To not want my ds subjected to this at school

[requestingsunshine]

We don't swear at home, well I might have uttered the odd word, but generally speaking we don't swear. I am under no illusion that my children know swear words. However AIBU to expect that during a school lesson my ds (yr 6) shouldn't have to listen to the foul language coming out of a fellow pupil with the teacher doing nothing about it except telling the child 'not to swear'. Yesterday this child told the teacher and other pupils to fuck off 20 times in the space of one hour.

This is an everyday thing, but yesterday there were more fucks than usual apparently.

I don't understand why the school allow it to go on.

I actually have several children in my class who have SEN/are challenging. I've seen several incidents like the one in the OP. I'm just repeating what is being drummed into me by my lecturers and my associate teachers, and speaking about what I have seen - which I understand is allowed on this site.

faith
But what experienced staff are saying to you is that principle gets woefully misapplied.

E.g. if your lessons are poorly planned, don't stretch children etc then it increases the likelihood of fuss and low level disruption. Totally reasonable.
Well planned however is different from chasing entertaining factor.
BUT that's miles away from 'if there are behaviour issues it's because the teacher hasn't engaged the children, used 7 mini plenaries and accessed brain gym and learning styles'.

Trainee teachers bring great ideas fresh perspectives. Sometimes however they get it in their head that their entertaining lessons will save the chilfren us consistent ones whove been here a while.
As someone mentioned in my NQT year, there's a lot to be said for learning from experienced staff.

Faith When you say I'm just repeating what is being drummed into me by my lecturers and my associate teachers, - it rings lots of bells. I'd like to suggest that there are a lot of teachers out there who have become increasingly sceptical about whether some of what they were taught by their lecturers is actually based on sound evidence. They are reading research and asking questions, attending conferences and discussing these matters in blogs and on twitter.

There are quite a few examples of things that have been taught in teacher training courses over the years that have turned out not to be based on sound evidence - for example, the idea of routinely differentiating according to visual, auditory and kinaesthetic 'learning styles', or teaching reading via the multi-cueing method. So I think it pays to be sceptical. Below are some links to interesting blogs on some of the issues around 'engaging' lessons being required for good behaviour:

www.learningspy.co.uk/leadership/back-school-part-1-school-rules/
mylifeasacynicalteacher.wordpress.com/2014/01/20/must-lessons-be-entertaining-to-be-engaging/
deputyjohn.wordpress.com/2014/02/01/the-engaging-teacher-in-two-schools/

Experience is not always the be all and end all.

Faith honestly, your lack of experience is really obvious. We've all been there. We've all had to come to the realisation that a good chunk of what we were taught on our way into teaching is rubbish. Yes sometimes new ideas challenge the establishment and really are an improvement. However, more often than not experience will win out.

Good lessons can help combat low level disruption. It cannot cure autism, adhd, etc or make up for a troubled home life or mental illness.

Good lessons can help combat low level disruption. It cannot cure autism, adhd, etc or make up for a troubled home life or mental illness.

Um, but I never said they would? I said that what I've been being taught is that the first thing you do is make sure your lessons are engaging (and well planned/stretch children, that's a good point) and that will take care of most of the behavior management stuff (ie the kids who are acting up because they're bored or the work is too hard/too easy). I said this is supposed to help with the "vast majority" of behavior management issues. Not "the entirety".

What I went on to say was that there are always going to be some kids for whom regular methods don't work, and that was my point as it pertained to the OP: that OP shouldn't expect to be told what's up, or what's happening, and what her son is telling her is bound to only be a small part of the story.

For the record, I also openly outed myself as a training teacher, so I think pointing out my lack of experience as " really obvious" is pretty unnecessary and kind of snotty. I said it myself, you don't need to bring it up like it's news to anyone or like you're the only one being "honest" here. I know I don't know much, I know I'm green. I'm just saying what I have seen and been taught. (And for the record, I don't teach/won't be teaching in the UK, either - I'll be teaching in my country, which likely does things very differently, which may account for some of the discrepancy in methodology?)

I do, however, take your point that parts of what we're being taught make no good goddamn sense to me and likely make no sense to other practicing teachers. Of course that doesn't mean I don't have to pretend to be all up in it if I want to pass.

ANYWAY. The point of my initial comment (which has unfortunately been clouded by my evident naivete regarding the teaching profession) is that OP is complaining about an apparent lack of action when this child acts out - my contention was that there almost certainly IS action, and the fact that she and her child are not privy to it does not mean it isn't happening. Can we all agree on that?

faith I didn't need you to tell me you were training. From what you'd said I would have assumed either a trainee or somebody connected to education but not a teacher with experience. You sound like many trainees who come into teaching all full of theory etc explaining to the seasoned old teachers how easy x is and how we are doing y all wrong. It's never out of malaice just naivety and inexperience. Seriously, I've heard it all before. I've also said it all before when I was training and got my fair share of eye rolls.

While I appreciate you were trying to give general advice or opinion, the situation the OP described is not part of general misbehavior. Whatever the root cause, it needs far more intensive intervention.

I'm sorry if you felt so offended but as my mother would have said, don't try to teach your grandmother to suck eggs.

For the record NQT's and trainee teachers are usually much better at dealing with my child who has asd. Working in classes with kids with SEN is generally all they've ever known and is part if their training. On the other hand some more experienced teachers don't seem to see why they should have to teach kids with moderate SEN as when they qualified there were a lot more specialist schools and they wouldn't have been in.mainstream education.
Keep doing what you're doing Faith. It's often the thinking outside the box and positive attitude of 'less experienced' teachers that makes the day more bearable for children like my son.

I wasn't talking about moderate SEN. I was talking about a child with NO SEN but who has to have a minder outside the door in case he kicks the place to pieces again.

But I would welcome, as I said before, any tips from Faith on how to make my lessons "more engaging" so he doesn't feel the need to do that. Me and my 10 colleagues who all, strangely, seem to have lessons so badly planned and UNengaging that he does it...

But what could you possibly learn from a mere trainee?
More experienced doesn't necessarily mean better in every way. It can mean set in your ways, weary of the job and thinking that you have nothing left to learn. I'm not saying any of those things apply to you specifically but I've come across a few experieced teachers like this.

And I'm assuming the child you are talking about would fall under the ESBD category of SEN if he literally is kicking the classroom to pieces.

I agree.

But more experienced does mean more experienced though. I'm afraid new teachers can be just as dismissive of children with SEN as those who are longer in the tooth. The reasons why can be different but the outcome is the same.

I'm sure they can but ime it hasn't been the case. SEN is focused on much more in ITT now and trainee teachers are highly unlikely to work in a class without working with a variety of different SEN. They are less likely to see SEN kids as something they shouldn't have to deal with as a result imo. Attitudes have also changed for the better around disability in general and trainee teachers tend to be younger.
Of course it's a generalisation and I'm sure there are many older teachers who are fantastic with SEND children but I couldn't let the patronising comments to the trainee teacher on here slide because ime they have supported my son much better than more experienced teachers.
Experience is only useful if you learn from it and adapt. If your experience comes along with the attitude that you're not entirely sure that autism is a real condition for eg (actually said to me by a senior teacher) then you're likely to just be repeating the same bad practice over and over.

Oh faith. Give it five years and come back and say that.

Corbyn it was the comment about making lessons more exciting that rubbed everyone up the wrong way. It's a comment that gets thrown at teachers a lot, some of which are trying to survive very difficult situations by SLT, Ed psych, dfe infact anyone and everyone which basically means 'we aren't going to help you, it's your fault'. It's one of the reasons why schools can struggle on with difficult children for so long because teachers know real help won't be forthcoming. More established teachers can be very much of the opinion that SEN children don't belong in mainstream, that's true. So can NQTs, I'll admit usually in smaller numbers. However, the cracks show when they meet a child that doesn't adhere to what they have learned and the same attitudes flood to the surface.

I don't think it's anything to do with training, or experience in this regard. It's about those who really believe in inclusion and those that don't (or at least not when it takes any real effort) . In my experience as both a teacher and a parent of a child with SEN the proportions are the same in both groups.

The other issue with "interesting" is trying to find a way that all 30 children will find interesting and engaging isn't going to be easy!

More experienced means more experienced.
I'm not saying more experience means someone is automatically a better teacher.

But I do get a little irritated when I hear a "new" idea which is just a repackaged version of an old one that didn't work that well, or someone with limited experience deciding they know loads more about how to do my job (happens in every line of work mind).

On the other hand some more experienced teachers don't seem to see why they should have to teach kids with moderate SEN as when they qualified there were a lot more specialist schools and they wouldn't have been in.mainstream education.
There's poor decisions across the workforce. To suggest that experienced teachers are of a time when children with send needs were bundled off and as a result people 'don't see' why they have to teach them just feels a little unecessary.
Most of us are aware enough of the changing ways of supporting send needs.

YEAR SIX

HAHAHAHA

Of course it's not just about more engaging lessons but it's something to consider. Not in the place of other support but as well as. Many young children in early years and even nurseries are, often wrongly imo, being labelled as disruptive because they wont sit still for extended periods of adult led instruction on the carpet when it's a completely developmentally inappropriate expectation at that age.
If the teachers on here are confident that they are teaching engaging lessons then I'm not sure why that comment seemed to hit such a nerve.
I have taught in the past btw as well as working in schools in different capacity so I do have sympathy for the pressure teachers are under.

corbyn
It hit a nerve for a few reasons:

1. It places responsibility for someone's behaviour onto someone other than the individual. (There may be reasons but the behaviour comes from the individual and we aren't in the businessn of being able control other humans)
2. It's the sort of shite that gets trotted out by people who are educational consultants, people who no longer teach a full timetable and naive new teachers who are just repeating what they've heard (with a handful judging by my training year who thought they were going to be saviours of the profession).
3. I've seen otherwise excellent teachers have their confidence destroyed
4. Often lots 'engaging' things aren't actually about engaging children with content. It's about gimmicky fads that takes ages to prepare for limited impact.
5. I've seen staff been bullied out over their levels of "engagement" their face didn't fit but it's a nice vague thing to set as a targrt

I know I'm a great teacher, but part of that is I won't be complicit in spreading nonsense that leads to unjustifiable workloads and staff being bullied out

So do you feel that no responsibility at all for the behaviour of a vulnerable child should be placed on the staff who are responsible for them at the time?
So to expand on my example the 2 year olds who don't sit quietly and still during nursery phonics sessions - that's their fault? Not the fault of a teacher who is asking something of them that a lot of them are incapable of doing? Or a Ks1 child who is failing to be riveted by worksheets when they should still be learning through play?
Of course more engaging lessons don't replace the need for other behaviour management techniques, better resources, support. But sometimes it is something that can be improved upon.
I don't think Faith said if you have children with behaviour issues in your class then your lessons are shit. And I don't think she deserved the patronising comments she received. Maybe she will have left teaching in 5 years time (a lot do) or maybe she will still be as keen to look at what she can do to make a difference.

Faith plan amazing lessons by all means but there will come a point when you will need to assess a student and ultimately prepare many of them for sitting a glut of external exams completely unassisted and under timed conditions. By all means research all the pedagogy on engaging pupils you like. Been doing the job 17 years and I mentor ITT and NQTs Experience and evaluating what works and tweaking what doesn't is what gets pupils making progress they need to move onto the next stage of life. Pupils need to obtain confidence and progress in each area. Not constant entertaining.

So do you feel that no responsibility at all for the behaviour of a vulnerable child should be placed on the staff who are responsible for them at the time?
I can control MY actions and am responsible for MY behaviour.
I cannot control the behaviour of any other person on the planet.

I never mentioned fault. I simply pointed out that no human can control the actions of another so the stupid "engage (read entertain) the children" isn't helpful. If somebody trashes my classroom it would not be acceptable to say 'well you should have done football poetry to engage the boys" and blame me for their actions.

Excellent planning is part and parcel of great teaching. But an excellent, well planned lesson is NOT the same as being engaging (read entertaining).
E.g. I teach high quality lessons, if a little old-school at times. Student voice shows i engage students through teaching challenging lessons. No fads / hooks / use a fidget spinner to select your own learning activity required.