Should teachers have to take tougher tests before they qualify?

[Solopower1]

What do you think?

www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-20083249

"Apart from the don't care comment I agree with what a lot of Ronaldo says. "

maybe it was this one?

Do I have to copy and paste all my posts to prevent any more deliberate misunderstanding?

Thanks Arisbottle. You are very calm in all of this. I think my sole purpose in life now is to score points over someone who said I was talking bollocks. It's a tragedy. Very childish indeed.

Brycie , Monday marks the start of half term, there is a lot to be calm about.

Enjoy general wafty calmitude

It was the bit about schools having a sin bin so that kids who had been excluded from one place wouldn't get to disrupt in another.

Oh do excuse me. Perhaps if I'd called it an Iso unit like raven you would have agreed with me

But part of the remit of an isolation unit is to stop students disrupting lessons.

Well, when you all "talk" so fast, it is hard to remember who said what!

I'm just being annoying rabbit - you are asking sensible questions

You said, Brycie, that moving students to other schools was pointless. That schools should have a sin bin in which to put them. Since moving a child to another school would generally happen in the case of a permanent exclusion, which is what was being discussed at the time, IIRC, it appeared that your "sin bin" solution was also being offered as a permanent one. My "isolation" is used for a day at a time. Partner classes for an hour at a time. Not as a permanent alternative to a student's timetable.

It IS pointless. I then suggested having a sin bin/iso unit inside the school. What's contradictory here?

"My "isolation" is used for a day at a time."

A whole day at a time? So possibly missing those essential Drama classes then? Not "next lesson clean slate"?

As I said, it depends. If a student disrupts my lesson, he/she would go to a partner class, with work, for the rest of that hour, then on to their next lesson as normal (usually after a brief conversation with me). They would then be put in after school detention that day (which does involve staring at the wall for an hour). If a child is in trouble for something else, they may be put in isolation for a full day. Yes, they miss my lesson, which is a pain. I have to provide work though.

Permanent exclusion, which involves a child moving to a new school, is a whole different game. Keeping them in the original school, but in an isolation unit, is unviable. For a start, staffing an isolation unit isn't something all schools can do. At mine, the SLT do it on a rota, but it means the isolation "room" moves with the staffing- students sit at a table outside the office of the person on duty. This is not a solution for more than a day. Your initial mention of a "sin bin" was as an alternative to moving a disruptive child to another school. I maintain that it wouldn't work. The very term "sin bin" got my hackles up. You're talking about children.

And actually, moving students to alternative schools can, and does work. A managed move can give a student the new start they need. I have two in my year 10 class who came to us on managed moves from elsewhere. Both have had lots of support from our learning support dept, and have half-termly reviews. Both are doing well. A fresh start can make a difference.

'6, I continue to train in my subject and it's pedagogy.'

Underwater . . .? You can see what is wrong with the above sentence, can't you?

Sorry, I have been setting fire to stuff, with my own children.

I feel so much less stressed as a result that it's quite likely my BP is no longer in 'stroke country' as it was described by the nurse measuring it yesterday! (Dentalphobic teacher on the last day of term having bp measured in a dental surgery = crazy spike.)

But to clarify, we use isolation as a short term sanction (1 day, usually) for students who have fucked up. They have truanted or kicked off massively in a lesson, or are returning from fixed term exclusion.

It's an airlock, really - sort your head out with a day of peace, quiet (& being bored out of your skull/missing your mates). Then re-enter normal lessons.

It certainly isn't intended to address long term behaviour issues - although the nature of it is that some students do find themselves in there repeatedly.

But it provides thinking time for the student (& yes, sometimes, respite for their group - I find it's often really effective if a kid is told by their peers '...actually we had a great English lesson yesterday, without you messing it up').

Kids who really, really cannot be in lessons without consistently causing problems are not dealt with by the Iso unit. They have behaviour support (often 1-1 but cuts are making this less frequent) or alternative provision is made.

I see you have all moved on somewhat since yesterday and are now into consensus politics. I am shocked that you are all accepting that pupils should remain in school when they are known disruptive elements. It?s Ok if they are temporarily removed. Then they have to be provided with work (so additional workload on the teacher who needs two sets of lessons - one for the class and one to send off to isolation/sin bin/ removals - whatever you want to call it).

As a parent now rather than a teacher I find that a poor solution. It means that my DS may be free from disruption just some of the time. It doesn?t take the problem out of school.

As a teacher I know that removals are a limited solution. The disruptive ones are still there and they still mix with the pupils and they still exert the influence by model - that it?s OK to be disruptive and as is often the case with young people, they copy this because they see it has little consequence.

Besides many of those pupils removed on an hourly/ daily/ weekly basis simply see the removal as a reward. How many times have I seen kids kicking off even before the lesson begins so they would "get out"? That isn?t because lessons were poorly constructed and didn?t "engage" (more educspeak clp trp) . The teacher never gets a chance to teach.

What has happened here to parents being dealt with? If your child comes to school to disrupt then you should be responsible for having that child at home and look after him/her. Sorry if that inconveniences either your coffee morning, your heroin fix or your work.

There is a creeping acceptance that this behaviour is acceptable and is a result of teaching somehow. Well it?s not is it? If you are my age (and of course few of you are!) you will know that such behaviour was almost unheard of even in the worst Secondary Modern school bottom sets, yet the lessons were far more boring ("didn?t engage"), the teachers did not need removals to come round. We complied - even down to the biggest bruiser. If there was one who stepped out of line they were expelled and parents had to find them some alternative NOT THE SCHOOL.

That is still true in private schools today.

So, standards are eroded and parents of the 66% together with the teachers in state schools are accepting it. That?s the problem.

It isn?t worth debating really. But none of this will be sorted by making basic skills tests "harder". Those address a "problem" that doesn?t exist really IMHO.

But what did happen to children in the past who were booted out of their state schools but still of compulsory school age?... And anyway, I was under the impression that not all children were booted out of school in the past and that caning a child in front of all the other children in assembly was considered an acceptable way of dealing with the problem. And sorry, but as a parent, I do not consider that particularly acceptable behaviour on the part of the teachers, either.

Permanent exclusion should be easier; if it were our dd would still be at an exceptionally good comprehensive. If a child engages in unlawful behaviours such as assault, intimidation, pyromania, drug taking on school premises head should have the power to invoke permanent exclusion quickly. Serious consequences for serious deeds would be taken seriously and would return authority to schools. I believe it would quickly ensure that those liable to less serious deeds and continual low and higher level disruption would be more mindful if heads could take action proportionate to the level of the rule breaking.

The lack of boundaries has eroded society, achievement and happiness at school for many many children. I shall respect the teaching profession when it stops making excuses for poor or unlawful behaviour. Such behaviour is unacceptable and a lack of consequences at school and the building of the belief that the perpetrator will always get away with it because (of background or behavioural difficulties) will not help them or the rest of our children in the longer term.

Units with the specialist knowledge to deal with those children need to be introduced and I for one would be happy to pay more tax in order to fund them. The present situation has reached crisis point.

As a teacher it is your duty to differentiate for your pupils . It is hardly a huge task to use a textbook or have the odd worksheet ready.

If the removal is followed by a sanction it should not be seen as a reward. I usually just have to say to someone playing up in my class " if that continues you will be removed " and they back down. If I had to have the same pupil removed from my class lesson after lesson it would be clear that a more long term solution was needed. Whether that would be a permanent removal from my lesson, a longer removal from all lessons, an exclusion or me reflecting on my own behaviour management and teaching would depend on the case.

I think pupils are reluctant to be removed from class because school policy is that if a students removed from class they have a school detention and they have to retake the lesson after school, making sure all of their work is up to date.

I currently have a Key stage 4 class that are quite difficult and that I know many other teachers are struggling with, especially female teachers. As a professional I have accepted that I cannot place all the responsibility at the door of he children and I am currently working on my own behaviour management and and planning. I have been observing colleagues and we have also set up a group of teachers who are working as a group with senior teachers to look at how we teach this difficult group of students. The emphasis is not on blaming the individual teachers but asking as a body of staff what can we do differently .

There may be an impression given that pupils are currently always being removed, in most schools that is just not the case. I teach two of the most difficult classes in the school, one of them is new to me so I am having to lay down expectations, I have not not had to remove one pupil all half term. I have had to in advance arrange for a few pupils to work elsewhere and I have had to set detentions and phone parents.

I don't think that students should remain in school, if after the school has done all that it can, the student refuses to behave as expected and continues to disrupt. As I said earlier, I have recommended that students are permanently excluded and some students have then had to move to a behaviour unit or a different school.

I agree with you, that the harder tests are a red herring.

From reading your posts Ronaldo it is clear that you have had a very painful state school experience in which you were key down by ineffective leadership. That is a real shame, no teacher should feel powerless and ignored and I am not surprised that you feel bitter about that.

I would imagine many schools do permanently exclude for many of those offences, I know that we do.

Ronald's would get on awfully well with Jabed.

Ronaldo is Jabed, he has been very open about that

Ronaldo, sorry.

I'm so tired but I agree with about 80 per cent of what you say Ronaldo.

Oh, missed that! Not accusing of anything murky, I just haven't seen the bit where that was made clear.

Relieved that's at least one fewer person with such opinions than I had feared!