TO THINK THAT INSTEAD OF SETTING BY ABILITY...

[icymaiden]

.. schools should set by behaviour.At least in the first instance so that all the kids who can't or won't behave , can be in a class together, so that everyone else can achieve their best.Once you have separated that lot out, then the remainder could still be set by ability

'I don't want my disruptive child sitting next to another disruptive child, but I expect your well behaved one to have to do so'

I don't think anyone has said this icy.

Are you even reading the replies you're getting?

Actually fuck the likeable-but-can't-sit-still-and-concentrate kids.

I want the my-mummy-loves-the-sound-of-my-voice-so-I-expect-you-do-too kids out of my class.

Mostly girls, mostly bright, won't be chuffing told anything, do everything in their own sweet time and gossip like their mothers while they're at it.

OUT I say!!

They haven't put it into that form of words, but that is what it amounts to.

Bollox icy. You are putting words into people's mouths because so they are pointing out the many, many flaws in your ridiculous plan.

I have read through the thread and cannot find anywhere that you have addressed the issue of SEN. What about those with SEN who struggle within the classroom?

I can tell you what happens now....the school will liaise with the local authority and extra support is put in place to help the child. Voila, the child is no longer disruptive.

You however, appear to be suggesting that those children are just consigned to a "naughty class" and forgotten about. How sad if that is truly your approach.

You know what, actually I do expect the well-behaved bright ones to suck it up, short of real violence and chaos.

DD is bright, solid, no-nonsense and well-behaved, and thus an excellent buffer zone for hyperactive small boys. She grumbles a certain amount about this (I still remember her announcing firmly at parents' evening that it was 'someone else's turn for Travis next term, Mrs Barnes') but she knows damn well that she has a better chance at life than many of them.

Her brother is one of the ones you wouldn't want your child with.

Hahahahahahahahahaha

What a fucking daft thread

That's a good point outer, there are lots of different ways that kids are disruptive and undermining of the teaching. I'm genuinely not sure what I think of this one, I felt uncomfortable with the idea at first and the tone of some of the posts. I can't think it's a good thing for all the disruptive children to put together in one set, but I wonder if that's what happens anyway a lot of the time in bottom sets expect for a few well behaved but less able kids who then get condemned to worse educational outcomes because of the behaviour of their classmates. The education of my son and his classmates in year 3 was hugely disrupted when a child with significant behavioural problems moved into their class, I think the school tried to manage him with TA support but it was unmanageable in a class of thirty. He was eventually moved to specialist provision but it had been a difficult year for all the children who were the targets of his aggression and who struggled to learn in a classroom where he was frequently acting out. The boy himself seemed to spend so much time off one a 1:1 in a breakout room and banned from the playground that I wondered whether the notion of inclusion in those circumstances was in the best interests of anyone.

icy the crux of things is what you call 'disruptive children'.
As another pp said, those children who are always talking and can't shut up ARE disruptive. Maybe just as much as the one who can't sit still and had to fidget/move all the time. Or the one that is 'naughty'. I know some teachers have found dc1 disruptive because he asks 'difficult' questions that either the teacher can't answer or if he/she does, the class wouldn't understand the answer.
So where do you put the limit?

When you use sets for children and have them around tables by sets, you might find yourself, one year, with a bigger group of 'able' children. Then don't all for on the tables so you put one of them on the lower table because there isn't enough room. However that child hasn't stopped being able but in that specific class they are not part of the 'able' group.

Now take your disruptive children, what criteria will you use to say they are disruptive? That they are violent? They they are constantly rude? Or never listening up instructions? What are your criteria?
What us telling you that one child won't seen as very disruptive in one class but not so much in another (maybe because another child is moving the spot light away from him/her). How will you know/choose?

Kittyinsane-it is not the bright well-behaved children who will have a problem, it is the not-so-bright well-behaved children who want to learn and are not given the best opportunity because they are dumped in sets which are largely full of disruptive kids.I made that quite clear early on in the debate.

captainfracasee yep that is a problem.I guess the criterion has to be really that the teacher thinks they should be in the 'naughty' class.

Icy
Your views on education are somewhat out of touch. They are selfish and ignorant in both senses of the word. Inclusive education is there for a reason. It may not be perfect but it's what we have. I'm sorry that the disruptive people in your classes didn't teach you kindness and patience, I am equally sorry that they appear to have ensured you were not able to cope with grammar and spelling, too. Your resentment shines.

KittiesInsane I wish your assertive daughter was my niece! She sounds fantastic - how old is she?

Why does everyone think it's the bottom set which is always disruptive?

Not the case for all sets by any means at our school!

'Inclusive education is there for a reason. '

Because it's cheaper than a special school place

Dawndonna It would be the intelligent thing, to stick to teh debate rather than throw insults about, and pick holes in posts hastily typed and edited while people multitask.It cheapens your arguments.
I am still waiting to find out why the 'greater good' doesn't trump the benefit to the few.

I can sort of see where Icymaiden is coming from. Whilst I think there should be a lot more support for children with SEN, there have always been some non-SEN children that cause low level disruption just because they want to.

My Aspergers son really struggled in his early years of high school, because he could not cope with the bad behaviour of a few of the children in the class. It caused him real problems and in turn he then became disruptive himself. As he moved into KS4 and choose harder subjects, which most of the disruptive children had avoided, his school life was transformed. Without all the low level disruption, he could cope so much better in school and he never had anymore meltdowns.

In a perfect world, every high school teacher would be able to cope with any class they were given and ensure they could all reach their potential. In reality there are classes (especially with supply teachers) where children do not get to learn as much as they could due to just a few children.

By setting by ability (which I generally agree with) we are more or less already writing off some of the quiet better behaved lower ability children anyway, as I'm pretty sure there is generally some correlation between ability & behaviour by the time they are in high school. Maybe we should try setting by attitude to learning

Well this is a very well known phyllo sophism discussion that. Sanctify a few for the greater good or consider that every individual is as valuable as the other and you should never make such a choice and say that one is less 'important' and worth a sacrifice.

As far I am concerned, in this instance, I can't see how it would be ok to just put some children aside and in effect tell them they don't have a right to the same education as everyone else. Mainly because I believe that education is the ONE thing that will help people have a good life and benefit the community as a whole. Not spending the time at that time in their life is accepting that they will a burden for the society to carry. And of course, this is detrimental to the individual too.

What you should be proposing instead is support for these children, starting by looking at the reasons for the misbehaviour and then having plan in place for that. The same way we have should have that in place for SN. Plus support to help them solve these problems. then and only then, segregation would be something to look at because it wouldn't be just 'oh let's put them aside out if the way where they can't disturb other children. And though if it's detrimental to them'. It toils be about support.

I think inclusion is in principal something which I support, I wonder though whether too much lip service is given to it and not enough resources put in place for it to be workable in may schools.

According to John (I think it's John) Hattie's research setting makes no difference to individual achievement.

Christ alive. If I put the ten worst behaved kids in one group, no-one would have a chance of teaching them anything. However, two of them are doing just great in my mixed class as there are very few distractions. Two more in another group, and so on.

Here's an idea - why don't we just shoot them? Saves all the bother.

signs up my two with weirdy parents class.

inclusive education isn't necessarily cheaper

especially post 16

I can't say what I want to say..

icymaiden

You could very easily be with the naughty set for being unkind, discriminatory and judgmental. If I was to judge you, that is....

However I'm not going to even attempt it. I am genuinely mystified as to how you can think like this about children. Are you bitter for any reason?

Where would my bright DD with Tourette's syndrome fit in?
Bottom or top set?