Then all you can do is to inform them what it entails, what's waiting for them. I don't see why you would even have a class for them in this case though? If you honestly believe that they can't be reformed, why foster them and place them together with even more of the same kind and probably make it even worse? You apparently already know they're doing drugs, why would you need to put them in the same class to 'catch' them?
As someone who has taught people for 2 years (not even that long) i can tell you there are people who will not change no matter what you do. I can't call names (for obvious reasons), but i once knew a kid he never came to class and even when he did, he just caused trouble. I tried to talk to him on several occasion, but he never came. Eventually i had to prevent him from leaving class one day so i could talk to him, guess what, he was a spoiled brat whose parents hadn't taught him s**t. I met the principle about him and we called in the parents along with him, a whole lot of "it's your fault, not our's" is all that came out of the parent's mouth, I then tried unsuccessfully for pretty much a month to change him, what do i get for my efforts him assaulting me along with some of his friends think they could beat me up and stop my "preaching." They learned that day why people don't assault 6"5' body-builders and he along with 3 others, were promptly expelled and sent to juvie. I can say off-hand at least 25 others with similar circumstances, some their parents weren't total dicks, some had parents who were basically wimps, but what they all had in common was that these kids were not ready to listen or change. A lot of people tell me i'm overly cynical about this and should care more about the kids and i say tell me what should be done for people who don't listen and can't be touched legally? As for the drug-head part, trust me when i say that i will not thrust any people who still have hope into that cesspit, and for those who don't, it's better that they go to juvie for drugs and maybe change than to go through the rest oft heir life leaching of their parents and eventually ending up as bums or thieves who die of starvation or go to jail anyway "There is no such thing as tough love, true love is tough" my mom always told me this and i try my hardest to live by this, even if it means cracking a few skulls. And if it makes anyone feel good, the guy i talked about is a decent guy now. He met my friend in juvie (an instructor) and if anyone knows what tough love is, it's him
Ey, they took the more comfortable approach: No man, no problem; as a famous person (google it) once said. Rather than address the problem, they just get rid of it altogether, heh. Lazy. Such are humans who have enough authority over others. Responsibility? What's that? Is it tasty? Nah, we just got this cushy job (the principal) to get money, not to deal with problem students~
I think you really don't know what a cult is, lol. Look that up, buddy. Furthermore, your IQ isn't something that can be pulled down in the way you are thinking it can be. Again. Look up the definition to see what the word really means. One kid can prevent a class from learning; in that case, why should the other children be subjected to that? I wont even use the word fair here because that is a laughable concept on its own. The single mom thing. As a child of a single mom, i dont think that is an excuse. So dont use that. My mom was a new mother without so much a hint of advice, and she made sure i learned what i needed to. Im not the most morally upright person in the world, but i understood what lines i shouldnt cross and the consequences to my actions at a young age.
Look up the word practically and tell me why you would take the word 'cult' literally. To be explicit I'm saying that if you leave all the bad apples alone with even more bad apples nothing will get better, if anything it's only going to get worse. I'm not the one who claimed troublemakers 'lower other student's IQ'. Look up the words "if" and "somehow". And "hypothetical" while you're at it. As another 'real world' example, instead of assimilating other cultures you buch all the people of different cultures and ethnicity together and voila you now have china town etc. Children can still grow up to be ok & normal even if both their parents are drug addicts, but that doesn't mean it's the norm. Regardless of the 'facts' I'm just getting my point across, if you feel offended by my example then ok whatever. Go ahead and ignore my overall points and focus on picking it all apart to make some pointless remarks about how it's not a perfect representation of the real world, like anything ever could be. p.s. @Lithit and people seem to misunderstand something, if there's kids who are bad enough that you literally can't teach them anything at all, they're absolutely not willing to even consider the idea, or whatever extreme reason you have to move them to some special class for 'failures that won't ever succeed' then why even have them go to any class at all? It's this kind of hushing that make it extra easy for parents to pretend like they know nothing and that their children are perfect angels and they couldn't give a shit about what they do. Let them say home or whatever and fuck up their own place and maybe the parents will actually not have the option to simply send them away for someone else to 'deal' with it, and maybe they won't get (as) spoilt. Either there's still hope and something can be done for them or they shouldn't even be coming to class? And about the not on time thing, I don't think that's something you should really bother with? Either they're late for class (and if you think that they will disturb the class by coming late, then simply don't allow latecomers to enter class). and that's that. If you can't get them to get in time to class then that's their problem. If they're failing studies that were specifically from said missed class(es) then you've already provided them with the opportunity, you owe them nothing more, if they're not failing then apparently they didn't need to go your class for whatever reason and there is no problem at all.
Pfft, oh well. It's a quote from my favorite comedian George Carlin, and when's the last time a comedian's words were supposed to be taken seriously? They're there to poke fun at people. But anyway, I'll never understand the need to comment on someone's avatar or signature as if it's related to the opinion. When's the last time someone picked his signature carefully, thinking, 'this will define me as a person, I better make sure others get who I am just by glancing at it'?
Teachers are human too, why do people expect so much out of them? they can only do so much. Its also very stressful, and it was the vice principal ideal. when i was still going to school, heres what my schools did, for elementary school we (pretty much the same class) had the same teacher for grades 3-5 and for middle school 6-8, alteast half of our teachers were the same. By spending more time together we can better understand each other. If anyone needed help the teachers knows how to approach us and also we'll be more open to the teachers. If the teacher can't help us, the teachers and parents are already familiar with each other and they can talk things out.
Sounds like your school had it figured out. But to answer your question,we tend to expect more out of people who have authority over others. Police, doctors, judges, teachers... Those professions come with their responsibilities, and they can't expect everyone will comply and be all orderly and nice,making their jobs easy. They need to have an appropriate way of dealing with problem situations, you see. Getting rid of the person creating the problem is the worst solution ever, though it's the easiest. It basically means they can take the good of the job, but can't deal with the bad. It's lazy and irresponsible.
But in the end, you did the right thing. You didn't avoid the problem, or try to remove the student with your principal. I probably wouldn't have even gone through half the effort, honestly (though I do realize I'm not cut out for the job, so there's that). But setting up a student just cause they can't deal is inexcusable. And your student got what he deserved too, resorting to assault. And it sounds like it was eye-opening for him. But bad parenting results in brats in most cases, and the teachers aren't paid to do the parenting for them. Don't know how delusional they have to be to expect that of you. It's just teaching the next generation, and upholding a moral code (at least in public) to set an example, that's how I see it. To this day, I remember all my teachers, because they were very important in the first part of my life. There are those I respect, and there are some who gave me a shitty impression (one molesting PE teacher, and one hebephile Philosophy and Religion(lol) teach, who later ran away with a 14 year old girl). It's not just a job. A teacher really affects their students, even if they don't believe so. Everyone I know remembers the teachers who left them with a strong impression. In any case, I'm not blaming the teacher in this story, but the principal. The teacher can't really go against the principal anyway. Really, what impression would you get of the person taking the almost highest seat in the school hierarchy, deciding to get rid of a problem student, cause it's too exhausting to deal with him. Isn't it an abuse of power?
I would like to make the statement that while support for teachers is good and I've had many great teachers in my life, there are also quite a few bad teachers. Tons of them in fact. There's a reason the saying goes "Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach." (Not that this holds true all or even most of the time). Nonetheless, there are administrators and teachers who don't care. Who don't want to really teach and simply want to make money without actually putting in sufficient effort. Who sometimes even have it out for students, and want to maximize the damage they do to them (in subtle ways of course). So while there are students who are "unteachable," there are also teachers (and tbh even more administrators) who are just as bad. So don't make any assumptions without first knowing all of the facts.
Sorry i made a mistake there, i meant he didn't come on time for my first day and on most days never came
Well i'm not really saying what he did was right (you can read my post about it if you look higher), I'm just trying to show others what could frustrate a teacher to the point of doing this
What you say is exactly what most others (or at least me) are trying to say, it's just that a lot of people were like "That teacher is a horrible person, children should be loved and cherished no matter what", so I at least, was trying to show that the teacher isn't always completely at fault and really it depends.
Sometimes the issue is unable to be dealt with as a teacher is also vastly limited to what they can do. A major issue can be the parenting and cultural and social climate. The teacher may or may not be a sensible individual, but it would be blatantly foolish to assume fault for any of the parties involved without understanding the situation and context involved. We can easily formulate an opinion and make a gigantic rant, but that means absolutely nothing when we are purely making assumptions based on such a small blurb. It is kind of astounding when the first action we do is condemnation and discuss morality and roles without even attempting to understand the ambiguitious nature of the issue. The kid could be a deviant that has had issues due to issues at the home, could be a teacher who is condemning of a student that makes little attempts to understand or care; but how the hell should we know if that statement is the only thing we have to go on. Via argument or prose, we can vilify or excuse anything when we don't present the whole situation. Yet even then, even with things 'open and shut' anything can be spun if the person talking is over opinionated.
Cult- a system of religious veneration and devotion directed toward a particular figure or object, or a misplaced or excessive admiration for a particular person or thing. With the proper definition, no, I would not call them that in anyway because that is not what they are. Also, now that I have gone through the process of looking up the word, I’ll answer your question: Yes, I would take it literally. Why? Because that is what the word means. That is what it was designed to mean. It triggers me when I see people using words incorrectly, like autistic; from there, you have a bunch of idiots misrepresenting the word to mostly uneducated, of the words meaning, people that turn around and do the same thing. Because of people, like you, that do this, I had to spend a great deal of effort explaining to my autistic brother that there is nothing wrong with him, a fully functioning person that has autism and can function normally in public. Further more They are people that should receive a specialized education plan, together. This way, schools can tailor a plan of action for them. A plan of action that does not apply to the other children in the class that would have the “bad apples”, as you put it, pulled out. When you try to have five different education plans in one room, it causes chaos; divide and conquer, yo. Those teachers advocate the removal of those students because they have deemed that they can’t do what they need for that child. This is just as much for the child as it is for the teacher. After all, why would you waste your time with a teacher that can’t teach you? It’s a waste of time. The flip side is the student. That’s my view on that matter, anyways. It doesn’t have to be a class for failures to just sit in. A lot of schools now have teachers specialized in connecting with those students to get them to open up to education in some way or form. Here, I don’t think morals should only be taught at home. It’s all around you once you step outside. I don’t see people killing each other, so it must not be the thing to do; same for stealing, fighting, etc. Beyond that, role models, t.v., law enforcement, social groups, and so on. Everything around you pretty much reinforces the morals accepted in that area. I would personally love it if parenting guide book became mandatory for all parents, new and experienced. Often times, children reflect what their parents show them. Its understandable. Some can figure out what to do, some can't. Even then, it takes time. That's why i like the idea of a mandatory parenting guideline being be given to all. With it, all of those trips and bumps would be a lot less likely to impact the child in a negative way. Dohoho, I’ll start with “if”; you didn’t even use the word in the correct way. It is used to say that something must happen before another thing can happen. Your independent and dependent clauses don’t work together in a way that would justify you in using the word if, connecting them together into a compound sentence. You could probably get away with using the word should. Next, Somehow and hypothetical; your somehow doesn’t imply a hypothetical. Somehow is used to indicate that a reason is not known or specified. Meaning, you are implying that, somehow, their IQ is being lowered. That’s not a hypothetical, a proposition or statement on how something could happen. You're just saying it could happen. Now, a person’s IQ is represented as a number that representing a person's reasoning ability, measured using problem-solving tests, as compared to the statistical norm or average for their age. Thus, unless someone starts bashing a person’s head in, permanently injuring their brain’s ability to reason, a person’s IQ won’t be lowered in the context implied by your sentence, being the classroom setting. Now, I only read half of the posts in the thread before responding to yours; thus, if you did not intend on representing yourself as a person that believed that IQ can be lowered by the class room setting, the only part that pertains to you is the part about “if”, “somehow”, and “hypothetical”.
While i enjoy nonsense as much as anyone else Lets look at it this way In any other situation where you had what is essentially a finite resource with an agreed upon distribution that required some sort of action on the part of the individual to obtain, if an individual refused to participate, no one would have a problem with withholding those resources (held in trust by the group for the individuals), until the individual rejoins, at least in the most basic way, the group. in a small hamlet where everyone must work to make sure the crops come in so that no one starves, why would the town support the bum who doesn't contribute? whats the phrase? He who is not willing to work , He shall not eat. similarly He who is not willing to learn, he shall not be educated. The stupidity of this "equality of outcome" mentality is painful. Education should be "equality of opportunity" All the kids have access to the same material, the same teacher, and the same chance to learn. One kid chooses to not take advantage of those options and instead drag down and diminish the opportunity of the others in a "crabpot mentality" In a class of 40 should the future of 39 be deprecated just to provide the illusion of "sameness" for 1? Similarly if the education system of the 39 is unable to teach the 1, should they not be free to find their own path and succeed or fail on their own merits without the forced constraints of the system? P.S. I.Q. Is not what you think it is. only about 20-40% of the abilities that make up "I.Q." is inborn or genetic; the rest is environmental and several of those factors can only be changed up until you reach the age of 16 or so at which point they become somewhat fixed. It has also been shown in studies that stress in a child activates multiple chemical and hormone channels that cause the genes that express intelligence and reason to activate at a diminished rate while enhancing the more survival oriented reflexes. Look up the effects of cortisol on long term cognition, if there is a student that is actively enhancing cortisol production in the other students, it is little different than literally and figuratively poisoning both the children and their futures.
Ah, the old arguments: man, that's life, bear with it; you can't change it, adapt to the system; for the whole, sacrifice the parts. Ha. No, I wasn't 'spoiled' by movies and other similar dramas but I do know that, in very few cases, there are persons unwilling to change themselves. The key/opportunity is missing. Altought family is the main 'spreader' of morals that doesn't mean that the school and society doesn't have it's say. Also, many of you keep judging a children by using the fact that he's not an adult, even if, sometimes, he/she can act as an adult. And no, removing someone just for his bad behaviour is just another way to instill a fake sense of fear of consequences and a 'reign of terror'. If the saied children was so bad and, actually, he/she was a concrete bad example rhen, the school rules could be aplied. Every and any school should have rules and specialised people to deal with such circumstances. Pointing the blame, solely, on the family and students is wrong and is just a annoying excuse. Who says that things shoudn't and can't be changed? Adapt to a putrid system? If that's what some of you are saying then... I'm dissapointed. If you are really interested, on internet, are various examples of how to deal with problem children. Are they applied? Rarely. And even if you, as a teacher, are 'tested' for 'class management' skills/teaching skills and so on... That's mandatory and shoudn't becan option. Not only theory is needed from a teacher, but also concrete things. Some of you keep pointing the finger to the children but, what if the teacher neglected his duty and/or was a bad example which 'destroyed' your children? What whould you do? School isn't teaching morals? Ha. Can a person who was found to be a criminal teach in a school? No. @Ai chan. Your post is contradictory. So, they sacrifice... What? They are paied for what they're doing: teaching. Period. If your government is inapt and can't change the education system then, it's his fault. What you're trying to say is that.. Concrete situations can make a teacher not have the the time, nor the power to manage all things by him/herself. True, but you forgot that there isn't only a teacher for the whole school but a couple of teacher that should act as a team, no? Did I say that I, never, teached in a class or that I lack 'inside' information? And, if a student destroy things then, he/she'll have to pay for them or his parents should pay. If that student doesn't have the necessary means, there are other ways for doing that. I refuse to admit that a human is seen as 'cut losses'. Period. And, yes, you can point out the blame on the teacher&vice principal as they use their own judgement and immoral ways to force someone in a position. Is that something that you want your students to learn and apply? @NaoSou. If the proper ways were used, ok. But, they weren't. The fact that a teacher used those words shows that he knew that what he did was wrong. Students aren't guineea pigs, nor excempted from duties and responsibilities. The fact that inept people are placed in key positions is what's wrong. Those two ..... People are what's wrong in a educational system. They don't manage the cause but it's effect. 'I can't control it anymore/I can't bear with it/ he/she refuses to listen" are just excuses. Sometimes, they can't manage the cause but... That isn't a justification for doing something so.. 'Unhealthy'. That's risky and a massive headeache to deal with it when two uselless people are in key position and decide that they 'know better'. The consequences can't be predicted, nor can be so easy repaired. http://www.adprima.com/managing.htm https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classroom_management http://www.apa.org/education/k12/classroom-mgmt.aspx
What makes you think the school rules wasn't applied? Seems to me like both the vice principle and the teacher are too much of a wimp (read: too nice) to enforce the school rules, which in many cases are stricter. He's just removed the student from the class from what little we know. School rules punishments can go as extreme as: 1) Suspension 2) Kicked out of school 3) Reported to the police All three of which can be applicable and are much worse depending on the offenses. Then again, we don't know the whole case. The lack of information makes me think the whole story is fabricated in the first place, which I assume is not because it's mentioned by a retired teacher and the rest of her post sounds legitimate. Now sure how much time teachers in your country has, I heard European teachers get better work experience, but you are too idealistic with this. Teachers try their best, just because they don't follow what some 'specialist' who have never taught in schools post on the internet, does that automatically make them bad teachers? Not all of us are lucky to live in a country with good and capable governors. We make do with what we have. Nothing is ever equal in this world. You are assuming that only one teacher has this problem. So if one teacher has this problem 1-1=0 and she can't cope with it, why not ask for help, right? What if I tell you that the other teachers have their own problem students? So it's not two teachers against one problem student 2-1=1, it's two teachers against two problem students 2-2=0. And what makes you think there's only 1 problem students in the whole class? There's bound to be 2-3 of the worse ones at least. I'm sorry, that was wrong of me to say. For that I apologize, but I do not apologize for the content of my outburst. Yes, I do not think you have 'inside' information nor have you taught as a teacher in any length of time that matters. I mean school teacher, not a tuition teacher nor a home tutor. Your point of view is too idealistic and naive that only new teachers can possibly have. This idealistic and naive thoughts will be shattered after you've received the full responsibilities of a school teacher for half a year. Let's be optimistic and say some people are so mentally strong that they can maintain this attitude for a full year. Eventually, you will end up cutting corners. I didn't want to cut corners, so I pushed on until I eventually burned out. I don't want to mention your age, because that's kind of a low blow on your arguments. How can anyone judge them as immoral when we don't know the full story? What do we actually know about this story, really? The facts that we know about this story is less than what we can get from a 100 word newspaper lottery. How can we judge them when we don't know a single verifiable fact? The retired teacher who related this to us only made that 2-3 small sentence recollection of the event. What do we know? Let me quote the full post. BTW, this is all I can say on this matter. I've said everything I have to say. I won't let my words be twisted again.