Should teachers have to take tougher tests before they qualify?

[Solopower1]

What do you think?

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

It just isn't as black and white as some would have us believe

I guess you haven't read beyond that post mrz in your enthusiasm to disagree.

Let's bring a bit of perspective to the last 20 or so posts. Our dd was initially sent to a top 100 comprehensive. In the first two years there was massive disruption by about 6-8 girls and their hangers on. Intimidation, theft, bullying, assault, fighting, effing and blinding at staff. DD was not personally involved in any of this or targetted by them but became so frightened and scared and disillusioned because of the failure to deal with poor behaviour and with being unable to learn she self harmed and stopped eating.

The school said there there it's normal behaviour in Y7 and she's led a swaddled middle class life at a nice middle class primary - and chose her for lots of things in Y7 and the begining of Y8. The behaviour of those girls was allowed to escalate throughout Y8 and some very serious and dangerous things happened but the school did nothing apart from a a few fixed term exclusions. Those girls are in Y10 now and nothing has been done yet the behaviours have deteriorated - in total the school has lost about 10% of its highest performing girls in that cohort to the independent sector.

We are very lucky, we had the money to move dd and did so from the start of Y9. Our daughter is now happy, achieving, confident and challenged. The school also has serious consequences for seriously bad behaviour - oddly there isn't much.

The saddest things of all is that dd made some lovely friends at that first school who were not materially privileged whose parents cannot move them and they are stuck there and possible will not achieve their full potential because too much teaching time has to be spent on behaviour management and I say that unreservedly as the school has dive bombed in the league tables.

Different schools suit different children - one size does not fit all and there have to be choices beyond all children attending the local school - all children are not the same.

Married: it seems that many teachers disagree with removal and sanctions. How depressing.

In my current classroom, slightly different rules apply to the statemented children, and the others with very significant recognised SEN (e.g. the child with ADHD whose medication is constantly being rebalanced).

The other children regard this as entirely fair. They recognise that x, y and z find it harder to conform to class norms than they do, and have to work harder to maintain appropriate behaviour at all times. They would not tolerate it if those children had a direct impact on their own work, but they regard it as entirely fair - in fact fairer than a blanket standard - that sanctions apply in a slightly different way to these children and that modifications (e.g. a 5 minute break in the afternoon) are made to help them to behave well. Very sweetly, they celebrate hugely when these children succeed, much more than they celebrate other success, because they recognise its hard-won nature.

I don't think a single teacher has disagreed with "sanctions". Removal is not the only sanction though. The situation married describes sounds horrendous. The HT should have dealt with those girls.

So teacherwith2kids how do you think the differentiation in relation to the application of rules at school is going to help these children in FE or at work? They will not find rules differentiated beyond school they will be expected to conform to the norm and I'm not sure mainstream school with differentiated rules is the best place to do this or has the specialist expertise to do so. Let's state a few examples:

Insubordination in the workplace - formal disciplinary warning - on referenc
Theft in the workplace - summary dismissal
Assault in the workplace - summary dismissal
Drugs in FE - automatic permanent exclusion
Drugs in real life - criminal record
Theft in real life - criminal record
Not completing work to the expected standard - capability and ultimately dismissal.

etc., etc..

How is differentiation preparing these children from the harsh cold realities of life. How is differentiation teaching these children right from wrong? How is keeping these children in mainstream schools benefitting society overall if it prevents the majority from achieving their potential?

It might help children to deal with all types of people but in reality people don't. I don't chose to mix with thieves and violent types, neither will my children.

As for the consistency question, there will always be inconsistencies, not least because kids will respond to sanctions differently. For example, child A might respond to "stop gossiping and concentrate on your work" by doing just that whilst child B might argue, thus escalating the issue. Child A has not caused any disruption, but child B has. If I had a zero tolerance policy, though, I would have had to send both out as my having to speak to them necessitated stopping teaching to correct their behaviour.

No Brycie my post actually took a long time to appear for some reason. What I'm trying to point out that a blanket statement like that is as foolish as the people who make it. Each case must be judged on it's own. I've seen some teachers throw children out of class for tapping a pencil (disruption) or scrapping a chair or accidentally dropping a book. Common sense needs to be applied and far too often it's just easier to throw the child out.

Surely you would send out Child B for arguing in relation to the request because that is insubordinate whereas Child A has been just disobedient. Child A did as told, Child B did not and then argued, child B has therefore escalated and needs to leave and needs to learn the rules.

What you are saying is that Child A got aways with disobedience without a sanction, Child B got away with disobedience and insubordination without a sanction. There is a huge difference and what about the impact on children C to Z plus three?

I've also seen the parents who shout the loudest for sanctions be the first to complain when their child is involved.

My point was that with a zero tolerance policy, both would be sent out. Common sense tells us that child B needs to be dealt with in a different way to child A.

My guiding principle is that in the classroom all students follow the same rules and face the same sanctions, but the support I give them to reach those standard may be differentiated .

The idea it's foolish to not want learning should not be disrupted is part of the problem.

As, apparently, is a prejudice against middle class, well behaved children with motivated parents.

The answer to your question about two hours ago - which at the time I assumed to be rhetorical and rather sneery - is yes, the same sanctions should apply.

That was for mrsZ

Of course it made no sense at all.

"The idea it's foolish to not want learning to be disrupted is ..."

Brycie you are trying to create controversy where there is none. No teacher had said they disagree with sanctions and no teacher disagrees with removal. We have just said removal happens in lots of different ways and it is not the only sanction in place .

You are in danger of treating classroom management as a flow chart or a set of cogs where one action always results in the sane consequence. Whilst consistency is good and indeed to be aimed for , children are all complex individuals who have a habit of doing the unexpected. I want my children to experience humane thoughtful discipline , rather than being a cog in a machine .

What on earth has class got to do with it ? Is hummus the new fish oil ?
My working class children ( if you must give them a label? I suspect none fits) are quite capable of behaving

Perhaps you can point out where on this thread I have suggested that not wanting learning disrupted is foolish Brycie ?

I agree mrz, I am sure none of us walks onto class praying for some disruption

I don't think I am - quite a few times the precious parents of well behaved children are mentioned in a perjorative way.

I'm not in danger of doing anything.

Evil's response to the question about inconsistency seems to say (correct me if I'm wrong) it depends if the class is being disrupted.

Well that's my whole, entire point. It's different to poor behaviour which doesn't disrupt the class.

Brycie you seem to ignoring the fact that nice middle class children can be just as disruptive as any other child given the opportunity and contrary to what you and jabed seem to believe the picture at the chalkface isn't so black and white.

Me: "children who disrupt the learning of others should be removed from class."

You: "a blanket statement like that is as foolish as the people who make it."

I don't ignore it. I don't care about class (Arisbottle perhaps you should ask mrsz why she keeps bringing this into it). I care about behaviou,r but more I care about maximising learning time.

and?