Discipline in schools (crisis)

glenn3ie

gaeilgebeo wrote:

You have duty of care to your students and you are responsible or them when they are in your class.
What if you put a student out of class and they get peeved enough and decide to take a wee stroll down the town and get knocked down?
Good luck with that lawsuit!
We have had it hammered into us by our principal about this issue and I can completely see the point. Throwing a student out of class is not the same as letting them out to the loo!

The teacher could not be held responsible under any law of this land and I think it's ridiculous to even suggest that. If a student leaves a school without permission then they are making the decision to leave themselves and thus the teacher would not be responsible.

By your reasoning, if a student was in the toilet and tripped on their lace and hit their head off a sink the teacher would be liable also. Ridiculous. Please show me somewhere that teachers would be liable.

Anyway I think we're all in agreement that it'd only be by last resort that you'd need someone to leave the class.

I do think that a teacher should be well within their rights to ask someone to leave a class if they are disrupting others from learning. How that is managed seems to be dependent on the schools. Some schools have a specific teacher on duty during each period to take disruptive students, other schools send students to sit in the library etc.

We've kinda gone off topic. Perhaps a separate thread for the idea of students being unsupervised in the school should be made and someone can present factual information with regards to this.

glenn3ie

Thanks Gaeilgebeo for the comments. I understand that strategies are dependent not only on class groups but on schools.

Anyway that's all from me.. Good luck everyone going forward.

gaeilgebeo

glenn3ie wrote: »

The teacher could not be held responsible under any law of this land and I think it's ridiculous to even suggest that. If a student leaves a school without permission then they are making the decision to leave themselves and thus the teacher would not be responsible.

By your reasoning, if a student was in the toilet and tripped on their lace and hit their head off a sink the teacher would be liable also. Ridiculous. Please show me somewhere that teachers would be liable.

Anyway I think we're all in agreement that it'd only be by last resort that you'd need someone to leave the class.

I do think that a teacher should be well within their rights to ask someone to leave a class if they are disrupting others from learning. How that is managed seems to be dependent on the schools. Some schools have a specific teacher on duty during each period to take disruptive students, other schools send students to sit in the library etc.

We've kinda gone off topic. Perhaps a separate thread for the idea of students being unsupervised in the school should be made and someone can present factual information with regards to this.

You really have shown your naivety here.
Cases have been brought against teachers and you better believe it.
You are responsible for the student in your classroom. You throw them out, you are responsible if something happens to them.
Good luck to you if you think you think you are not. I hope you are a member of the union and have a good solicitor.

glenn3ie

gaeilgebeo wrote: »

You really have shown your naivety here.
Cases have been brought against teachers and you better believe it.
You are responsible for the student in your classroom. You throw them out, you are responsible if something happens to them.
Good luck to you if you think you think you are not. I hope you are a member of the union and have a good solicitor.

Please show me examples. I've just spoken with a solicitor within the last 10 minutes who assured me of the opposite. I'd be really interested in some examples and the laws by which the case was brought.
Thanks,
G

Edit:
I just read a recent enough article in the irishtimes: http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2012/0411/1224314607602.html which states that "principals “seem to wobbly on the issue” with some believing that they don’t have any legal right to exclude the student from a class." The issue they're supposedly wobbly on is excluding students from a class. It's clear from that article principals don't know their rights

bdoo

The law that covers this area is the idea that a teacher is in loco parentis i.e. in the place of a parent.

It expects that the teacher would act in the same way as a reasonably prudent parent would.

Would a reasonable person expect that a teenager who could not behave in class under the direct supervision of a teacher would behave in a responsible fashion when removed from class more than likely after a confrontation and a loss of self esteem that results?

Could it be reasonably expected that such a student may come to injury or mishap as they wander the corridors unsupervised? or indeed that they may leave the school grounds and become involved in an accident?

And before you say they should be old enough to take responsibility a)most of them are under eighteen, and b) try telling the judge that and see what he says.

I'll look up the case law if you need me to...

glenn3ie

bdoo wrote:

I'll look up the case law if you need me to...

I'd love you too. I'm not being smart. Genuinely interested.

Outside of school I'm involved with an organisation where I've acted in loco parentis for trips with teenagers to Europe and India on countless ocassions so I'm up to date in terms of loco parentis etc.

So would just be interested to see the actual wording of what you're referring to.

spurious

Once a solicitor smells the chance of a claim and has a willing audience in parents, the claims they keep a-coming.

Of course most of them are frivolous, but the insurers pay out - it may be only PFO money, but it's still cheaper than a day in court.

lestat21

jeez .... did noone tell you this stuff on the dip?? Its common sense... I had a disruptive student storm out of my class and i had to give the rest of the class work and run off to find management. You are responsible for the safety of someone else little child and you shouldnt expect the school to cover your ass if something happens after you excluded a student from your class. Working with young people in a voluntary org. such as the Order of Malta is very different from working in a professional capacity as a teacher.

fyi all parents ignore notes in journals, we write them to provide a written record of reprimands and misbehaviour.. It shows we gave the students more than one chance and covers your ass if a parent is suddenly surprised by their son/daughter been on report or getting bad results!

Also as a maths/science teacher you should never put a student sitting down the back removed from the class group and you shouldnt take such a hardline with homework... Would you give them lines if they showed evidence of attempting work?

I really dont know how this worked for you... if I tried any of this my classes would revolt and theyd have every right to in my opinion..

lestat21

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=76138082

glenn3ie

I've explained what worked well for me. If you don't want to accept it that's fine.

I'm still waiting for someone/anyone to give some evidence or proof that they would be held responsible for asking a disruptive student (who was preventing others from learning) to leave the classroom.

I'm going to bow out now since no one has come back with any evidence. I have however spoken with a solicitor and they said there'd be no case whatsover.

lestat21

New Draft Guidelines of Professional Conduct says that teachers should:

3.3.2 take care of pupils/students under
their supervision, ensuring their
safety and welfare insofar as is

reasonably practicable

3.4.9 be open, and respond
constructively, to feedback
regarding their practice and seek
appropriate support, advice and

guidance where necessary.
(cos not every school will be as accomodating as where you are now)

They also say a whole lot about inclusion.. So once these guidelines come into effect you will be responsible but many schools/teachers already view it this way. If you want to discuss this further theres a thread on it, the links below.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showt...php?p=76138082

rainbowtrout

glenn3ie wrote: »

I've explained what worked well for me. If you don't want to accept it that's fine.

I'm still waiting for someone/anyone to give some evidence or proof that they would be held responsible for asking a disruptive student (who was preventing others from learning) to leave the classroom.

I'm going to bow out now since no one has come back with any evidence. I have however spoken with a solicitor and they said there'd be no case whatsover.

glenn3ie, you stated in your first post on this thread that you've just finished your teaching practice and you will soon be qualified, which means you are a dip student.

Most of the teachers that have posted on this thread this evening, including myself are regular posters here and have a lot of experience. We are not making this up for the good of our health. You can talk to all the solicitor friends you want but we are telling you about reality.


We had a barrister come in and talk to us about education and the law a few years ago, he was very interesting and some of the staff asked him about expulsion, because it never seems to happen. He seemed to think that if you have expulsion written into your school policy that the school was well within in their rights to expel a student once all other avenues had been exhausted in a situation which may warrant it.

Well I'd ask you, how many students do you ever hear of being expelled, and at that expelled successfully. Considering the number of students that create absolute havoc in schools around the country on a daily basis, it's few and far between. There's a massive gap between what solicitors think and what the reality is. If that were the case, there would be loads of kids kicked out of school permanently for the assaults that happen on teachers on a daily basis. It's certainly the only job I've been in where I've been hit in the course of my day and had to face the same person sitting in front of me the next day.

Same goes for throwing students out of your class. I can see a case going like this:

teacher throws a student out of her class.
student subsequently gets injured while out of her class.
parents decide to bring a case against school/teacher

In court:

Judge: Where was student supposed to be at time of injury?
Student: In class but my teacher threw me out for being disruptive.
Judge: Did teacher make any attempt to send for management to intervene before throwing you out?
Student: no
Judge: Could teacher have made an attempt to have someone come to collect you from the classroom?
Student: yes, she has a mobile, as do all the students, she could have rung the office.

Game over: Student 1 - Teacher - 0

glenn3ie, you'd really want to open your eyes, there are schools that have a no running in the yard policy for fear a student will fall over, get injured and sue the school - and it does happen. Don't be so naive to think that the same can't happen when you throw a student out of class of your own volition, despite them being disruptive.

bdoo

google williams vs eady.

its old but it stands to this day

the schoolmaster is ..... bound to take notice of the ordinary nature of young boys, their tendency to do mischevious acts, and their propensity to meddle with anything that came their way.

dont split hairs just face facts.

look up lennon v mc carthy too more of the same. your solicitor friend would do well to read some of it too

rainbowtrout

glenn3ie wrote: »

I've explained what worked well for me. If you don't want to accept it that's fine.

I'm still waiting for someone/anyone to give some evidence or proof that they would be held responsible for asking a disruptive student (who was preventing others from learning) to leave the classroom.

I'm going to bow out now since no one has come back with any evidence. I have however spoken with a solicitor and they said there'd be no case whatsover.

And that student, regardless of their behaviour will have their solicitor say that you were contravening their rights under the Education Welfare Act 2000 by denying them a right to an education. The fact that they were disrupting other students is neither here nor there, you kick them out of class, you are the one in the wrong. Not saying it's right, but that's the way it stands.

Perhaps look up Negligence and the Teacher' by Oliver Mahon http://catalogue.nli.ie/Record/vtls000024625/Details
I remember reading it in college, very interesting.

Moody_mona

Your evaluation sheet sounds like a great idea, but on your TP you didnt teach full hours, nor were you under any obligation to attend staff meetings or Croke park hours. I think it's a lot of extra work.

I hold lunchtime detentions, kids HATE giving up their lunchtimes so I find that works. They get a warning and are then given a detention. I start a tally, marking for every episode of misbehavior and using that as number of minutes. I let them eat.

There are some very good posters here who offer great advice for a real, living classroom. Just saying.

byhookorbycrook

Those of you advocating lines: Little Asbo doesn't do them,mammy of little Asbo supports him,what happens then?

Moody_mona

We give lines as a schoolwide approach. If a rule is broken, they write out that rule. I use the same tallying approach as above.

byhookorbycrook

But if they refuse, what then?

whiteandlight

Just on milder stuff self inking praise stamps work wonders with junior cycle. If I am giving worksheets now I put a column down the side and students must get each part stamped as they go. Getting the best stamps they must not only do the work they must do it quietly and accurately. It's actually quite hilarious how much juniors love this, and the offence when I stamped upside down...

Also sometimes something simple changed can be a huge help. I was seriously struggling with graphing when we originally did the line so when we came back to do quadratic functions I was treated with groans and extremely vocal complaints (they would be a very vocal class lol). This time around we used wipeable laminates of graph paper and even this simple change from pen and paper to marker and plastic gave them enough motivation to get it done.

It is hard to think of changes all the time but when it can be done easily like here it helped enormously!

Moody_mona

Love the stamps musicmental, great idea! I used laminates for graphing too, fab, so easy to fix small mistakes and didnt use up loads of copy space :-)

Byhookorbycrook, I never give more than ten lines, normally start with one, I dont want to take up hours of their time. If they dont present them, I keep them lunchtime/afterschool to complete them.

spurious

The JCSP stickers are very popular too. I always keep a stash in reserve.

We don't have lines in our school.

Delphi91

glenn3ie wrote: »

...I do think that a teacher should be well within their rights to ask someone to leave a class if they are disrupting others from learning. How that is managed seems to be dependent on the schools. Some schools have a specific teacher on duty during each period to take disruptive students, other schools send students to sit in the library etc...

You cannot remove a student from a class and leave them to their own devices. You will be held legally responsible. From the minute the bell goes for the start of your class (or as soon as is practicallly possible afterwards i.e. allowing you time to get to the students), you have a duty of care to the students. You are legally responsible for them.

If you remove a student from a class and leave them wander the corridors, you can be held legally responsible for any injury they caused to themselves e.g. fall down the stairs, etc.

If the school has a system of "mopping-up" students who have been removed from class and putting them in the library under supervision, then that is a totally different situation.

If you place a student outside a door and they wander off, I think you will find that you will get little or no suppport from a union if there is a case afterwards.

dambarude

Just a question that came to mind today regarding this whole debate. How is it that students are often 'let off' around towns or shopping centres while on a tour, yet can't be let outside the door of the classroom?

seavill

lestat21 wrote: »

jeez .... did noone tell you this stuff on the dip?? Its common sense... I had a disruptive student storm out of my class and i had to give the rest of the class work and run off to find management..

Eh am I the only one that sees a problem with this scenario.

You are giving out about leaving one student alone yet you leave possibly 23 alone to mind the 1. That makes no sense surely.
What if one of the 23 or so left in the room doing "work" get injured where do you stand there?

Surely sending a responsible student to inform management or the office of the incident would be the course of action here rather than leaving 23 students alone

Flashgordon197

bdoo wrote: »

The law that covers this area is the idea that a teacher is in loco parentis i.e. in the place of a parent.

It expects that the teacher would act in the same way as a reasonably prudent parent would.

Would a reasonable person expect that a teenager who could not behave in class under the direct supervision of a teacher would behave in a responsible fashion when removed from class more than likely after a confrontation and a loss of self esteem that results?

Could it be reasonably expected that such a student may come to injury or mishap as they wander the corridors unsupervised? or indeed that they may leave the school grounds and become involved in an accident?

And before you say they should be old enough to take responsibility a)most of them are under eighteen, and b) try telling the judge that and see what he says.

I'll look up the case law if you need me to...

Hang on -you are talking about Teenagers here not tiny tots. In our school you are allowed put disruptive students outside our door and keep them in vision. Its an effective tool. Are you telling me if you have an argument with your teenage son or daughter-that sending them out of the room is a no no? As for them leaving school-they know thats wrong.
However all the above being said its a tricky area legally and best only done for 2/3 minutes.
Though I think all teachers deserve a place to send the truly obnoxious and more times to detain the truly vexatious.

Powerhouse

I have to say that I have never been told by a Principal or Deputy Principal that putting a child outside the room is not acceptable, legally or otherwise. And I would presume they are as concerned with legalities as anyone else. Then again our school does not seem to be the death-trap for excluded students portrayed by some here.

At the end of the day common sense must prevail. If we lived in fear of being sued every five minutes we wouldn't go into school at all.

In my view, glenn3ie is absolutely correct in that a teacher "should be well within their rights to ask someone to leave a class if they are disrupting others from learning". Whether their school context allows for this is a different matter of course.

But the idea that a student can assault another, or assault the teacher or essentially have carte blanche to do anything they like with impunity because the teacher is in fear of being sued is just preposterous. Schools differ, no doubt, but in my school students who are removed generally tend to stand outside the room and not get into misadventure.

I'm not sure many schools have the resources to have a holding-pen for these people in the library or wherever. Nor would I be so sure that the legal situation is quite as black and white - with complete and utter responsibility on the teacher irrespective of circumstances - as depicted here. If things were so clear barristers wouldn't be needed.

What if retaining a student in a classroom could be argued to constitute a danger to other students? Where does the balance of responsibility lie then? Let's take an albeit extreme scenario - say a student wields a knife or a bottle and threatens to use it on another student or students? Should the teacher ignore the possibility of talking the guy into standing outside or should they really wait until there is someone available to hold the litte mite's hand first? I think this area is far greyer than some are allowing. The 'duty of care' is to all students and not just the guy who is disruptive and is likely to turn into Indiana Jones around the corridors when he's kicked out.

seavill

Flashgordon197 wrote: »

Hang on -you are talking about Teenagers here not tiny tots. In our school you are allowed put disruptive students outside our door and keep them in vision. Its an effective tool. Are you telling me if you have an argument with your teenage son or daughter-that sending them out of the room is a no no? As for them leaving school-they know thats wrong.
However all the above being said its a tricky area legally and best only done for 2/3 minutes.
Though I think all teachers deserve a place to send the truly obnoxious and more times to detain the truly vexatious.

It may be what is done in your school but by the sounds of the highlighted statement above you are obviously not 100% sure where you stand on the issue. Either its ok or its not.

In the end of the day we as teachers have to do everything in out power to protect ourselves.
It only takes one to ruin everything. You may have sent someone outside of the room 1000 times but that 1001 student that does something stupid and mammy and daddy take it to court.
You will soon see how quickly the management or the BOM withdraw from 100% support for you.
It may sound mental and most of the time it is but we all hear of those stupid law suits where people get money for the most stupid things.

In my area, woodwork, there are woodwork teachers around the country that are getting students to sign forms every time they are instructed on use of a new machine etc. Just in case.
There are some that are even gone as far as getting every student to sign when they are shown how to use even a chisel or a saw. That could involved signing 20 or 30 times for each student. Madness.

Now I could find 100 woodwork teachers who find this the most amazing situation ever and would never have even thought of doing it, however there is a school I know of where a parent has brought legal action as "the student was out the day it was shown how to use the chisel properly". The student obviously hurt themselves nothing too serious but a silly woman looking for easy money.
99 out of 100 parents would just say get over it and grow up but it only takes the one.
By the way the teacher is 100% sure that the student was in the day of instruction however has no written proof.

We need to do everything we can to make sure we are covered. No one wants to be getting sued.
The reality of the situation is that these kids are not our own children but we have a huge responsibility to make sure that nothing happens to them. To do this properly they obviously need to be properly supervised.
A lot of schools are changing their tune in relation to being outside the door as the years go on, so my view look after yourself.
If a student is out of control get management and let them deal with it. If you are feeling threatened get outside the door yourself and seek help.

I do believe the student teacher is being very naive on this but we were all young and innocent once.

seavill

Powerhouse wrote: »

I have to say that I have never been told by a Principal or Deputy Principal that putting a child outside the room is not acceptable, legally or otherwise. Then again our school does not seem to be the death-trap portrayed by some here.

At the end of the day common sense must prevail. If we lived in fear of being sued every five minutes we wouldn't go into school at all.

In my view, glenn3ie is absolutely correct in that a teacher "should be well within their rights to ask someone to leave a class if they are disrupting others from learning". Whether their school context allows for this is a different matter of course.

But the idea that a student can assault another, or assault the teacher or essentially have carte blanche to do anything they like with impunity because the teacher is in fear of being sued is just preposterous. Schools differ, no doubt, but in my school students who are removed generally tend to stand outside the room and not get into misadventure.

I'm not sure many schools have the resources to have a holding-pen for these people in the library or wherever. Nor would I be so sure that the legal situation is quite as black and white - with complete and utter responsibility on the teacher irrespective of circumstances - as depicted here. If things were so clear barristers wouldn't be needed.

What if retaining a student in a classroom could be argued to constitute a danger to other students? Where does the balance of responsibility lie then? Let's take an albeit extreme scenario - say a student wields a knife or a bottle and threatens to use it on another student or students? Should the teacher ignore the possibility of talking the guy into standing oustide or should they really wait until there is someone available to hold the litte mite's hand first? I think this area is far greyer than some are allowing.

You are right it is a very grey area and I dont think anyone here actually knows for 100% certain which way is right however more and more schools are taking this line.

The situation you outline about is to extreme to use as an example as I could easily argue that say the person with a knife is hardly going to stand outside the door for you if you ask when they are threatening another student. No way realistic situation.

I believe that once you can prove that what you did was for the welfare of all involved you will be covered. If someone is threatening or dangerous your responsibility is to the other 23 students in the room and to yourself. Every situation differs.
however I would say that if you were trying to argue that I put him outside the door because he was making silly noises constantly a judge would not take too kindly to a situation like this compared to your scenario.

The line in my school is basically that the class teacher should be able to deal with a discipline situation, if it is serious enough and in class discipline has not resolved it use the discipline structure in the school after class. If it is a dangerous situation or someone is just not controllable send for management. If someone storms out of your room send someone to inform the office or principal of the situation.

You do not need to go in, in fear of getting sued however you must do whatever is reasonable to ensure the safety of yourself and all of your students. Safety being the key word.

Powerhouse

seavill wrote: »

If you are feeling threatened get outside the door yourself and seek help.

But the very obvious problem with this suggestion - if we are being consistent - is that you are then leaving an entire class unattended and by the sounds of things leaving yourself open to being sued to the point of financial ruin.

rainbowtrout

Flashgordon197 wrote: »

Hang on -you are talking about Teenagers here not tiny tots. In our school you are allowed put disruptive students outside our door and keep them in vision. Its an effective tool. Are you telling me if you have an argument with your teenage son or daughter-that sending them out of the room is a no no? As for them leaving school-they know thats wrong.
However all the above being said its a tricky area legally and best only done for 2/3 minutes.
Though I think all teachers deserve a place to send the truly obnoxious and more times to detain the truly vexatious.

If they are still within your vision, it could be taken that they are still under your supervision. Not all schools are laid out in such a way that this is possible.

What you do with your own children in your own home is different to what happens in school. Parents are sending their children to school with the expectation that they will be under supervision between the hours of 9 and 4. Accidents happen but there should be little reason for them to get into one during class time, and being left unsupervised increases that risk unnecessarily. Of course students know leaving the school to go down town is wrong, that doesn't mean they won't do it given the opportunity, they don't have that opportunity if they remain in the classroom.

A couple of students in one of my classes are currently on report cards. Report cards in my school are usually used for behavioural issues, however these two students were caught mitching a while back during the day so the cards are there for them essentially as a monitor to ensure they are attending all their classes. They know it's wrong to go down town during school hours, it didn't stop them doing it though.

Powerhouse wrote: »

I have to say that I have never been told by a Principal or Deputy Principal that putting a child outside the room is not acceptable, legally or otherwise. Then again our school does not seem to be the death-trap portrayed by some here.

At the end of the day common sense must prevail. If we lived in fear of being sued every five minutes we wouldn't go into school at all.

In my view, glenn3ie is absolutely correct in that a teacher "should be well within their rights to ask someone to leave a class if they are disrupting others from learning". Whether their school context allows for this is a different matter of course.

But the idea that a student can assault another, or assault the teacher or essentially have carte blanche to do anything they like with impunity because the teacher is in fear of being sued is just preposterous. Schools differ, no doubt, but in my school students who are removed generally tend to stand outside the room and not get into misadventure.

I'm not sure many schools have the resources to have a holding-pen for these people in the library or wherever. Nor would I be so sure that the legal situation is quite as black and white - with complete and utter responsibility on the teacher irrespective of circumstances - as depicted here. If things were so clear barristers wouldn't be needed.

What if retaining a student in a classroom could be argued to constitute a danger to other students? Where does the balance of responsibility lie then? Let's take an albeit extreme scenario - say a student wields a knife or a bottle and threatens to use it on another student or students? Should the teacher ignore the possibility of talking the guy into standing oustide or should they really wait until there is someone available to hold the litte mite's hand first? I think this area is far greyer than some are allowing. The 'duty of care' is to all students and not just the guy who is disruptive and is likely to turn into Indiana Jones around the corridors when he's kicked out.

No one has suggested that their school is a death trap. Mine certainly isn't. It doesn't really have anything to do with the school being a danger or not, it's too do with the fact that the student is not under supervision when they should be. If I kick a student out of my class, they go for a wander and fall down the stairs and break a leg, well it's an accident that could have happened on any given day, but the crux of the matter here is that it wouldn't have happened if I didn't kick them out in the first place, i.e. they had no reason to be on the stairs at the time, they should have been sitting in my class.

As for the other point I have highlighted, yes common sense should prevail but if the scenario arose that you have suggested there's nothing to prevent a teacher pulling out their mobile phone and ringing the office and asking someone to come up, or to stand in the doorway of the classroom with the offending child outside the door away from the other students, but where you can still see the rest of the class until someone comes. Or sending a responsible student as someone else suggested to the staff room to find a teacher who is available that can supervise your class, while you sort out your knife wielding student.

Most of us don't have to deal with issues like this where there is a good chance that you will be sued for something if you turf out a student, but at the same time, I'm not particularly willing to take that risk. My principal is adamant that we do not put a child out of the room, so I can take it from that stance that if something happens a child if I throw them out that I'm very much on my own.

seavill wrote: »

It may be what is done in your school but by the sounds of the highlighted statement above you are obviously not 100% sure where you stand on the issue. Either its ok or its not.

In the end of the day we as teachers have to do everything in out power to protect ourselves.
It only takes one to ruin everything. You may have sent someone outside of the room 1000 times but that 1001 student that does something stupid and mammy and daddy take it to court.
You will soon see how quickly the management or the BOM withdraw from 100% support for you.
It may sound mental and most of the time it is but we all hear of those stupid law suits where people get money for the most stupid things.

In my area, woodwork, there are woodwork teachers around the country that are getting students to sign forms every time they are instructed on use of a new machine etc. Just in case.
There are some that are even gone as far as getting every student to sign when they are shown how to use even a chisel or a saw. That could involved signing 20 or 30 times for each student. Madness.

Now I could find 100 woodwork teachers who find this the most amazing situation ever and would never have even thought of doing it, however there is a school I know of where a parent has brought legal action as "the student was out the day it was shown how to use the chisel properly". The student obviously hurt themselves nothing too serious but a silly woman looking for easy money.
99 out of 100 parents would just say get over it and grow up but it only takes the one.
By the way the teacher is 100% sure that the student was in the day of instruction however has no written proof.

We need to do everything we can to make sure we are covered. No one wants to be getting sued.
The reality of the situation is that these kids are not our own children but we have a huge responsibility to make sure that nothing happens to them. To do this properly they obviously need to be properly supervised.
A lot of schools are changing their tune in relation to being outside the door as the years go on, so my view look after yourself.
If a student is out of control get management and let them deal with it. If you are feeling threatened get outside the door yourself and seek help.

I do believe the student teacher is being very naive on this but we were all young and innocent once.

The scenario you've described in that woodwork class does seem excessive but it wouldn't have come about if there wasn't a reason for it. Which is how most school policies in this area have evolved.

Unfortunately there are a cohort of students whose opening statement in a disagreement or argument in a classroom is often 'I know my rights' and are the same ones who will look for a loophole to make a claim if they are thrown out of a class.

rainbowtrout

Powerhouse wrote: »

But the very obvious problem with this suggestion - if we are being consistent - is that you are then leaving an entire class unattended and by the sounds of things leaving yourself open to being sued to the point of financial ruin.

Well you would have to look at the context of the situation, if you can get the student out that is causing a threat to other student's safety, then you would, if you could not, you could ask your other students to leave, and maybe make their way to another classroom. If the situation was that bad, you would have probably sent for help anyway, whether it be to the classroom next door or to management. As seavill said, you are not in the wrong if you have shown that you have made every reasonable effort to protect your students in the situation.

However throwing a student out for being a disruption is not making a reasonable effort to maintain safety standards.

Powerhouse

seavill wrote: »

Every situation differs.

I think this is the key point. Some people are claiming to legislate for all situations. Such laws governing things like negligence and responsibility tend to be couched in flexible language because situations differ.

The notion that "the class teacher should be able to deal with a discipline situation" is, I imagine, a working assumption in every school in the country. However, that is not the same as saying that the class teacher should be able to deal with any discipline situation. Nor is it clear from the responsibility to deal with a discipline situation that it is assumed that disciplinary situations are all of equal gravity and nature.

In my school one of the primary visible responsibilities of the Deputy Principal is dealing with discipline. This is clearly inconsistent with any implication that the bucks stops with the class teacher. And I have never heard the DP complain as franky the DP is never bothered with the standard silly issues. Most teachers accept their role in common or garden disciplinary measures. But obviously there are limits.

The idea that, for example, a slight female teacher could intervene in a punch-up between two 18 years olds (people for whom, according to earlier posts, she has complete legal responsibility) is fanciful. And "sending for management" is fine in theory, but if you ask a guy in one of my classes (senior classes certainly) he will tactically fail to locate the management for fear of 'ratting' on the others. I also know of many teachers who leave their phone in the staff-room, not expecting to need an effective 999 call during class.

And anyway there is also the reality that management will not always be readily available or quickly locateable. Can a teacher put everything in suspended animation in that situation?

seavill

Powerhouse wrote: »

But the very obvious problem with this suggestion - if we are being consistent - is that you are then leaving an entire class unattended and by the sounds of things leaving yourself open to being sued to the point of financial ruin.

I would disagree I made the point your safety and the safety of your students is the most important thing.

I think you are purposefully being petty here.

You are telling me that legally you would be sued if a student was threatening your safety as you refused to stand still and get yourself stabbed?

Both situations you have listed so far have been beyond the limits of sensibility.

Flashgordon197

Teachers are sitting ducks. When was the last time you ever heard poor parenting being openly criticised in the media? Never. The problem of a feral youth wont be solved in school.Its much broader than that and the sooner society wakes up to that fact the better. Frank Furendi has a great book out 'Wasted' about the British Education System that poses such pertinent questions

From a Guardian Review:

That observation is central to Furedi's thesis: the current fashion for "child-led" and "personalised" learning is part of a misguided philosophy that is corroding intergenerational relations. Children are taught to mistrust teachers; teachers are taught to mistrust themselves. No one has confidence to extol or exert the simple authority of adulthood and scholastic knowledge. Discipline breaks down, leading to moral panic and even greater pressure on schools to fix the "broken society".

The Full review can be found here:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2009/nov/15/wasted-education-isnt-educating-furedi

seavill

Powerhouse wrote: »

The idea that, for example, a slight female teacher could intervene in a punch-up between two 18 years olds (people for whom, according to earlier posts, she has complete legal responsibility) is fanciful. And "sending for management" is fine in theory, but if you ask a guy in one of my classes (senior classes certainly) he will tactically fail to locate the management for fear of 'ratting' on the others. I also know of many teachers who leave their phone in the staff-room, not expecting to need an effective 999 call during class.

And anyway there is also the reality that management will not always be readily available or quickly locateable. Can a teacher put everything in suspended animation in that situation?

Who said anything about having to break up two 18 year old men? If they were kicking the head off each other I would not get in the middle (and I am far from a slight female teacher:D) unless it was safe to do so. If I hurt them or if I get hurt where are we then.

I would liken the situation to a first aid scenario. for example if you accidently caused injure to a person you were trying to help Legally if you can prove that what you did was in the best interests of the victim and what you did was not intentional you will not be held legally responsible.

Every case is different but the extremes you are talking about are clearly different situations to putting someone outside the door for making noises and being disruptive for example.

Again I believe you are being petty there for the sake of it. Management are not always available, however the next teacher is never too far away.

rainbowtrout

Powerhouse wrote: »

I think this is the key point. Some people are claiming to legislate for all situations. Such laws governing things like negligence and responsibility tend to be couched in flexible language because situations differ.

The notion that "the class teacher should be able to deal with a discipline situation" is, I imagine, a working assumption in every school in the country. However, that is not the same as saying that the class teacher should be able to deal with any discipline situation. Nor is it clear from the responsibility to deal with a discipline situation that it is assumed that disciplinary situations are all of equal gravity and nature.

In my school one of the primary visible responsibilities of the Deputy Principal is dealing with discipline. This is clearly inconsistent with any implication that the bucks stops with the class teacher. And I have never heard the DP complain as franky the DP is never bothered with the standard silly issues. Most teachers accept their role in common or garden disciplinary measures. But obviously there are limits.

The idea that, for example, a slight female teacher could intervene in a punch-up between two 18 years olds (people for whom, according to earlier posts, she has complete legal responsibility) is fanciful. And "sending for management" is fine in theory, but if you ask a guy in one of my classes (senior classes certainly) he will tactically fail to locate the management for fear of 'ratting' on the others. I also know of many teachers who leave their phone in the staff-room, not expecting to need an effective 999 call during class.

And anyway there is also the reality that management will not always be readily available or quickly locateable. Can a teacher put everything in suspended animation in that situation?

I think you are nit picking here. Most teachers are able to use their common sense and can deal with most disciplinary situations in their class rooms. However situations do arise where help may be needed.

If i had to send a student for management, I would be sending a reliable student. In that situation the vast majority of students who are bystanders have enough cop on to know that a fight breaking out between two students as you describe has nothing to do with them and will end up in the office one way or another so being sent to get someone is not ratting. Not every teacher carries their phone certainly but a lot of teachers do, I usually have mine in my bag, so if I needed to use it I would.

Again, if management weren't to be found, most teachers would have enough common sense to tell the student to go to the staff room and ask a teacher to come down. There will always be someone around.

These situations don't arise that often, but don't see why you seem to have an issue with a teacher trying to provide reasonable protection for themselves and their students in the situation, and doing so in the most suitable way possible in the situation.

Powerhouse

rainbowtrout wrote: »

However throwing a student out for being a disruption is not making a reasonable effort to maintain safety standards.

That would depend on the nature of the disruption surely?

Not trying to be clever but consider this on-line dictionary definition of the verb 'disrupt'. This is a very very grey area. The word disruption is being used here as if its meaning was universally accepted and static. The implied suggestion that a 'disruption' is not necessarily a danger to people is questionable. I think the likely legal arguments on such unspecific words as 'disruption' is not necessarily obvious. Nobody is suggesting that kids should be put outside the door for relatively trivial offences such as talking or grabbing someone's pencil-case.

dis·rupt (ds-rpt)
tr.v. dis·rupt·ed, dis·rupt·ing, dis·rupts 1. To throw into confusion or disorder: Protesters disrupted the candidate's speech.
2. To interrupt or impede the progress, movement, or procedure of: Our efforts in the garden were disrupted by an early frost.
3. To break or burst; rupture.

Powerhouse

rainbowtrout wrote: »

I think you are nit picking here.

And legal argument would not??!!

rainbowtrout

dambarude wrote: »

Just a question that came to mind today regarding this whole debate. How is it that students are often 'let off' around towns or shopping centres while on a tour, yet can't be let outside the door of the classroom?

Well I'd say that's more a case of the fact that teenagers are perfectly capable of looking after themselves while out shopping and if they are being brought on a tour and the parent has given permission for them to go on the tour in the knowledge that they will be allowed to go shopping on the tour that during that period of time they will be out of view of the teacher. Parents by consenting to allow their child to go on the tour are agreeing to the activity.

On the other hand, parents are not sending their children to school to spend periods of time outside the classroom when they should be inside it learning. The implication in sending them to school is that they will be supervised for that period of the day.

seavill

Powerhouse wrote: »

That would depend on the nature of the disruption surely?

Not trying to be clever but consider this on-line dictionary definition of the verb 'disrupt'. This is a very very grey area. The word disruption is being used here as if its meaning was universally accepted and static. The implied suggestion that a 'disruption' is not necessarily a danger to people is questionable. I think the likely legal arguments on such unspecific words as 'disruption' is not necessarily obvious. Nobody is suggesting that kids should be put outside the door for relatively trivial offences such as talking or grabbing someone's pencil-case.

dis·rupt (ds-rpt)
tr.v. dis·rupt·ed, dis·rupt·ing, dis·rupts 1. To throw into confusion or disorder: Protesters disrupted the candidate's speech.
2. To interrupt or impede the progress, movement, or procedure of: Our efforts in the garden were disrupted by an early frost.
3. To break or burst; rupture.

I think you have failed to follow the thread unlike some others.

This whole conversation came about through the post of glenn3ie which stated

"For those who were persistently disruptive (shouting out, constant distractions etc.) after verbal warnings they were asked to sit at the back of the room by themselves but I'd still keep them involved in the class. This generally worked. In my classes, I employ mostly group work so there's very few times were students have to listen to me talking. Because its infrequent, when I was talking they knew they had to listen.

For those that pushed it to the point that others were losing out on learning. I asked them to wait outside their tutors room (who were all supportive to this). I only had to do this 3 times over 6 months which I don't think was too bad."

So the context the rest of us were taking the word disruptive was in terms of the original comment, that being shouting out and constant distractions.

Nit picking is right. Being ridiculous for the sake of it is more like it.

Powerhouse

rainbowtrout wrote: »

don't see why you seem to have an issue with a teacher trying to provide reasonable protection for themselves and their students in the situation, and doing so in the most suitable way possible in the situation.

I don't. Quite the opposite. Read back through the last few posts again.

I merely posited this example because another poster implied that a teacher could never ever leave a student unattended for legal reasons, and then in reply to someone else contradicted themselves by saying that in an extreme case a teacher should leave the room for safety reasons.

My point is that you cannot have it both ways. It either is, in some circumstances, acceptable to leave students unattended or it is not. It was simply to establish that principle that I raised that point as there are far too many aboluates being asserted here in an area full of vagueness and open to significant legal debate.

rainbowtrout

Powerhouse wrote: »

That would depend on the nature of the disruption surely?

Not trying to be clever but consider this on-line dictionary definition of the verb 'disrupt'. This is a very very grey area. The word disruption is being used here as if its meaning was universally accepted and static. The implied suggestion that a 'disruption' is not necessarily a danger to people is questionable. I think the likely legal arguments on such unspecific words as 'disruption' is not necessarily obvious. Nobody is suggesting that kids should be put outside the door for relatively trivial offences such as talking or grabbing someone's pencil-case.

dis·rupt (ds-rpt)
tr.v. dis·rupt·ed, dis·rupt·ing, dis·rupts 1. To throw into confusion or disorder: Protesters disrupted the candidate's speech.
2. To interrupt or impede the progress, movement, or procedure of: Our efforts in the garden were disrupted by an early frost.
3. To break or burst; rupture.

I really don't want to get into the definition of a word which I was only using as a catch all word to describe a situation. If a student does something in my class that warrants putting them on a report card and I have to write up a report on what happened I don't write 'Johnny was being disruptive in class' on my report, I write exactly what happened 'Johnny threw a chair at a student/Mary attempted to stab a student with a compass' etc. No different for the student that's put outside the door, no teacher should leave themselves open by writing something vague like 'student was disruptive' they should describe exactly what happened. Actually for smaller incidents that go on report in my school that's what we've been asked to do, not to write 'student was misbehaving, student was badly behaved' there's nothing concrete in such a description but to write what happened, 'student told me I was a fcuking bitch when I confiscated their mobile phone after they had been instructed to put it away three times' conveys exactly what happened in the situation.

Powerhouse

seavill wrote: »

I think you have failed to follow the thread unlike some others.

This whole conversation came about through the post of glenn3ie which stated

"For those who were persistently disruptive (shouting out, constant distractions etc.) after verbal warnings they were asked to sit at the back of the room by themselves but I'd still keep them involved in the class. This generally worked. In my classes, I employ mostly group work so there's very few times were students have to listen to me talking. Because its infrequent, when I was talking they knew they had to listen.

For those that pushed it to the point that others were losing out on learning. I asked them to wait outside their tutors room (who were all supportive to this). I only had to do this 3 times over 6 months which I don't think was too bad."

So the context the rest of us were taking the word disruptive was in terms of the original comment, that being shouting out and constant distractions.

Nit picking is right. Being ridiculous for the sake of it is more like it.

I am aware of the orgin of the conversation. I take issue with pseudo legal experts who make stupendous claims such as students cannot ever be removed from classes as they cannot ever be left unattended (when in practice every student will be unattended at at least some point every day). Perhaps you could admonish those posters for deviating from the topic in the first place and I'll maintain silence on the matter then.

As for 'being ridiculous for the sake of it' - well when people are being sued it is amzing how 'ridiculous' the arguments can become. That's the beauty of a forum such as this - everything appears nice and tidy legally. In the real world of legal argument it is different and people will posit arguments which frankly cannot be dismissed as 'ridiculous' by a hastily convened posse as can happen on a discussion board.

rainbowtrout

Powerhouse wrote: »

I am aware of the orgin of the conversation. I take issue with pseudo legal experts who make stupendous claims such as students cannot ever be removed from classes as they cannot ever be left unattended (when in practice every student will be unattended at at least some point every day). Perhaps you could admonish those posters for deviating from the topic in the first place and I'll maintain silence on the matter then.

As for 'being ridiculous for the sake of it' - well when people are being sued it is amzing how 'ridiculous' the arguments can become. That's the beauty of a forum such as this - everything appears nice and tidy legally. In the real world of legal argument it is different and people will posit arguments which frankly cannot be dismissed as 'ridiculous' by a hastily convened posse as can happen on a discussion board.

No, actually I do think you have missed the point. If you have a situation where you have made all reasonable effort to ensure that all students are supervised and in a safe environment you will not be held accountable if something goes wrong. If you have the situation which you described where a student is threatening the safety of you and your class then you have to act in the best interests of all concerned and if this entails someone being left unsupervised for a short period of time, be it the student or the class then you did what was for the best in the situation, particularly if you had no other option.

But the scenario that glenn3ie described, was where a student was disrupting a class by shouting etc. They were not putting a class in any physical danger, but were preventing learning going on. He had some options available to him in that situation, most of which did not involve putting a student outside a classroom unnecessarily, which is the crux of the matter. This was not from his description an emergency situation.

Powerhouse

rainbowtrout wrote: »

I really don't want to get into the definition of a word which I was only using as a catch all word to describe a situation.

And I don't blame you. But if things came down to legal argument the apparent certainties being asserted here would quickly crumble. Just imagine an expert witness in court:

Barrister: What would not be acceptable grounds behaviourally for removing a student from class?

Expert: A disruption for example.

Barrister: Would it be fair to say that a 'disruption; - as per dictionary definition - (and dictionaries have been used in court) is something that impedes the progress of the class?

Expert: Er, yes.

Barrister: And would someone threatening physical violence on another student and clearly likely in the view of the teacher to carry out this threat imminently be a disruption? Would class have to stop in that situation? Would its progress be impeded?

Expert: Yes, obviously.

Barrister: Do you think it would be reasonable for a student to be removed from class in such a situation for the safety of the class?

Expert: Yes, for safety reasons that would be best.

Barrister: You accept that this is disruption, but you said earlier that students should not be removed for a disruption...

My point being that there are no easy answers here. Nobody is suggesting that someone should be removed for chucking a paper aeroplane but trying to put things in a legislative or semantic framework in another matter. I do not accept the view that students cannot ever be removed from class or that someone is automatically legally doomed in such a scenario as cases will differ. And I think it is a disservice for people to suggest otherwise as some of those proffering legal advice here appear to do.

seavill

Powerhouse wrote: »

I am aware of the orgin of the conversation. I take issue with pseudo legal experts who make stupendous claims such as students cannot ever be removed from classes as they cannot ever be left unattended (when in practice every student will be unattended at at least some point every day). Perhaps you could admonish those posters for deviating from the topic in the first place and I'll maintain silence on the matter then.

As for 'being ridiculous for the sake of it' - well when people are being sued it is amzing how 'ridiculous' the arguments can become. That's the beauty of a forum such as this - everything appears nice and tidy legally. In the real world of legal argument it is different and people will posit arguments which frankly cannot be dismissed as 'ridiculous' by a hastily convened posse as can happen on a discussion board.

I presumed you were unaware as you went into definitions of a word linking it to other forms of disruption rather than was actually being discussed.
Apologies for misconstruing your off topic post.

I think rainbowtrout has answered you perfectly just there.

The point the two of us were making was that we described different scenarios where different set of things can happen. You seem to be arguing that only one thing can happen.
We are clearly making the same point as you yet you seem to persist in arguing the point.

Both of us have said that one thing happens in one situation another in a different situation, we have both clearly stated that legally you have no argument for putting someone out for talking in class but in a physical situation the outcome is different . I really don't see why you are disagreeing with us making the same point as you

seavill

Powerhouse wrote: »

And I don't blame you. But if things came down to legal argument the apparent certainties being asserted here would quickly crumble. Just imagine an expert witness in court:

Barrister: What would not be acceptable grounds behaviourally for removing a student from class?

Expert: A disruption for example.

Barrister: Would it be fair to say that a 'disruption; - as per dictionary definition - (and dictionaries have been used in court) is something that impedes the progress of the class?

Expert: Er, yes.

Barrister: And would someone threatening physical violence on another student and clearly likely in the view of the teacher to carry out this threat imminently be a disruption? Would class have to stop in that situation? Would its progress be impeded?

Expert: Yes, obviously.

Barrister: Do you think it would be reasonable for a student to be removed from class in such a situation for the safety of the class?

Expert: Yes, for safety reasons that would be best.

Barrister: You accept that this is disruption, but you said earlier that students should not be removed for a disruption...

My point being that there are no easy answers here. Nobody is suggesting that someone should be removed for chucking a paper aeroplane but trying to put things in a legislative or semantic framework in another matter. I do not accept the view that students cannot ever be removed from class or that someone is automatically legally doomed in such a scenario as cases will differ. And I think it is a disservice for people to suggest otherwise as some of those proffering legal advice here appear to do.

You are just not getting it.

Glenn3ie DID SUGGEST REMOVING A STUDENT FOR AS YOU SAID SOMETHING LIKE THROWING A PAPER AEROPLANE AND THIS IS WHAT WE WERE DISCUSSING ORIGINALLY.

bOTH MYSELF AND RAINBOWTROUT HAVE AGREED WITH YOU THAT SOMEONE CAN BE REMOVED IN THE CORRECT SITUATION

Powerhouse

rainbowtrout wrote: »

No, actually I do think you have missed the point. If you have a situation where you have made all reasonable effort to ensure that all students are supervised and in a safe environment you will not be held accountable if something goes wrong.

Ironically enough, given that I am supposed to have missed the point, the point you highlight here is precisely my point in a nutshell. There are scenarios (arguably in a legal sense) where teachers are not just entitled to remove students but alsoo I would suggest duty-bound. That some can dismiss them as 'extreme' does not alter that. Most laws change on the basis of the outlying situation which people did not cater for in the first drafting of a law.

Comments such as this one on the previous page: "you cannot remove a student from a class and leave them to their own devices. You will be held legally responsible" are simply misleading at the very least in my view. We should acknowledge that there are always circumstances which can be argued to alter or mitigate situations. Otherwise many barristers would not be so wealthy.

rainbowtrout

Powerhouse wrote: »

Ironically enough, given that I am supposed to have missed the point, the point you highlight here is precisely my point in a nutshell. There are scenarios (arguably in a legal sense) where teachers are not just entitled to remove students but alsoo I would suggest duty-bound. That some can dismiss them as 'extreme' does not alter that. Most laws change on the basis of the outlying situation which people did not cater for in the first drafting of a law.

Comments such as this one on the previous page: "you cannot remove a student from a class and leave them to their own devices. You will be held legally responsible" are simply misleading at the very least in my view. We should acknowledge that there are always circumstances which can be argued to alter or mitigate situations. Otherwise many barristers would not be so wealthy.

The context of that and similar posts as you well know, were in response to the post that glenn3ie made. I don't think any teacher should have to spell out the fact here or elsewhere that of course its expected that they will remove a student causing danger in the classroom. If that has to be spelled out then they have no common sense and probably shouldn't be in charge of children. All of the posts made about not removing a student were in the context of a student being disruptive in the context of shouting, talking and just generally being a pain. That was quite clear.

Powerhouse

rainbowtrout wrote: »

The context of that and similar posts as you well know, were in response to the post that glenn3ie made. I don't think any teacher should have to spell out the fact here or elsewhere that of course its expected that they will remove a student causing danger in the classroom. If that has to be spelled out then they have no common sense and probably shouldn't be in charge of children. All of the posts made about not removing a student were in the context of a student being disruptive in the context of shouting, talking and just generally being a pain. That was quite clear.

Not true.

I'll make this my last post on the matter lest your and Seavill's fingers fall off from 'thanking' each other.

glenn3ie's comments provided the context, and I suppose it suits to keep referring back to them, but they certainly were not the only ones offered. Some posters were protraying a legal doomsdays scenario for teachers if a student was outside the door. That is a load of BS in my view for the reasons outlined.

At least one poster spoke of the myriad of dangers lurking in corridors, people falling down stairs etc. implying that a student could not be removed and left unattended. This could be done only after management or another teacher etc. were called. That is true neither in theory nor practice, and it was disingenuous in the extreme for people to present it that way.

I'd sure hate to deal with you guys is you disagreed with me!