Punishment - No P.E.

jpb1974

Hi,

I was wondering could anyone help or perhaps just offer an opinion:

In short: Is it acceptable for a teacher to 'punish' a child by not allowing them participate in P.E.?

Thanks

byhookorbycrook

Generally, no, it is not acceptable to miss any curriculum area. The exception would be if the child was behaving in an unsafe manner at P.E., either a danger to him/herself or others.

jpb1974

Thanks for the advice, pretty much the same as what I was thinking myself.

D4RK ONION

This is such an old punishment and it really doesn't gel any more. You wouldn't punish a child by removing them from the maths or science class, so why would you do the same in PE? It is a curricular subject after all.

jpb1974

Aye... I agree.

The young lad (7 years old) wasn't allowed to participate in P.E. yesterday because he hadn't completed part of his homework properly (this was due to total confusion as to what had to be done, we oversee his homework every night and make sure it is done to a high standard, but we were all a bit confused as to what was actually required for the item in question).

As far as I can see the teacher isn't taking P.E. seriously if she's using it as a punishment mechanism.

Ironically enough the school sent home a sponsorship card earlier in the week to raise funds for sports equipment...

Thanks for the opinions, appreciate it.

RibenaHead

It's ridiculous that teachers think they can just exclude children from one subject as a punishment! So archaic!

up for anything

When it became obvious to the school that I was helping my daughter avoid swimming when she was in 6th class, I got a phone call from the principle tearing strips off me and reminding me that swimming was as much part of the curriculum as maths and not to do it again.

D4RK ONION

And too right imo! Physical Education is just that. An important part of every child's education.

dambarude

up for anything wrote: »

When it became obvious to the school that I was helping my daughter avoid swimming when she was in 6th class, I got a phone call from the principle tearing strips off me and reminding me that swimming was as much part of the curriculum as maths and not to do it again.

Swimming is probably one of the most important things a child will learn in PE, your principal was right.

That said I realise that some children are uncomfortable with everything that going swimming involves, I hated swimming myself, but it's one of the most worthwhile activities you do in primary school.

up for anything

dambarude wrote: »

Swimming is probably one of the most important things a child will learn in PE, your principal was right.

That said I realise that some children are uncomfortable with everything that going swimming involves, I hated swimming myself, but it's one of the most worthwhile activities you do in primary school.

I'm with you on that but I had to balance the nasty teasing she was getting before, after and during swimming against the benefit of a half hour swimming lesson.

dambarude

up for anything wrote: »

I'm with you on that but I had to balance the nasty teasing she was getting before, after and during swimming against the benefit of a half hour swimming lesson.

That has to be tough. Young kids can be pretty cruel.

It was the actual swimming that I didn't like, I was pretty useless at it. But the thing is, even though I haven't swam much since I was in primary school, at least I know how to now. In the long run it's probably worth it, especially *touch wood* in situations where it's important.

The curriculum has a lot on water safety, not just at the swimming pool, but at the seaside/rivers etc. as well. I don't really know how often teachers/swimming instructors actually teach this aspect of it though. A fair bit of the Aquatics strand of the PE curriculum could be taught in the classroom (obviously not the actual swimming though).

GoldenEarring

RibenaHead wrote: »

It's ridiculous that teachers think they can just exclude children from one subject as a punishment! So archaic!

All very well. But the options open to teachers to punish children are now very limited. Have you any alternatives?
People now have no idea of just how demanding and badly-behaved children can be. If you've a class of 30 plus, there has to be some sanction for misdemeanors. Children no longer sit like robots and soak up the knowledge the teacher imparts.
Children are very opinionated these days and are not used to waiting their turn. They also frequently think they are always in the right. The self-esteem level has swung from too low to too high.
I can understand why teachers might opt to cut a few mins from a child's Art or PE lesson....these are seen as treats and obviously excluding them from Irish or Maths would not be seen as a punishment.
I have never stopped a child from an entire lesson but I would make them start last or wait a few mins after the others.
I would be sympathetic to teachers who would need to do more.
Have you never witnessed the appalling behaviour of some children in shops and restaurants, while the doting parents gaze admiringly at the little horrors? It's truly extraordinary. Most parents want you to discipline EVERYONE ELSE'S children, but never their own (as their own are perfect, obviously)!!!!

RibenaHead

@GoldEarring... I'd suggest, rather than excluding them from P.E. - maybe if they are acting out during a P.E. lesson, have them two a few laps or something where they're still active but not included in the 'fun' bit just for a while...

There are plenty of ways of punishing children without resorting to cutting out certain curricular times - extra homework is one (regardless of the subject, children never want MORE work to do!).

On the other hand, positive reinforcement is a much better alternative - where children get rewarded for good behaviour and are then given an incentive to behave appropriately. However, I understand that this can be a bit of an idealistic concept and doesn't necessarily work without the odd bit of punishment thrown in.

Also, I'm just a student teacher so I'm in no way experienced enough to say what will/won't work in a classroom.

ted1

not at all acceptable. This is way to old school of an punishment. pe is a very important part of development it teachs team play. And rule playing it also builds confidence in kids who aren't good at standard subjects. I'd in through the teacher and principal for a short cut)

GoldenEarring

RibenaHead wrote: »

@GoldEarring... I'd suggest, rather than excluding them from P.E. - maybe if they are acting out during a P.E. lesson, have them two a few laps or something where they're still active but not included in the 'fun' bit just for a while...

There are plenty of ways of punishing children without resorting to cutting out certain curricular times - extra homework is one (regardless of the subject, children never want MORE work to do!).

On the other hand, positive reinforcement is a much better alternative - where children get rewarded for good behaviour and are then given an incentive to behave appropriately. However, I understand that this can be a bit of an idealistic concept and doesn't necessarily work without the odd bit of punishment thrown in.

Also, I'm just a student teacher so I'm in no way experienced enough to say what will/won't work in a classroom.

It has got to the stage now that some children will not even do the homework they get on a regular basis let alone do extra as a punishment. There's not a lot you can do if a child will not do homework and parent couldn't care less. In some of my friends' schools the parents can't even get the kids to attend.
Parents find their own two or three children a challenge to manage and yet they think a teacher should be able to manage thirty and make them do things for five hours that they do not want to do, ie work.
There are no sanctions now and many children have no fear of authority and will answer "I don't care" if threatened with being sent to principal or reported to parents.
A Polish child in our school was asked what he thought about school in Ireland and he said he was amazed at how cheeky the children were to the teachers.
There are practically no sanctions and some children feel they can do what they like and get away with it. They are right. Also when they tell their parents an exaggerated description of an incident in school the parents take their word over the teacher's every time.
I do not know where all of this will lead but it is not good for education and is very hard on compliant, cooperative and hardworking pupils who have to endure disruptive and distracting behaviour.

dambarude

GoldenEarring wrote: »

There are no sanctions now and many children have no fear of authority and will answer "I don't care" if threatened with being sent to principal or reported to parents.

In your experience does the threat of 'No PE/Art' actually work with children like this?

E.T.

RibenaHead wrote: »

@GoldEarring... I'd suggest, rather than excluding them from P.E. - maybe if they are acting out during a P.E. lesson, have them two a few laps or something where they're still active but not included in the 'fun' bit just for a while...

There are plenty of ways of punishing children without resorting to cutting out certain curricular times - extra homework is one (regardless of the subject, children never want MORE work to do!).

On the other hand, positive reinforcement is a much better alternative - where children get rewarded for good behaviour and are then given an incentive to behave appropriately. However, I understand that this can be a bit of an idealistic concept and doesn't necessarily work without the odd bit of punishment thrown in.

Also, I'm just a student teacher so I'm in no way experienced enough to say what will/won't work in a classroom.

That all sounds good in theory, but just doesn't work in reality.
P.E. - The only time I ever stop children doing P.E. is if they're acting up to the extent where they're putting themselves and others in danger during the P.E. class. They get a time-out and have to stay beside me. Having them run a few laps just isn't practical - if they are really misbehaving, you can't keep an eye on them plus teach your 30+ other kids at the same time.

Extra homework - a lot of the time, the kids who do act up all the time are the ones who don't do the basic homework as it is, and most of the time you're not going to get any support from their parents either. It's also linking the idea of homework with punishment.

Positive reinforcement - I've been teaching almost 10 years and I've seen both positive and negative consequences of this method. It can work, but finding a method that suits a child personally takes a huge amount of time, which is taking from teaching time every day, to the detriment of the other children. What I don't like about it is it leaves some kids with the impression that they have to get a reward for behaving themselves. This doesn't happen in the real world! And when you stop the (excess) positive reinforcement, the good behaviour often stops too.

I do use positive verbal reinforcement a lot with children who have trouble behaving, but I rarely use rewards.

RibenaHead

E.T. wrote: »

That all sounds good in theory, but just doesn't work in reality.

I see what you mean about the problems with what I said. Like I said though, I'm just a student teacher and don't have as much experience as you so I'm really just thinking hypothetically!

GoldenEarring

I have never done that. I've only made them have the last turn/go, wait 5 mins before starting, be the last to choose the paints, paper etc. I've made them wait two mins on the clock before starting lunch.
It does seem to focus the mind and they generally are more cooperative. It's good for the rest of the class to see that there are consequences for misbehaviour. I'd make a big play out of rewarding those who try hard and they get to go first. I'd talk a lot about how we have to be fair to the people who work hard and how much of everybody's time is wasted by messers.
For seriously difficult pupils it is very different especially when the parents do not support the teacher. Children today have very little conscience about cheating and lying...they don't fear eternal damnation as we did, and know their parents will take them at their word. They can tell very one-sided versions of events.
Other teachers have excluded trouble-makers from school tours. That seems to have worked. But you cannot threaten something that you are not prepared to carry out and of course teachers have to comply with whatever is written in the school's code of behaviour policy. Or else they could end up in court.
That's the way the world is now. All the rules are for the teachers!!

daltonm

GoldenEarring wrote: »

I have never done that. I've only made them have the last turn/go, wait 5 mins before starting, be the last to choose the paints, paper etc. I've made them wait two mins on the clock before starting lunch.
It does seem to focus the mind and they generally are more cooperative. It's good for the rest of the class to see that there are consequences for misbehaviour. I'd make a big play out of rewarding those who try hard and they get to go first. I'd talk a lot about how we have to be fair to the people who work hard and how much of everybody's time is wasted by messers.
For seriously difficult pupils it is very different especially when the parents do not support the teacher. Children today have very little conscience about cheating and lying...they don't fear eternal damnation as we did, and know their parents will take them at their word. They can tell very one-sided versions of events.
Other teachers have excluded trouble-makers from school tours. That seems to have worked. But you cannot threaten something that you are not prepared to carry out and of course teachers have to comply with whatever is written in the school's code of behaviour policy. Or else they could end up in court.
That's the way the world is now. All the rules are for the teachers!!

That wouldn't be the case for the OP as her child was excluded from participating in a lesson.

dambarude

GoldenEarring wrote: »

I have never done that. I've only made them have the last turn/go, wait 5 mins before starting, be the last to choose the paints, paper etc. I've made them wait two mins on the clock before starting lunch.

Basically 'loss of privileges' so?

What we were told in first year does make some sense so!

daltonm

dambarude wrote: »

Basically 'loss of privileges' so?

What we were told in first year does make some sense so!

Education is a right - not a privilege.

D4RK ONION

daltonm wrote: »

Education is a right - not a privilege.

You misunderstood. They're not losing their "privilege/right" to education. They're losing their privilege to go out on time, to pick which colour's they'd like to use early, to be the first person to PE hall.

dambarude

D4RK ONION wrote: »

You misunderstood. They're not losing their "privilege/right" to education. They're losing their privilege to go out on time, to pick which colour's they'd like to use early, to be the first person to PE hall.

Exactly.

daltonm

D4RK ONION wrote: »

You misunderstood. They're not losing their "privilege/right" to education. They're losing their privilege to go out on time, to pick which colour's they'd like to use early, to be the first person to PE hall.

If teachers have issues with children then there are guidelines there to address them.

Singling out children for different treatment sends the message to other kids that if you misbehave I will humiliate you and belittle you. This does nothing but build bad feelings between a pupil to a teacher and is wrong - in my opinion of course.

RibenaHead

daltonm wrote: »

If teachers have issues with children then there are guidelines there to address them.

Singling out children for different treatment sends the message to other kids that if you misbehave I will humiliate you and belittle you. This does nothing but build bad feelings between a pupil to a teacher and is wrong - in my opinion of course.

How exactly do you suggest that teachers deal with misbehaviour without singling out those who misbehave?

daltonm

RibenaHead wrote: »

How exactly do you suggest that teachers deal with misbehaviour without singling out those who misbehave?

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.

RibenaHead

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.

But isn't the act of giving a verbal warning or sending the child to the office also singling them out?

daltonm

RibenaHead wrote: »

But isn't the act of giving a verbal warning or sending the child to the office also singling them out?

single out - select from a group.

Emotional bullying - isolating or excluding

a person from group activities.


Major difference.

RibenaHead

daltonm wrote: »

single out - select from a group.

Emotional bullying - isolating or excluding

a person from group activities.


Major difference.

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

daltonm

RibenaHead wrote: »

But sending one child to the principal's office IS singling them out (isolating/ excluding them from the group).

So is asking them to answer a question. You don't seem to get the point and I really can't make it any clearer for you I'm afraid.

RibenaHead

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.