Punishment - No P.E.

RibenaHead · 24-10-2010 05:23PM

Edited my last post to make my thoughts a little more clear. Didn't express it properly at first.

I understand that you think it is wrong to treat one child differently and that you consider it a form of bullying if the child is being humiliated. I agree with you that completely humiliating a child is unacceptable and unjust.

However, I don't think that loss of privileges counts as humiliating a child. It is merely a negative consequence due to their negative behaviour. Being the last to get the art supplies or to go into line doesn't seem like a humiliating consequence, to me!

daltonm · 24-10-2010 05:26PM

RibenaHead wrote: »

But sending one child to the principal's office IS isolating/ excluding them from the group. That, by your definition, is emotional bullying

Please don't put words in my mouth -

"Emotional bullying -
isolating or excluding a person from group activities."

It is not "my definition" it is a definition of emotional bullying.

daltonm · 24-10-2010 05:32PM

RibenaHead wrote: »

Edited my last post to make my thoughts a little more clear. Didn't express it properly at first.

I understand that you think it is wrong to treat one child differently and that you consider it a form of bullying if the child is being humiliated. I agree with you that completely humiliating a child is unacceptable and unjust.

However, I don't think that loss of privileges counts as humiliating a child. It is merely a negative consequence due to their negative behaviour. Being the last to get the art supplies or to go into line doesn't seem like a humiliating consequence, to me!

It might not be to you - but to a 5 or 6 year old child it could well be.

It'ts not about them getting to the art supplies last - it's the public exclusion and the effects that has on the child.

I certainly understand that it is a difficult and frustrating job for teachers, which is why the guidelines are there - simply allowing teachers to enforce their own punishments in wrong. Another child could misbehave in another class and be treated in a completely different manner - it's about consistancy as well.

RibenaHead · 24-10-2010 05:32PM

If a child is sent to the principal's office during class (and I know you didn't say that it had to be during class, that's just how I read it at first), then they are being excluded from group activities.

If you are referring to sending a child to the principal at a different time, then I retract my argument!

On the other hand, the suggestions that were offered before such as being the last to choose colours in art or to get into the líne aren't really that humiliating and belittling. Also, they don't involve exclusion or isolation from a group activity. They merely change the child's role within that group activity.

RibenaHead · 24-10-2010 05:39PM

daltonm wrote: »

It might not be to you - but to a 5 or 6 year old child it could well be.

It'ts not about them getting to the art supplies last - it's the public exclusion and the effects that has on the child.
.

Fair enough! Although, I still believe that children must learn that there are consequences for their actions and, if they understand that breaking the rule will lead to this minor act of public exclusion, then they shouldn't break the rule.

I also think that if children were just given verbal warnings from the teacher (with no concrete consequences enforced by the teacher) then they would lose some of their authority and the principal would spend his/her day dealing with children from all of the classrooms.

We may need to agree to disagree on this one!

daltonm · 24-10-2010 05:48PM

RibenaHead wrote: »

Fair enough! Although, I still believe that children must learn that there are consequences for their actions and, if they understand that breaking the rule will lead to this minor act of public exclusion, then they shouldn't break the rule.

I also think that if children were just given verbal warnings from the teacher (with no concrete consequences enforced by the teacher) then they would lose some of their authority and the principal would spend his/her day dealing with children from all of the classrooms.

We may need to agree to disagree on this one!

No - I think we're on the same track. There is certainly a need to discipline children - it's more the how that we probably don't agee on!!:)

dambarude · 24-10-2010 06:07PM

I think I'd have to agree with Ribenahead on this one.

Embarrassing practices like putting children standing outside the door- these are humiliating and demeaning.

Not being the first to leave the classroom at breaktime- I just don't see how this or something like it could be construed as a humiliating practice. Sure, certain children might be embarrassed by it, but hopefully not to the extent that they're seriously affected by it. If the teacher thinks that the child isn't resilient enough to deal with this type of punishment he/she might have to think of another one.

In an ideal world the positive reinforcement of gaining the privilege of leaving first would be enough of an incentive to mean that every child behaves. But unfortunately this world isn't ideal.

A child doesn't have to be singled out in front of other children when being told they aren't allowed to do x y or z; it doesn't necessarily have to involve 'public' recognition of the fact that they've lost a certain privilege.

Personally I think that sending a child to the principal's office is more embarrassing than the other punishments offered. And there are only so many times in the year that the 'Strike 1, a warning, Strike 2, principal's office' card can be played.

daltonm · 24-10-2010 06:23PM

dambarude wrote: »

I think I'd have to agree with Ribenahead on this one.

Embarrassing practices like putting children standing outside the door- these are humiliating and demeaning.

Not being the first to leave the classroom at breaktime- I just don't see how this or something like it could be construed as a humiliating practice. Sure, certain children might be embarrassed by it, but hopefully not to the extent that they're seriously affected by it. If the teacher thinks that the child isn't resilient enough to deal with this type of punishment he/she might have to think of another one.

In an ideal world the positive reinforcement of gaining the privilege of leaving first would be enough of an incentive to mean that every child behaves. But unfortunately this world isn't ideal.

A child doesn't have to be singled out in front of other children when being told they aren't allowed to do x y or z; it doesn't necessarily have to involve 'public' recognition of the fact that they've lost a certain privilege.

Personally I think that sending a child to the principal's office is more embarrassing than the other punishments offered. And there are only so many times in the year that the 'Strike 1, a warning, Strike 2, principal's office' card can be played.

Well firstly I don't agree that a teacher with 30 pupils has the time to assess if a child is "resilient" enough to take a form of punishment that any teacher simply decides to impose - the whole point of having guidelines, and following them, is that they do not have to be in that position. Sending a child to the principals office takes the child and the teacher out of the situation and sends a signal to other children that there is a not only a consequence to bad behaviour but also that there is a support system - for the teacher. If the child continues to misbehave then there is detention, and then the parents are brought in - if it continues the child is expelled. When teachers have this support system in place then the child/ren know that it can get quite serious.

And I have to say that kids don't care where they are in the line - as long as they get out - it's not a privildge to get out the door first - but it can be demeaning when a child is actively stopped. Is every child that is not first out being punished?

In regards to the underlined - it is about follow through and consistancy.

dambarude · 24-10-2010 06:40PM

daltonm wrote: »

Sending a child to the principals office takes the child and the teacher out of the situation and sends a signal to other children that there is a not only a consequence to bad behaviour but also that there is a support system - for the teacher.

Do you not think that this would be more embarrassing than a more minor, but effective punishment in the classroom? (I use the word punishment for lack of a better word).

daltonm wrote: »

Sending a child to the principals office takes the child and the teacher out of the situation and sends a signal to other children that there is a not only a consequence to bad behaviour but also that there is a support system - for the teacher.

But what type of consequences are there in between the misbehaviour and being sent to the principal's office? There has to be some form of intermediary 'punishment'. Verbal warnings about being sent to the principal's office eventually lose their effect, and you can't send a child to the principal over more minor occurrences.

daltonm wrote: »

If the child continues to misbehave then there is detention, and then the parents are brought in - if it continues the child is expelled. When teachers have this support system in place then the child/ren know that it can get quite serious.

I have yet to encounter a primary school that runs detention periods (though I'm not saying they don't exist). Cases of expulsion are very rare, and could not take place over constant, but minor misbehaviours like talking out of turn or causing other disturbances in the classroom. In any event, is detention not another form of embarrassment?, ie. rather than being kept in a minute later or not getting out first, the child is kept for the whole breaktime.

daltonm wrote: »

And I have to say that kids don't care where they are in the line - as long as they get out - it's not a privildge to get out the door first - but it can be demeaning when a child is actively stopped. Is every child that is not first out being punished?

The children I have taught valued being first in the line, and I certainly did when I was in primary school! (The younger class levels at any rate).

EDIT:

daltonm wrote: »

Well firstly I don't agree that a teacher with 30 pupils has the time to assess if a child is "resilient" enough to take a form of punishment that any teacher simply decides to impose

I think teachers should have some idea about the temperaments of the children in their class. If they think a particular child will be particularly badly affected by a 'punishment' then they obviously shouldn't use it. But we don't agree on the use of certain punishments, so we'll probably disagree on this point.

EDIT 2: Just fixed my first edit, it went a bit haywire.

RibenaHead · 24-10-2010 06:42PM

daltonm wrote: »

Well firstly I don't agree that a teacher with 30 pupils has the time to assess if a child is "resilient" enough to take a form of punishment that any teacher simply decides to impose - the whole point of having guidelines, and following them, is that they do not have to be in that position.

I don't know if this is necessarily true. Also, the behaviour management strategy should be specific to the class in question every year. I don't think that the same system will work for every class.

daltonm wrote: »

And I have to say that kids don't care where they are in the line - as long as they get out - it's not a privildge to get out the door first - but it can be demeaning when a child is actively stopped.

I think, from experience, that infants in particular REALLY do care what order they go into line.

daltonm wrote: »

Is every child that is not first out being punished?

When I referred to the child's position in line as a consequence of their behaviour, I meant that being first would be a positive reward for good behaviour. In response to the above quote, I never meant that 'not being first out' is a punishment. However, I think, being the last person out is seen as a punishment to some children.

GoldenEarring · 24-10-2010 09:51PM

daltonm wrote: »

I suggest that teachers follow the guidelines. A warning for bad behaviour for example, a second one and then a trip to the office - let the principal deal with it from there, away from a class full of children - singling out children and treating them in a clearly demeaning way is a form of bullying and can be devastating for a child.

Only problem is the principal will be spending the whole day dealing with a stream of children sent down for minor transgressions. You'd get an earful from the principal if you kept sending children down for trivial transgressions. Principal would interpret it that you were not in control.
Also there is no big sanction left for major incidents if they're toddling off to the office on a daily basis.
In my experience principals want you to use them as a last resort only.

I honestly have never felt any child was humiliated by being held to back of line. They always accept it with good grace.

Who would you envisage would accompany the child being sent to the principal's office? You obviously cannot abandon the rest of the class to go yourself.

daltonm · 25-10-2010 01:43PM

Firsly I wasn't talking about what the children were doing - it was how they were being punished in a way that could be viewed as emotional bullying.

Secondly, I have explained about the guidelines and steps that can be taken to maybe go some way to solving the problem - but all I see is excuses and obstacles - all of which worry about something other than the welfare of the child.

If your system works for you then that fine - my angle is that as a parent, if my child came home and told me that a teacher excluded him, humiliated him and singled him out for treatment in a manner that upset and hurt him, I'd be furious.

D4RK ONION · 25-10-2010 02:15PM

Daltonm, your "guidelines and steps" are simply not feasible in a classroom setting. You yourself have pointed out where the flaws in your approach lie. You are thinking from a parents point of view.

Teachers are not parents, and neither can they approach the subject of discipline from a parental stand point. The children would take absolutely no heed from your methods.

Secondly, removing privileges is in no way "emotional bullying". I think that's slightly ridiculous. No child is going to be scarred for life because you've sent them to the back of the queue or held them in for break.

If anything, in my experience, they often accept such treatment in a sort of "fair enough, my bad!" way. They would much MUCH prefer such discipline to being sent to the principal's office. I think that would be far more emotionally distressing for a child than being told he/she has to wait in the classroom for a few minutes.

daltonm · 25-10-2010 02:20PM

D4RK ONION wrote: »

Daltonm, your "guidelines and steps" are simply not feasible in a classroom setting. You yourself have pointed out where the flaws in your approach lie. You are thinking from a parents point of view.

Teachers are not parents, and neither can they approach the subject of discipline from a parental stand point. The children would take absolutely no heed from your methods.

Secondly, removing privileges is in no way "emotional bullying". I think that's slightly ridiculous. No child is going to be scarred for life because you've sent them to the back of the queue or held them in for break.

If anything, in my experience, they often accept such treatment in a sort of "fair enough, my bad!" way. They would much MUCH prefer such discipline to being sent to the principal's office. I think that would be far more emotionally distressing for a child than being told he/she has to wait in the classroom for a few minutes.

Well it's feasible in the school where I send my kids. And it works.:)

edit to add.

In regards to the underlined, according to the ASTI webiste "Teachers in this position of trust are deemed to be in “loco parentis” and are expected to exercise a duty of care, which a careful and responsible parent would exercise in similar circumstances."

D4RK ONION · 25-10-2010 02:42PM

daltonm wrote: »

Well it's feasible in the school where I send my kids. And it works.:)

Well, I'll just have to take your word on that and say that in the schools I have been in, it would not work.

In regards to the underlined, according to the ASTI webiste "Teachers in this position of trust are deemed to be in “loco parentis” and are expected to exercise a duty of care, which a careful and responsible parent would exercise in similar circumstances."

Yes, however, I imagine that statement is trying to say that teachers are supposed to make sure that children are looked after and not bullied/called names/don't swallow some bleach. Not that they shouldn't be told to go to the back of the line.

I would also point out that the ASTI is a second level teaching organisation. We are talking about Primary and Pre-School levels. Though my above point stands regardless.

daltonm · 25-10-2010 03:17PM

D4RK ONION wrote: »

Well, I'll just have to take your word on that and say that in the schools I have been in, it would not work.

Yes, however, I imagine that statement is trying to say that teachers are supposed to make sure that children are looked after and not bullied/called names/don't swallow some bleach. Not that they shouldn't be told to go to the back of the line.

I would also point out that the ASTI is a second level teaching organisation. We are talking about Primary and Pre-School levels. Though my above point stands regardless.

Have you ever tried it? Have you followed the guidelines in regards to discipline? And I will have to take your word that "it wouldn't work".

The statement is also to protect children from teachers imposing their own "idea" of punishment which is detrimental to children.

I've tried to make the point that it is not about the back of the line or choosing colours first, it is about how you approach discipline in a structured way that is in the interests of both the teacher and the children, working with the parents, but it seems that the few teachers here are simply not open to it - which is disappointing really.

RibenaHead · 25-10-2010 04:14PM

daltonm wrote: »

but it seems that the few teachers here are simply not open to it - which is disappointing really.

I think the reason for this is that teachers don't want to be annoying the principal every time there is a slight misbehaviour within the classroom. It makes the teacher look as if they aren't in control and principals in general don't have time to be dealing with other teacher's pupils.

dambarude · 25-10-2010 04:37PM

It's not feasible that the only recourse for misbehaviour is
1. A warning
2. A visit to the principal's office
3. Talk to parents
4. Detention
5. Suspension
6. Detention.
Warnings are of no worth unless they are followed through. If the only warning a teacher can give is that the child will be sent to the principal's office, then there is either going to be
1. A constant flow of children down the corridor to speak to the principal
2. or lots of pointless warnings being given out.

There has to be some form of 'punishment' that the teacher can decide, whether it be documented in guidelines or not. Many if not most misbehaviours are no where near severe enough to even contemplate sanctioning detention/suspension or expulsion.

It's not that I or we don't want to follow set guidelines, it's just that guidelines where the only punishments are far too severe for the misbehaviour don't make sense. If a child was sent to the principal each time they disrupted a class they wouldn't be in the class long enough to disrupt it! To say then that they should be put in detention (which primary school generally don't have), or suspended for repeatedly disrupting the class isn't realistic. Suspension/detention in my experience only occurs when there is serious misbehaviour (ie a child putting himself and others in danger, serious threats to other children/teachers).

daltonm · 26-10-2010 11:13AM

RibenaHead wrote: »

I think the reason for this is that teachers don't want to be annoying the principal every time there is a slight misbehaviour within the classroom. It makes the teacher look as if they aren't in control and principals in general don't have time to be dealing with other teacher's pupils.

The topic was not about the slight misbehaviour of children - there were posts here that clearly implied that teachers have to right to impose their own punishments by taking a child out of lessons for several minutes - you said this was a loss of priviledge and I made the argument that education is a right, one of the posters explained how demanding and how badly behaved children now were - that is more than slight misbehaving.

dambarude said:
It's not feasible that the only recourse for misbehaviour is
1. A warning
2. A visit to the principal's office
3. Talk to parents
4. Detention
5. Suspension
6. Detention.

But those are the guidelines.

Slight misbehaviour, to me, is when a child is talking for example and is corrected by the teacher and stops talking.

If the child continues to disrupt the class and doesn't listen to the teacher on a continual basis then you have a problem and that's when the guidelines kick in.

What is viewed by one teacher as "slight misbehaviour" could well be viewed by another as simply "kids". Which is why guidelines are needed to address issues.

If a teacher cannot address a "slight misbehaviour" without resorting to actions which are not in any guidelines, excluding them for part of the class or excluding them from a full class (as in the OP's case) then to my mind the fault is with the teacher.

RibenaHead · 26-10-2010 11:39AM

daltonm wrote: »

dambarude said:
It's not feasible that the only recourse for misbehaviour is
1. A warning
2. A visit to the principal's office
3. Talk to parents
4. Detention
5. Suspension
6. Detention.

But those are the guidelines.

If a teacher cannot address a "slight misbehaviour" without resorting to actions which are not in any guidelines, excluding them for part of the class or excluding them from a full class (as in the OP's case) then to my mind the fault is with the teacher.

Where did you find this set of guidelines that you refer to as "the guidelines?" Is it set in stone somewhere that these are the guidelines that should be used by all teachers with all class levels in all schools? Sometimes this will work in a class but perhaps not always.

dambarude · 26-10-2010 11:50AM

daltonm wrote: »

excluding them for part of the class or excluding them from a full class (as in the OP's case) then to my mind the fault is with the teacher.

Nobody said that a child should be excluded from a class, in fact the opposite has been argued.

daltonm · 26-10-2010 12:08PM

RibenaHead wrote: »

Where did you find this set of guidelines that you refer to as "the guidelines?" Is it set in stone somewhere that these are the guidelines that should be used by all teachers with all class levels in all schools? Sometimes this will work in a class but perhaps not always.

I didn't say it was set in stone - it's a guideline.

Nowhere on any site I have seen are teachers encouraged to impose their own forms of punishement without the consent of the parents and the principal.

On any site I have seen it recommends that guidelines are put in place and that teachers and parents communicate and agree to a system that is consistant and clear to all children.

On any site I have seen, a whole school approach is recommended.

Nowhere have I seen that a teacher may, without a set of clear guidelines which is discussed and agreed with parent, remove a child from a class for example - and in the case of the OP, the exclusion of her child from a class was wrong and is an example of a teacher choosing to impose his or her own form of punishement.

Just to add, one of my children is now in secondary - he has 7 teachers and there are guidelines in place, agreed with the parents. It also makes it clear to the kids that any breach of misbehaviour is treated in the very same manner.

Now if you cannot see a reason for guidelines and a whole school approach then that is fine - but it works.

daltonm · 26-10-2010 12:12PM

dambarude wrote: »

Nobody said that a child should be excluded from a class, in fact the opposite has been argued.

Yes but the point is that the teacher did exclude the child - i.e. imposed his own form of punishment.

Feeona · 26-10-2010 12:27PM

daltonm wrote: »

In regards to the underlined, according to the ASTI webiste "Teachers in this position of trust are deemed to be in “loco parentis” and are expected to exercise a duty of care, which a careful and responsible parent would exercise in similar circumstances."

daltonm wrote: »

dambarude said:
It's not feasible that the only recourse for misbehaviour is
1. A warning
2. A visit to the principal's office
3. Talk to parents
4. Detention
5. Suspension
6. Detention.

But those are the guidelines.

Regarding your first quote (although you're referring to secondary school teaching), you say that parents are in loco parentis. Basically we should act the same as the child's parent.
Your second quote implies that all school need to follow the same guidelines.

First of all, every school has their own guidelines. These guidelines are drawn up and factors such as the socio-economic background of the area, available resources and funding, size of school, size of staff, state and size of classroom buildings, size of playground are all taken into account. It'd be absolute chaos if every school followed the same procedure.

Second of all, what guidelines do you follow when you're disciplining your child? Do you have the same guidelines as your neighbours? Or do you have your own procedure which you feels works just right for you?
I say this because every teacher has different ways of disciplining the children in their class.

Thirdly, you can't run to the principal every five minutes because as others have pointed out
1. You'll be seen as incapable
2. You've four hours and 55 mins to cover an eleven subject curriculum (+ Religion), running to the principal is eating into that time
3. What happens when the child throws a chair through the window. Call the gardaí?

Several posters here agree that you cannot exclude children from the curriculum, as it is their right to have access to it. 99% of teachers do not go out of their way to humiliate a child. Maybe some do, but you have assholes in all walks of life, not just the teaching profession.
I really don't understand however why you think it's ok to tell teachers how they should discipline children in the classroom. Would you like it if someone looked down their nose at the way you discipline your child? Or would you be happy being told by someone who has never done your job how to do your job?

blackrabbit · 26-10-2010 12:48PM

Well said Feeona. I couldn't agree more with everything you said. Every child has a different personality and background/home environment, therefore teachers use their experience and best judgement on how to deal with each individual circumstance. Until you step into a teacher's role for a day you cannot possibly judge how difficult it is to keep every child learning in a well disciplined way, in a more often than not overcrowded classroom. Ultimately, teachers want the same outcome as parents, the best for each child.

jpb1974 · 26-10-2010 01:14PM

Just to update this thread -

Apparently the teacher in question has been causing a lot of unrest with a lot of the kids in the young lad's class.

One young chap was so upset about the teacher that he was crying every day on the way to school and was begging his mother to allow him to change school.

Another chap was being threatened (in front of the other kids) to be "sent back to first class" if he didn't have certain exercises done properly.

Quite a few said that she shouted a lot and they weren't very fond of her.

None of these kids have ever complained about a teacher before. My young lad loved all of his previous teachers.

One of the mother's approached my other half and asked if we had been having problems with the same teacher.

My other half approached the teacher one day to discuss the homework/no P.E. issue and she said that the teacher was very unfriendly. The teacher said that he only missed the first 20 minutes and that was basically the end of the conversation... no effort at all by the teacher to discuss the issue with the homework, why it was causing confusion, a general chat on how the young lad was getting on... nothing.

To cut a long story short - a couple of the mother's approached the teacher in question and some serious words were had. Without going into too much detail I think the teacher in question was given a short sharp reality check. I suppose the thought of a child being so upset by a teacher that he was crying on the way to school every morning really would have an impact on even the toughest of souls.

It seems that the situation has now improved in the class.

daltonm · 26-10-2010 01:26PM

Feeona wrote: »

Regarding your first quote (although you're referring to secondary school teaching), you say that parents are in loco parentis. Basically we should act the same as the child's parent.
Your second quote implies that all school need to follow the same guidelines.

First of all, every school has their own guidelines. These guidelines are drawn up and factors such as the socio-economic background of the area, available resources and funding, size of school, size of staff, state and size of classroom buildings, size of playground are all taken into account. It'd be absolute chaos if every school followed the same procedure.

Second of all, what guidelines do you follow when you're disciplining your child? Do you have the same guidelines as your neighbours? Or do you have your own procedure which you feels works just right for you?
I say this because every teacher has different ways of disciplining the children in their class.

Thirdly, you can't run to the principal every five minutes because as others have pointed out
1. You'll be seen as incapable
2. You've five hours and forty mins to cover an eleven subject curriculum, running to the principal is eating into that time
3. What happens when the child throws a chair through the window. Call the gardaí?

Several posters here agree that you cannot exclude children from the curriculum, as it is their right to have access to it. 99% of teachers do not go out of their way to humiliate a child. Maybe some do, but you have assholes in all walks of life, not just the teaching profession.
I really don't understand however why you think it's ok to tell teachers how they should discipline children in the classroom. Would you like it if someone looked down their nose at the way you discipline your child? Or would you be happy being told by someone who has never done your job how to do your job?

Just to clarify your first paragraph - I did not say that teachers were "loco parentis" ASTI say it on their websites and for your information so do INTO - "While teachers in schools act in loco parentis"
http://www.into.ie/ROI/NewsEvents/MediaCoverage/August2010/

The term in loco parentis, Latin for "in the place of a parent" or "instead of a parent," refers to the legal responsibility of a person or organization to take on some of the functions and responsibilities of a parent. ...

So basically not only did I not say that teachers were in loco parentis but I also did not say that basically teachers should act as the parent.

So onto you first point, every school should have guidelines - some it would appear do not and I hardly have to point out to you the difference between hard and solid rules and guidelines?
Nowhere did I say or imply that each and every school has to follow the same set of rules, I do believe that the guidelines should be the same but adapted to each school.

Secondly, my children are not my neighbours responsibility, I don't consult with her because my children are my responsibility and when they enter a classroom they become the teachers responsibility - thus we now have shared responsibility - your claim therefore that "every teacher has their own way of disciplining children is exactly the reason why schools should have guidelines - the problems arise when each teacher applies their own, different rules and is the wrong way to deal with issues.

Thirdly, never did I say that a teacher has to run to the principal every 5 minutes and I am confused as to why you or anyone else seem to think that?

"99% of teachers do not go out of their way to humiliate a child. Maybe some do, but you have assholes in all walks of life, not just the teaching profession."

Well when you have kids (if you already don't) I hope your child doesn't get the asshole - because one asshole who can make one child feel demeaned is one asshole too many.

Yes the posters agree that a child shouldn't be excluded - but it is happening in schools, and some of the teachers here seem to be so against what I am posting because I am a parent.

For example - " I really don't understand however why you think it's ok to tell teachers how they should discipline children in the classroom. "

Please point out where I am telling teachers how to discipline children? There is a big difference between suggesting guidelines and adopting a whole school approach to discpline and telling a teacher how to discipline a child.

Or -"Or would you be happy being told by someone who has never done your job how to do your job? "

Your job is to teach - my job is to parent and you don't have to right in inflict a form of discipline on my child that I have not been informed of and may harm my child.

username123 · 26-10-2010 01:43PM

daltonm wrote: »

my angle is that as a parent, if my child came home and told me that a teacher excluded him, humiliated him and singled him out for treatment in a manner that upset and hurt him, I'd be furious.

When I was a schoolchild if I came home upset that a teacher had excluded me or humilated me etc.. my parents would be furious too - with me, for not behaving myself in school and causing a situation where a teacher had to discipline me (in whatever way it was done). I was taught to respect teachers. My parents did not interfere in how I was disciplined in school - and I think they were right.

daltonm · 26-10-2010 01:52PM

username123 wrote: »

When I was a schoolchild if I came home upset that a teacher had excluded me or humilated me etc.. my parents would be furious too - with me, for not behaving myself in school and causing a situation where a teacher had to discipline me (in whatever way it was done). I was taught to respect teachers. My parents did not interfere in how I was disciplined in school - and I think they were right.

Seriously? You as a parent would never interfere regardless of what a teacher did?

I'm not interfering at all but it's a simple fact of life that changes have been brought in to protect children, they were not introduced by the parents but by the Department of Education.

Edit to add - how would your teacher have felt if he called them to the school about your behaviour and they said "that's your problem, nothing to do with me"?

jpb1974 · 26-10-2010 01:54PM

When I was a schoolchild if I came home upset that a teacher had excluded me or humilated me etc.. my parents would be furious too - with me, for not behaving myself in school and causing a situation where a teacher had to discipline me (in whatever way it was done). I was taught to respect teachers. My parents did not interfere in how I was disciplined in school - and I think they were right.

Not sure I totally agree with this - if a 7 year old doesn't have his/her homework done properly due to some sort of misunderstanding then I don't think he/she needs to be excluded from the curriculum.

It would have been pretty obvious to the teacher that our young lad sends in good homework the vast majority of the time so to go to these lengths over one isolated incident was totally unjust in my opinion.

Punishment - No P.E.

Comments