped in together.

I also agree with hectate, my son has had to "toughen up" if you like in order to survive in London and all that it brings.

Children living in the inner city are exposed to things that children living elsewhere are not. Or not regularly.

It's not about being hard or soft, it's about being regularly exposed to certain environments that have an effect.

hectate im not saying you are saying it is positive/negative...but generally 'hardened' is viewed as negative...that was certainly the tone of the post that provoked me to start this thread

and 'less child like' is definitely not a positive for a child is it

not a negative either. Just an observation. I am neutral on the issue. They do appear older, seem older, talk older, act older than their rural agemates. Generally.

I don't know why you think that there has to be a positive/negative, when all it is is an observation of difference.

And, reading my post back, clearly the word I was looking for was naive.

Again, nothing wrong with being or not being, naive. Just different.

In my friendship group in the schools I went to, all rural, Ofsted out-standing we had;

girl killed by maternal abuse in primary; 1 close friends dad regularly beat his wife in front of us ; a number of kids regularly had to step over drunk passed out parents to get in house after school; boyfriend who was beaten by both his parents-his dad tried to shoot 4 of us; number of boys abandoned by fathers, turned to drugs (mostly dead now); all having regular sex at age 15; all drinking and smoking and taking drugs by 14-15; lots of stealing/vandalism; child stabbed teacher with scissors in bus line-up; child in village setting fire to dogs/cats/sheep and cows; child in secondary ferociously masturbating at every given opportunity; child tied blind cord around his neck and jumped out of window in a French lesson; children with dad in prison-bank robber

This is off the top of my head-without thinking too hard.

i would be offended if someone said my dc was less child-like than her rural cousins

I don't think there's anything wrong with wanting the window open in your classroom for whatever reason and shouting at kids who close it without permission.

I used to have the window open in my classroom because otherwise after a day of sweaty teenagers the smell was unbearable Anyway fresh air keeps them from falling asleep.

And yes - if one of them got up to close it I would have had words a) for being out of their seat without permission b) closing the window without asking first.

If it was a pattern of behaviour and they did it just to annoy me then I would have shouted.

I'm not offended if this is said about my child to be honest, I'm relieved that he has adapted to his surroundings whilst staying funny and kind. He has also gained a large amount of empathy and emotional intellegence.

A huge positive!

It seems I missed a chunk of the discussion - you can ignore me!

and I am sure there will be those offended if someone said their child was more child-like (aka naive) than their inner city cousins.

But the observation is a neutral one and no ranking better/worse exists within it. so it comes down to the belief of the listener that one is better or worse than the other.

not always hectate

there are often negative connotations attached to statements (and positives!)

there was definitely a negative attached to it, in the post I refer to....

there is alot of negativity directed towards inner-city youth

cake

in my post? You are wrong. I own my post and I know what I meant and there was no negativity towards any group of children coming from me.

The most you can say with any accuracy is that you interpreted it as negative.

no, not your post hectate

...the post I refered to in my OP

MrsRobert there are pockets of poverty in Cornwall FFS, there's poverty everywhere. My point was inner city doesn't always equal poverty, neglect, and tough hard kids.
Honestly some of the misconceptions and stereotypes on this thread are shocking - you'd think some of you have never even been to a city let alone LIVED in one.

oh. I thought you were having a go at my post.

hectate

In urban Scotland the most deprived areas are on the outskirts of cities. So the term inner city doesn't quite apply. But it's the same debate, surely?

i think there are lots of debates within the debate morris

are inner city kids 'hardened'?
what is 'hardened'?
is it ok to refer to kids as 'hardened'?
what makes inner city kids and rural kids 'different' to each other?
what is 'kid like'?
is it acceptable to say some children are 'less kid-like' depending on where they come from?
why inner-city doesnt equal rough
why inner city doesnt equal poor
why poor doesnt equal rough
because of the last 3 points...return to the first point!