Strict schools

mr_fegelien wrote: »

What is the point in them? I mean discipline is important but excessive rules like no going to the bathroom, no eating in class, no using phone. When you're in college, none of these apply. Even in the workplace, you don't deal with as much bull**** as you did in some secondary schools.

Why have strict rules only to go to college and workplace where you won't see them implemented?

aaawwwww did teacher take your teddy in class yesterday

And I really like this

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

Its social conditioning to modify child behavior into a generally compliant personalty type.

It has nothing to do with social conditioning. That's ridiculous.

I used to feel the very same way as the OP until I became a teacher.
Ive worked in relaxed and strict schools. The relaxed schools ime are run by the kids and classes are a nightmare to teach. Its not fair on the teaching staff, SNA's or on the other kids in the class that genuinely want to learn, its not even fair on the disruptive kids because theyre not given a chance, theyre given far too many opportunities to act immaturely.
The more relaxed the school, ime, theres a much higher rate of drop outs, exam fails and higher numbers in LCA.

Ive worked in a relaxed school were kids could eat in the class, they would throw the food at each other or leave crumbs, wrappers and bits of food on the table and floor that im left to clean up and usually on my own lunch break.
Its not fair to other kids in the class to have someone else munching away. The classroom is not a lunch room.
Phones are banned for lots of reasons, ive had teenagers using them in class, sending messages to people, using social media, taking photos of other students without permission, watching youtube videos (loudly) during class and when asked to put their phone away the student refused because 'theyre not against the rules', a student was caught sending abusive and inappropriate messages to people in her class, they disrupt teaching. I have course work to get through and a group of 25 students, the class cant revolve around one student who wont put their phone away!
I generally have no problem with students going to the toilet, the problem is when a student doesn't come back from the toilet. It rarely happens but when it does, it disrupts teaching as someone has to go looking for the student.

Im just one teacher in a class of 25 12 - 18 year olds who are immature and if given an inch will take a mile. I also want them to do well and they never will if allowed to do what ever they want. Also, sorry to say but youre not special, a teacher cant be overly considerate of every single students needs, feelings and wants in the classroom. The work has to get done.

mr_fegelien wrote: »

Remember that style of management from business, autocratic, democratic and laissez faire.

The extremes are only necessary when the management is either mature enough (laissez faire) or full of incompetent fools (autocratic)

What would you know about management or anything else work related? You’ve never worked a day in your life.

Fr_Dougal wrote: »

What would you know about management or anything else work related? You’ve never worked a day in your life.

And he lives rent free inside your head as well.

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

Its social conditioning to modify child behavior into a generally compliant personalty type.

Education is not the primary function of schools.

They are mainly glorified child-minding facilities and a means of conditioning youngsters to believe that being in a place from 8am to 4pm Monday to Friday under strict rules is normal—this produces nice, compliant worker bees.

I went to a school where the principal was strict about uniforms and the the odd staff member.
They were rules about phones, etc Some teachers were very strict and others were more relaxed once you weren't being disruptive.
Some of the strict teachers got good result and did the more relaxed teachers.
Some of the strict and relaxed teachers were useless.
People's results were also fairly consistent.
The main difference was in my experience people went onto hate the stricter teachers subject and only did it for points or because they had to.

Stateofyou wrote: »

Firstly to say, I've worked in both super strict and also the most laid back work environment possibly known to man. The super strict work environment is garbage. Treat people like infants and they'll resent their employer and find ways around it. Treat people like adults with freedoms and they'll usually give 200%; let HR deal with the few idiots who take advantage.

Question though - it seems there's now 3 leaving cert options to take, and it looks like you're equating LCA to a lower standard, or somehow easier than another option. Could you (or someone) explain how that or the LCVP is different to a regular/established leaving cert? Things have changed since my day...

Im in no way condoning super strict schools, I see no point in creating rules for the sake of it.
Also, we are not talking about adults in work, we're talking about children who are immature and need basic rules to keep behavior under control for the safety, respect and care needs of everyone in the school.
Doesn't take a genius to know that teenagers brains arent fully formed, they don't have the same understanding of empathy, consideration of consequences or foresight as adult's, that's why rules are in place, to keep them safe and help them learn.

LCA could be a fantastic option for students who dislike the mainstream system and prefare practical lessons, it's run sort of like a Youthreach or further ed course, less rules, students given more autonomy, can maybe use their phones, smaller classes etc. Ive found these groups to be extremely difficult to work with. or example, I subbed not so long ago in a school where I had two LCA groups, both LCA groups had an SNA with them in every class and sometimes an extra teacher as they were so difficult behavior wise, they ran the class, screamed and shouted at staff, threw paper, pens, food and what ever else they could get their hands on all around the class, I tried to get a bit of work out of them but was told to f off. Some days it was easier to just stick on a movie and be done with it.
LCA is an option mostly given to kids who are at high risk of dropping out of school. The most relaxed schools ive been in, where kids are allowed phones, food in class and in halls, can come in late in the mornings with no note or explanation etc, have the highest numbers of LCA students. These kids arent learning anything, theyre just about being kept in school and off the streets. Theyre also feeding off each others immature behavior, each trying to out do the other, peer pressure is a massive problem among these groups.

The stricter schools ive been in, as in strict but with appropriate rules that make sense and arent for demonstrating authority, like no phones, homework must be done, no tolerance for disrespect towards staff or other students, no eating outside the lunch room, some of these schools have had to cancel LCA years as they didnt have enough students signing up, the students have consistently better relationships with staff, there are still issues but theyre dealt with appropriately as everyone is aware of the rules and the rules are consistent. They also have consistently better results in exams and leaving certificate, theyre happier in school. These schools foster maturity and create a secure environment were students are expected to make good choices for themselves and be conscientious of their fellow students and members of staff.

When theyre adults and leave school, they have the freedom then to act how they want and to do what they want, whether that be going to college, working, travelling or doing nothing for a year, we would hope that they leave school with a good level of maturity and the ability to know right from wrong and make the right choices.

freshpopcorn wrote: »

Something I did pick up off on some teachers was kind of a snotty attitude about people doing LCA or not going the traditional path in choosing careers.Thinking back on it I'm not surprised people acted up on them especially for those who were already having difficulties.

To be very honest @Freshpopcorn most teachers couldnt give a hoot about whether or not a student picks a career path of any sort, we're not the childs parents and might have as many as 100 students across all of our classes, we then have a whole set of new faces the following year, as mentioned you're not special.
Teachers have lives and problems of their own outside of their job, just like everybody else, they are not sitting around scowling and sneering at kids in LCA.

emilymemily wrote: »

To be very honest @Freshpopcorn most teachers couldnt give a hoot about whether or not a student picks a career path of any sort, we're not the childs parents and might have as many as 100 students across all of our classes, we then have a whole set of new faces the following year, as mentioned you're not special.
Teachers have lives and problems of their own outside of their job, just like everybody else, they are not sitting around scowling and sneering at kids in LCA.

Teachers do want to do their job as best they can. They don't care what career students pick though. They know their limits.

emilymemily wrote: »

It has nothing to do with social conditioning. That's ridiculous.

I used to feel the very same way as the OP until I became a teacher.
Ive worked in relaxed and strict schools. The relaxed schools ime are run by the kids and classes are a nightmare to teach. Its not fair on the teaching staff, SNA's or on the other kids in the class that genuinely want to learn, its not even fair on the disruptive kids because theyre not given a chance, theyre given far too many opportunities to act immaturely.
The more relaxed the school, ime, theres a much higher rate of drop outs, exam fails and higher numbers in LCA.

Ive worked in a relaxed school were kids could eat in the class, they would throw the food at each other or leave crumbs, wrappers and bits of food on the table and floor that im left to clean up and usually on my own lunch break.
Its not fair to other kids in the class to have someone else munching away. The classroom is not a lunch room.
Phones are banned for lots of reasons, ive had teenagers using them in class, sending messages to people, using social media, taking photos of other students without permission, watching youtube videos (loudly) during class and when asked to put their phone away the student refused because 'theyre not against the rules', a student was caught sending abusive and inappropriate messages to people in her class, they disrupt teaching. I have course work to get through and a group of 25 students, the class cant revolve around one student who wont put their phone away!
I generally have no problem with students going to the toilet, the problem is when a student doesn't come back from the toilet. It rarely happens but when it does, it disrupts teaching as someone has to go looking for the student.

Im just one teacher in a class of 25 12 - 18 year olds who are immature and if given an inch will take a mile. I also want them to do well and they never will if allowed to do what ever they want. Also, sorry to say but youre not special, a teacher cant be overly considerate of every single students needs, feelings and wants in the classroom. The work has to get done.

My mom was an art teacher and i have several friends who are teachers too.


I totally would get that same story from them too. My mother would say schools spoon feed kids now. As in history teachers will stand over the shoulder of a student writing an essay in a study session and nearly write it for them etc.

I sympathize with you.

emilymemily wrote: »

Exactly.
Also from my own experience I think school results have very little bearing on what path a student will take career wise. Ive known drop outs to complete master degrees or set up their own businesses and high achievers to remain happy working in the local shop or become stay at home parents.
It's not a big deal and theres always a second chance at education if they ever want to repeat.

My path was weird. I left school at 16 for one year to work. Then went back to do my leaving. Then went to Uni did a bachelors. Then worked. Swore i would never go back to uni again. Guess where i am!?? UCD.

Never again! :pac:

emilymemily wrote: »

I dont know where you picked up a snotty tone from my posts regarding students and career paths?

The leaving cert has changed, its entirely different to what it was even 10 years ago and is changing again in some subjects. It's constantly adapting to better suit needs and teachers are constantly on training courses to learn new methods to better suit students.
As mentioned LCA could be an excellent alternative to the leaving cert and in many schools it is.

Sorry I was mainly referring to my teachers being snotty.

In your post you said something along the lines of in more relaxed schools there was more drops outs, more exam failures and higher numbers doing LCA.
So, I was a little lost that you mentioned LCA in a list of negatives of more relaxed schools.