Jump to content

Teacher stabbed to death at school in Leeds

zebulunn

By zebulunn
in General Chat

 Share

Recommended Posts

pcstru

pcstru

Posted
Posted
At what point to you start to install serious discipline?

As opposed to frivolous discipline :-)! I think you do it based on the individual. Parents are (or should be) well placed to make a judgement, perhaps schools are better placed in some senses, since they are decoupled from the parental bond and can take a more dispassionate view.

By the way I'm not a parent and have no interest in being one. However I do care about society as a whole and what we reap is what we sow!

Sure. The problem then IMO is to try and avoid knee jerk reactions and recognise that societal problems are generally hugely complex and rarely have simple 'cures'. Most importantly, 'society' is an aggregation of individuals and true justice requires consideration of individual circumstances. A child raised in a caring home is unlikely to have the same appreciation of consequences as a child who sees domestic violence every day. That's not saying we should excuse the actions of the latter, just that taking the same approach is unlikely to work and expecting the same rate of progress is unlikely to be realistic.

LosOjos

LosOjos

Posted
Posted
A child raised in a caring home is unlikely to have the same appreciation of consequences as a child who sees domestic violence every day. That's not saying we should excuse the actions of the latter, just that taking the same approach is unlikely to work and expecting the same rate of progress is unlikely to be realistic.

 

This is a very good point well worth bearing in mind, and it ties in well with some of the points made over in this thread about how the "good" kids are the ones who are most receptive to discipline.

 

It's too easy to look at a "problem" child and write them off as a waste of space, it's much more difficult to try to work out why they're acting out and to empathise with them. That's not to say that some kids aren't just a PITA, but quite often the really bad ones have problems at home. People can be far too quick to write these kids off when a little help could potentially prevent future tragedies.

 

At the other end of the scale, I've been in to schools who reward their PA kids with iPods and gift vouchers if they manage to get their attendance up to national average, but the kids who are there on time every day get nothing.

 

There has to be a balance!

X-13

X-13

Posted
Posted
At the other end of the scale, I've been in to schools who reward their PA kids with iPods and gift vouchers if they manage to get their attendance up to national average, but the kids who are there on time every day get nothing.

 

That sort of thing annoys me to no end...

 

I have seen, first hand, a pupil who refused to go to class being given a laptop to play work on... Said laptop was actually bought for SEN pupils to use.

Garacesh

Garacesh

Posted
Posted
At the other end of the scale, I've been in to schools who reward their PA kids with iPods and gift vouchers if they manage to get their attendance up to national average, but the kids who are there on time every day get nothing.

I've heard tell through-the-grapevine of the 'naughty kids' being taken out on trips and such here, although I will admit I have no way to verify if that's true or just hot-air.

 

A while ago we did a token-based reward system for kids for having good manners, and we also have a continuous 'house point' scheme going on. There was no end to the [Everyone] emails detailing that the children who were always polite and always did their work weren't being noticed and given politeness/house tokens, and the same for positive behaviour notes on SIMS. Which is a shame. I understand the need to reward the disruptive and poorly behaved children for correcting their behaviour, but when something like that is put into place, please don't neglect the children that have no need to make any corrections :(

  • Popular Post
witch

witch

Posted
  • Popular Post
Posted

I'll tell you what age you start disciplining your children - around 3 years old, when they are old enough to understand what you are saying.

For example, if I 2 year old throws or snatches something, you quietly say "no, don't do that" and take said thing away. But at 3 - yes, 3 (those of you who are parents will know how much a 3 year old can understand, and those who don't will think "but that's just a toddler" ) you start explaining to them WHY they shouldn't be doing those things. You then introduce the idea of consequences - "if you throw that then you don't get to play with this...etc" . So, discipline and responsibility for actions develops.

  • Thanks 5
Willott

Willott

Posted
Posted
@witch - I wouldn't be so definite on the age, our 2yr old understands why and consequences, it's more looking at their knowledge of language, their general development etc
witch

witch

Posted
Posted
@witch - I wouldn't be so definite on the age, our 2yr old understands why and consequences, it's more looking at their knowledge of language, their general development etc

 

I did say "around 3" but yes, I suppose I meant by 3 at the latest (obviously dependent on development etc)

 

So many people who dont have children - and quite a few who do - think that a 2 or 3 year old is still really a baby, when in fact they stay babies for about 14 months and then they are off and running - understanding, reasoning, the lot!

AMLinington

AMLinington

Posted
Posted (edited)
I'll tell you what age you start disciplining your children - around 3 years old, when they are old enough to understand what you are saying.

For example, if I 2 year old throws or snatches something, you quietly say "no, don't do that" and take said thing away. But at 3 - yes, 3 (those of you who are parents will know how much a 3 year old can understand, and those who don't will think "but that's just a toddler" ) you start explaining to them WHY they shouldn't be doing those things. You then introduce the idea of consequences - "if you throw that then you don't get to play with this...etc" . So, discipline and responsibility for actions develops.

 

I don't think it matters if the child is 3 years or 3 months. Linking cause and consequence at an early age doesn't hurt. It is consistent. So as the child develops they understand better what you are saying but the action you are performing is familiar. So rather than 'suddenly' change your tactic, the child experiences a consistent behaviour from you which they grow to understand better. A 2yo hits their sibling with a toy, you take the toy away. Where is the harm in explaining that you took it away because they are using it in the wrong way? The kid might not understand the whole 'consequence' concept but the end result is the same - child + toy = misbehaviour = child - toy?

 

We use this behaviour on pets - I know my Cat doesn't understand that scratching my new suite is a bad thing but he does understand that it results in a bop on the bum from a nerf dart and links the behaviour to the nerf gun. He starts scratching, we pick up the nerf gun, he runs away.

Edited by AMLinington
witch

witch

Posted
Posted (edited)
I don't think it matters if the child is 3 years or 3 months. Linking cause and consequence at an early age doesn't hurt. It is consistent. So as the child develops they understand better what you are saying but the action you are performing is familiar. So rather than 'suddenly' change your tactic, the child experiences a consistent behaviour from you which they grow to understand better. A 2yo hits their sibling with a toy, you take the toy away. Where is the harm in explaining that you took it away because they are using it in the wrong way? The kid might not understand the whole 'consequence' concept but the end result is the same - child + toy = misbehaviour = child - toy?

Yes, of course you can explain earlier - although I think 3 months is a bit of a stretch - but my point was that you need to have started adding in the reason and consequence bit by around 3. I don't think I said you should "suddenly" do anything. Maybe I should have put "by 3" and not "at 3". Sorry to be so unclear

Edited by witch
AMLinington

AMLinington

Posted
Posted
Yes, of course you can explain earlier - although I think 3 months is a bit of a stretch - but my point was that you need to have started adding in the reason and consequence bit by around 3. I don't think I said you should "suddenly" do anything. Maybe I should have put "by 3" and not "at 3". Sorry to be so unclear

 

It always annoyed me as a child when my mother would discipline my sister or I and when we'd ask 'why?' the result was 'because I said so' or 'because you're not allowed'. I wish she'd explained better WHY we're not allowed. If she'd said 'you're not allowed to touch this because it is a dangerous thing and might hurt you' or 'because it's too heavy for you to lift if it falls over'. Understanding the potential consequences is as important in discipline as explaining why a behaviour is wrong. How many stories do we see of kids told they can't do something only to defy their parents, do the thing, and get hurt?

 

I tried to take this approach when I was teaching. I'd converse with the disruptive pupil and try to explain why larking about around Bunsen burners was a bad idea. Whether by that stage they CARED was another matter, but due diligence and all that.

witch

witch

Posted
Posted
TBH that's all well and good - but when you have a three year old that never never stops saying "why" to every little thing you say, you do find yourself saying " because I said so" even though before you were a parent you swore up down and sideways that you would never do that :)
Garacesh

Garacesh

Posted
Posted

"Don't climb on there!"

"Why?"

"Because you'll get hurt."

"Why?"

"Because that's a fence, and it's sharp at the top."

"Why?"

"To hurt people that try climbing on it."

"Why?"

"So that they don't climb over the fence."

"Why?"

  • Thanks 1
SteveT

SteveT

Posted
Posted

 

So many people who dont have children - and quite a few who do - think that a 2 or 3 year old is still really a baby, when in fact they stay babies for about 14 months and then they are off and running - understanding, reasoning, the lot!

 

.... until they become teenagers when the understanding, reasoning etc seems to disappear for several years!!!! :rolleyes:

  • Thanks 1
mthomas08

mthomas08

Posted
Posted
"Don't climb on there!"

"Why?"

"Because you'll get hurt."

"Why?"

"Because that's a fence, and it's sharp at the top."

"Why?"

"To hurt people that try climbing on it."

"Why?"

"So that they don't climb over the fence."

"Why?"

 

Ah, the brilliant WHY - I did that for a whole week as a kid. Till I had the belt on my bum cheeks, lets just say I never did it again.

tmcd35

tmcd35

Posted
Posted
Ah, the brilliant WHY - I did that for a whole week as a kid. Till I had the belt around my bum cheeks, lets just say I never did it again.

 

Why? (6 chars)

  • Thanks 1
AMLinington

AMLinington

Posted
Posted
"Don't climb on there!"

"Why?"

"Because you'll get hurt."

"Why?"

"Because that's a fence, and it's sharp at the top."

"Why?"

"To hurt people that try climbing on it."

"Why?"

"So that they don't climb over the fence."

"Why?"

 

Valid point. I'm sure I'll be the same.

LosOjos

LosOjos

Posted
Posted
Valid point. I'm sure I'll be the same.

 

I agree with you on the point of giving a reason rather than resorting to "because I said so" as I was always frustrated by that answer from my Mom too.

 

I found the way to deal with the "why" stage was answer the first few "whys" while it's still reasonable, then simply change the subject before I got to the "because I told you!" point. Now, whether that will work out well in the long run remains to be seen but I felt at the time that it'd be a bad idea to discourage her questioning.

Garacesh

Garacesh

Posted
Posted
I found the way to deal with the "why" stage was answer the first few "whys" while it's still reasonable, then simply change the subject before I got to the "because I told you!" point.

Easiest way is to not end with a statement.

 

"Don't climb on there!"

"Why?"

"Because you'll get hurt. It's sharp at the top to stop people climbing on it. You wouldn't want to get hurt, would you?"

  • Thanks 1
LosOjos

LosOjos

Posted
Posted
Easiest way is to not end with a statement.

 

"Don't climb on there!"

"Why?"

"Because you'll get hurt. It's sharp at the top to stop people climbing on it. You wouldn't want to get hurt, would you?"

 

That doesn't seem to matter to a toddler in the "why" stage, they'll happily answer a question with another why! :)

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing


×
×
  • Create New...