Should teachers have to take tougher tests before they qualify?

[Solopower1]

What do you think?

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

I have a bank of worksheets and book lessons that meet the same objectives as my lessons , therefore if students are removed or absent they can keep up. If they are sent to work elsewhere they would take the work with them

rabbitstew, in my school, teachers have to provide work which is related to the lesson the student is missing. They are supervised, but not necessarily "taught". If they go to a partner class, that teacher has a class anyway, which is highly likely to be a different subject and/or year group and if they're with SLT (ie in isolation), then they will be supervised, potentially along with one or more other students, so no, not taught.

Do isolation units just contain the problem, or do they work to convince some children that they would be better off behaving in class?

Is that what you're suggesting as well, though, Brycie? You seem to think that disruptive students should be out of lessons for much longer than a day.

I thought you agreed with her? Do you not?

Raven says it works, along with better teaching. No reason to think it wouldn't work if the better teaching was not in place. And unless you're suggesting sacking teachers...?

Much longer than a day? Where did you get that from? You're just making things up I haven't said. Why do you feel the need to do that?

I got the impression teachers got squeezed out, not sacked.

They rarely get sacked I think.

I do agree with Raven. Better teaching means less disruption. It's neither rocket science nor a big secret. I said up thread that I think that poor teachers either need the support to improve rapidly or the support to realise they are in the wrong job. It's very difficult for both the student and those teachers who are left to pick up the pieces when poor teaching is allowed to perpetuate. Often it's a case of not caring enough. I teach with two colleagues who make no secret of the fact that they have no aspirations to be better than satisfactory. That makes things very difficult.

Some of ours will be out for few lessons , some a day and others much longer.

For some students they need a short sharp shock and can go back quite quickly , others need some intensive work

Not making things up, just misunderstanding. So you do agree with Raven (and therefore with me?)

In that case you agree with me.

Better teaching means nothing for the child being disrupted TODAY.

(or a week on Monday)

Oh ET you totally changed your mind. I said at the beginnign take children out, keep them out, make it a deterrent, make them do core work. You laid into me. So give over.

if you get GCSE English and Maths then do a degree in your subject+pgce or a BA with QTS surely you're qualified. i'd agree that you need to acieve equal or higher than the level you will teach in that subject and have a teaching qualification but what more can you expect?

So, a lot of teachers leave teaching because they either aren't good enough or don't have good headteachers and senior management to support them, or even worse, suffer from both problems? Or even with good management, some kids are just so antisocial that they shouldn't be in mainstream schools, even in isolation units?

Exactly. Take them out, keep them out.

IF (big IF- disruption is kept to a minimum by good teaching) kids disrupt, they are out for the rest of that hour. After school detention same day. Next lesson, clean slate. For something beyond disruption (swearing, truanting) they do a day in isolation. At no point have I agreed with your barking idea that they should have to do core lessons instead of others. That achieves literally nothing. I do not get to use "he missed lessons for disruptive behaviour in Science during which time he had to do extra maths" as a reason for a student missing his GCSE target grade.

Brycie, you're not a teacher. You don't fully understand how it all works, nor should you be expected to. So stop making out that you do.

Take them out,keep them out was your view, not mine.

I'm doing pretty well so far for not being a teacher. You've agreed with most of what I've said, except for making sure they study maths and English when out of the classroom.

You said you agreed with Raven who told us that take them out, keep them out works.

And just to remind you, this is what I said:

"As soon as they disrupt they're out and learning maths or english somewhere. If they're repeatedly disruptive they miss design technology or music or something they like. At least they're still learning necessary stuff while they're out of hte class room."

So there's no more "misunderstanding".

Keep them out for the rest of the lesson. I thought you disagreed with that? Am I misunderstanding? I don't think it should need to go further than that. Earlier on you certainly seemed to be implying that disruptive kids should be removed from school completely and you didn't care what happened to them.

See your post at 18:24

"Earlier on you certainly seemed to be implying that disruptive kids should be removed from school completely and you didn't care what happened to them."

May I quote you? "Bollocks". I specifically said I disagreed with the "don't care" approach.

You said you agreed with RAven. Who approves keeping them out for the day staring at the wall or doing worksheets.

So you know, who cares what you think as you don't seem to know yourself.

You mean this one:

"Yes I care what happens to the "excluded" but not at the cost of the children who want to learn. The cost is too high to keep them in class. What happens to the excluded is a separate issue to be dealt with once they are no longer stopping other children making the best of their education. "

Which bit of that says I don't care about the children? Help me out here.

I thought it was Ronaldo who saud he did not care about difficult pupils.

Brycie was more measured, I think.