There's no academic difference between working class and middle class children

Piliger

tritium wrote: »

I'd honestly be somewhat more concerned with the old boys and girls networks that permeate many aspects of Irish business, professions and politics and do far more to hold people back.

A myth spread by people who under perform.

Piliger

Cantremember wrote: »

Well then go away and do some research into the monumental **** up he has left in his wake. As you want to reflect on what has gone wrong.

So you say.

steddyeddy

tritium wrote: »

Um, where did I say financial sector?.......


And for a long time there have been high points for some courses, and ways to get around them by doing diplomas that lead into degrees etc. Really it tends to be the prestige courses like medicine that have the highest demand and allegedly are filled by the children of the upper classes.

Interesting though that your comparison in the thread title is between working and middle class - many people would see much less of a distinction between those two groups than you do. Indeed I can pretty much guarantee you that a number of folk you'd consider working class would consider themselves middle class. What is the cut off or dstinction between those two for you anyway?

Oh don't get me wrong. There is no class in Ireland. It's simply an economic distinction.

Cantremember

steddyeddy wrote: »

That's a post worthy of Fox news. He didn't say he wanted to teachers to cure it. Understanding it would be nice.

No, he said the behaviour was a result of a childhood illness and changing schools had improved grades. I'm curious as to how they cured the outcome of a childhood illness. You surely don't object to curiosity.

Ave Sodalis

Cantremember wrote: »

I'm curious: how does a school cure the outcome of a childhood illness?

It's far from cured. He still has behavioural problems but he no longer has explosions every morning before going to school. Mum doesn't get phone calls every few days to say he was misbehaving.
In his previous school, he was yelled at and embarrassed constantly. They had no system in place to deal with anyone with any problems. The only kids they dealt with were ones who could sit down for hours and concentrate from 9 until 3. Those who couldn't, were yelled at, brought to the front of the room to be shown an example of, sent to the principles office etc. Mum had gone in more times to explain to them a system that works with my brother but they were having none of it.
In the new school, Mum didn't even have to explain anything. They already knew the best ways to deal with a troubled child without it getting out of hand. The teachers there knew that you couldn't blanket every kid the same and expect them to perform, when every kid was different, so the teachers learned how to deal with different situations. So instead of being yelled at in front of the class, the teacher just takes my brother to the side quietly whenever there's a chance, sits down and talks to him about it. It gets the situation resolved without my brother getting frustrated and exploding again.

Piliger

sup_dude wrote: »

The last teacher he had before moving school was a bully but because my brother has behavioural problems due to a childhood illness, he was labelled as the bad kid therefore nothing was done about it until he moved and the teacher started picking on the other kids.

Why should a teacher and a class of 30 pupils have to accommodate a child with behavioural problems ? I am not defending a bully, which is not unusual among today's teachers. But behaviour that hurts the achievement of other children should not be accommodated in my view. This just reduces our educational outcomes to lowest common denominator level.

tritium

steddyeddy wrote: »

As has been said again and again some parents are sh1t. Lets get over that fact and try to compensate for it.

Lets not, shall we. How about we make people responsible instead of doing the usual and expecting someone else to fix our problems. If there's no encouragement or role model for a kid outside of school ( or worse a negative role model) then the ask on the educational system is significantly harder. Pinpointing the teachers on this one is frankly lazy sociology. One of the big advantages children from a more privileged background have is the support and expectations of their peers and elders - if all your friends expect to go to college its a lot easier to go with that flow. Its also easier to teach a groups of children with that mindset.

Cantremember

Piliger wrote: »

So you say.

Well spotted that.

tritium

steddyeddy wrote: »

Oh don't get me wrong. There is no class in Ireland. It's simply an economic distinction.

And where do you draw that distinction?

steddyeddy

tritium wrote: »

Lets not, shall we. How about we make people responsible instead of doing the usual and expecting someone else to fix our problems. If there's no encouragement or role model for a kid outside of school ( or worse a negative role model) then the ask on the educational system is significantly harder. Pinpointing the teachers on this one is frankly lazy sociology. One of the big advantages children from a more privileged background have is the support and expectations of their peers and elders - if all your friends expect to go to college its a lot easier to go with that flow. Its also easier to teach a groups of children with that mindset.

Jesus. For the last time the parents are primarily to blame. I'm saying society is all to happy to leave it there. It is a teacher's job to teach all children not just the ones they find easy to teach.

Piliger

tritium wrote: »

And where do you draw that distinction?

The ones who are willing to work to get better, and the ones who couldn't be arsed.

Ave Sodalis

Piliger wrote: »

Why should a teacher and a class of 30 pupils have to accommodate a child with behavioural problems ? I am not defending a bully, which is not unusual among today's teachers. But behaviour that hurts the achievement of other children should not be accommodated in my view. This just reduces our educational outcomes to lowest common denominator level.

Because the way they were handling it was not helping, and just making it worse, instead of learning how to deal with it properly (which my mother was more than willing to teach them) and it wouldn't become such a problem in the classroom, leading to less disruption.

steddyeddy

tritium wrote: »

And where do you draw that distinction?

As I said previously I draw the distinction between disadvantaged and not disadvantaged in how the parents treat their children.

Cantremember

sup_dude wrote: »

It's far from cured. He still has behavioural problems but he no longer has explosions every morning before going to school. Mum doesn't get phone calls every few days to say he was misbehaving.
In his previous school, he was yelled at and embarrassed constantly. They had no system in place to deal with anyone with any problems. The only kids they dealt with were ones who could sit down for hours and concentrate from 9 until 3. Those who couldn't, were yelled at, brought to the front of the room to be shown an example of, sent to the principles office etc. Mum had gone in more times to explain to them a system that works with my brother but they were having none of it.
In the new school, Mum didn't even have to explain anything. They already knew the best ways to deal with a troubled child without it getting out of hand. The teachers there knew that you couldn't blanket every kid the same and expect them to perform, when every kid was different, so the teachers learned how to deal with different situations. So instead of being yelled at in front of the class, the teacher just takes my brother to the side quietly whenever there's a chance, sits down and talks to him about it. It gets the situation resolved without my brother getting frustrated and exploding again.

Thank you. I knew it couldn't be cured. It's interesting to see what the different approach is: it's managing the behaviour in the room rather than excluding it. I wonder how the teacher copes with it if there are two of three or four who need to be taken aside. I wonder about what the parents of the other kids think. I wonder about the progress made by the rest. Those aren't questions for you, mind. But they are part of the bigger picture.

Cantremember

sup_dude wrote: »

Because the way they were handling it was not helping, and just making it worse, instead of learning how to deal with it properly (which my mother was more than willing to teach them) and it wouldn't become such a problem in the classroom, leading to less disruption.

They knew the way your mother wanted it to be. They just wanted a different approach. I suspect they wanted to focus on the majority.

tritium

Piliger wrote: »

A myth spread by people who under perform.

Really, did Lowry pay for his own extension and was the tent at the galway races a place for an aul chat so? Plenty of solid examples of the network in action in the last few years

tritium

steddyeddy wrote: »

As I said previously I draw the distinction between disadvantaged and not disadvantaged in how the parents treat their children.

No, your thread distinguishes between middle and working class. I'm asking you how you define the distinction.

Piliger

Cantremember wrote: »

Thank you. I knew it couldn't be cured. It's interesting to see what the different approach is: it's managing the behaviour in the room rather than excluding it. I wonder how the teacher copes with it if there are two of three or four who need to be taken aside. I wonder about what the parents of the other kids think. I wonder about the progress made by the rest. Those aren't questions for you, mind. But they are part of the bigger picture.

Yes they are issues that affect real lives. 30+ lives for the sake of one.

When my son was 9 he was in such a class. One disruptive child suffering clearly from a behavioural problem. But this politically correct nonsense that has taken over our system insisted that he could not be excluded. There followed a full year of school when nothing ... absolutely nothing .... was achieved in the class.
The following year he was held back and a second class of 30+ children were punished and disrupted on the alter of political correctness.
That lost year damaged the prospects of many of the boys in both years and resulted in masses of grinds, and children having problems in secondary school.

Ave Sodalis

Cantremember wrote: »

Thank you. I knew it couldn't be cured. It's interesting to see what the different approach is: it's managing the behaviour in the room rather than excluding it. I wonder how the teacher copes with it if there are two of three or four who need to be taken aside. I wonder about what the parents of the other kids think. I wonder about the progress made by the rest. Those aren't questions for you, mind. But they are part of the bigger picture.

I think, to paint a bigger picture in our own home, we've gone from explosions every morning, and nearly every evening (not wanting to do homework, not wanting to go back tomorrow, already being in a horrid mood from spending the day at school) to an explosion maybe once a month, if not more and they weren't even school related. It was frustrating knowing what the main contributor to his problems were and not being able to fix it. I really don't think some teachers realize the impact they have. Due to the fact his old teachers used to treat him with contempt, the rest of the class started to too, so he had no friends either.

When there's three or four, if it's related to each other, they're spoken to together. If that doesn't work, the teacher speaks to each, and relays the information between them. If that doesn't work, then they've to do things like draw the emotions they experienced because of what happened and so on. The progress made by the rest is spot on in his new school, because problems are dealt with whenever everyone else has something to do, or during break times or so on.

Ave Sodalis

Cantremember wrote: »

They knew the way your mother wanted it to be. They just wanted a different approach. I suspect they wanted to focus on the majority.

Which did not work. The system they were working on made the problem in the classroom worse, causing more disruption. The new school causes very little, if any at all because the problems are dealt with effectively.

steddyeddy

tritium wrote: »

No, your thread distinguishes between middle and working class. I'm asking you how you define the distinction.

I don't but I know many on boards do. They would describe it as a lower socio economic area.

Ave Sodalis

Piliger wrote: »

Yes they are issues that affect real lives. 30+ lives for the sake of one.

When my son was 9 he was in such a class. One disruptive child suffering clearly from a behavioural problem. But this politically correct nonsense that has taken over our system insisted that he could not be excluded. There followed a full year of school when nothing ... absolutely nothing .... was achieved in the class.
The following year he was held back and a second class of 30+ children were punished and disrupted on the alter of political correctness.
That lost year damaged the prospects of many of the boys in both years and resulted in masses of grinds, and children having problems in secondary school.

I would imagine your son would have been much better off if the teacher dealt with the child with behaviour problems more effectively and not let it disrupt the class to that extent, rather than dealing with it badly and it becoming far bigger a deal than it needed to be.

Annasopra

Piliger wrote: »

Why should a teacher and a class of 30 pupils have to accommodate a child with behavioural problems ? I am not defending a bully, which is not unusual among today's teachers. But behaviour that hurts the achievement of other children should not be accommodated in my view. This just reduces our educational outcomes to lowest common denominator level.

Whats your solution? Segregation?

Cantremember

sup_dude wrote: »

Which did not work. The system they were working on made the problem in the classroom worse, causing more disruption. The new school causes very little, if any at all because the problems are dealt with effectively.

According to you. They probably made the problem worse in the short term to end it in the long term for the benefit of the many.

Annasopra

Cantremember wrote: »

According to you. They probably made the problem worse in the short term to end it in the long term for the benefit of the many.

How do you reckon this?

Cantremember

sup_dude wrote: »

I think, to paint a bigger picture in our own home, we've gone from explosions every morning, and nearly every evening (not wanting to do homework, not wanting to go back tomorrow, already being in a horrid mood from spending the day at school) to an explosion maybe once a month, if not more and they weren't even school related. It was frustrating knowing what the main contributor to his problems were and not being able to fix it. I really don't think some teachers realize the impact they have. Due to the fact his old teachers used to treat him with contempt, the rest of the class started to too, so he had no friends either.

When there's three or four, if it's related to each other, they're spoken to together. If that doesn't work, the teacher speaks to each, and relays the information between them. If that doesn't work, then they've to do things like draw the emotions they experienced because of what happened and so on. The progress made by the rest is spot on in his new school, because problems are dealt with whenever everyone else has something to do, or during break times or so on.

So problems are dealt with when others have other work to do. And the others progress is spot on. Look, you're happy because your brother is happier. There's a picture you're not aware of and you can see it some other posts.

Ave Sodalis

Cantremember wrote: »

According to you. They probably made the problem worse in the short term to end it in the long term for the benefit of the many.

Of course it didn't benefit many in the long run... it made the situation a lot worse and did nothing to help his behaviour except make it worse too. That doesn't improve down the years if it continues.
When it changed in his new school, suddenly we have benefits for everyone. How can you tell me that by causing huge amounts of disruption to the class will benefit the many in the long run... when there was an easier and quicker solution that benefited the entire class that came into effect immediately?

Piliger

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Whats your solution? Segregation?

Absolutely. It is criminal to punish dozens of children. Kids with special needs need to get special treatment.

Cantremember

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

How do you reckon this?

Lol. Is he in the same school?

Annasopra

Cantremember wrote: »

So problems are dealt with when others have other work to do. And the others progress is spot on. Look, you're happy because your brother is happier. There's a picture you're not aware of and you can see it some other posts.

What picture is he unaware of?

Ave Sodalis

Cantremember wrote: »

So problems are dealt with when others have other work to do. And the others progress is spot on. Look, you're happy because your brother is happier. There's a picture you're not aware of and you can see it some other posts.

Now you're just making stuff up. I can see the whole picture. My brother no longer causes problems in the classroom because the teachers deal with it properly. Could you explain to me where there's something wrong with that?

Cantremember

sup_dude wrote: »

Of course it didn't benefit many in the long run... it made the situation a lot worse and did nothing to help his behaviour except make it worse too. That doesn't improve down the years if it continues.
When it changed in his new school, suddenly we have benefits for everyone. How can you tell me that by causing huge amounts of disruption to the class will benefit the many in the long run... when there was an easier and quicker solution that benefited the entire class that came into effect immediately?

Because he left. And if the school adopted the other approach they would get a few more like him coming along to benefit from this approach and then the kids who were having to put up with all this stuff on the side would transfer elsewhere. It's the reality.

Ave Sodalis

Cantremember wrote: »

Lol. Is he in the same school?

The same solution would have worked in the previous school. Instead, his new school has just about no misbehaving children, where as his old school will continue to do so until the change. Whether my brother is still there or not.

Cantremember

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

What picture is he unaware of?

Read some of the other posts. Yourself. Good man.

Ave Sodalis

Cantremember wrote: »

Because he left. And if the school adopted the other approach they would get a few more like him coming along to benefit from this approach and then the kids who were having to put up with all this stuff on the side would transfer elsewhere. It's the reality.

He was the only badly behaved kid in the school...in fact, there were several, which other students had to put up with. The new school doesn't have to put up with badly behaved kids. I think you're missing that point.

Annasopra

Piliger wrote: »

Absolutely. It is criminal to punish dozens of children. Kids with special needs need to get special treatment.

And special assustance can be given in a lot of cases within a mainstream setting. I agree where this isnt possible that its problematic but as Sup_dude has shown it can often be possible with a different attitude.

Ave Sodalis

Cantremember wrote: »

Read some of the other posts. Yourself. Good man.

I actually think the point has gone wayyy over your head...

Cantremember

sup_dude wrote: »

Now you're just making stuff up. I can see the whole picture. My brother no longer causes problems in the classroom because the teachers deal with it properly. Could you explain to me where there's something wrong with that?

You can't. He still causes problems. They're just processed differently. The outcome of that different processing for others has been outlined by a different poster on this thread.

Annasopra

Cantremember wrote: »

Read some of the other posts. Yourself. Good man.

I can read thanks.

Cantremember

sup_dude wrote: »

I actually think the point has gone wayyy over your head...

Of course you do. Think of it as your comfort blanket.

Cantremember

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

I can read thanks.

Well then don't ask others to do it for you.

Ave Sodalis

Cantremember wrote: »

You can't. He still causes problems. They're just processed differently. The outcome of that different processing for others has been outlined by a different poster on this thread.

He doesn't still cause problems. I've already said he doesn't. He doesn't cause any problems in school any more because he doesn't hate school any more.

Annasopra

Cantremember wrote: »

You can't. He still causes problems. They're just processed differently. The outcome of that different processing for others has been outlined by a different poster on this thread.

Has it? Do you know the exact circumstances here?

Annasopra

Cantremember wrote: »

Well then don't ask others to do it for you.

I'm not asking anyone to do it for me.

Cantremember

sup_dude wrote: »

He was the only badly behaved kid in the school...in fact, there were several, which other students had to put up with. The new school doesn't have to put up with badly behaved kids. I think you're missing that point.

It does. They just process them differently.

Cantremember

sup_dude wrote: »

He doesn't still cause problems. I've already said he doesn't. He doesn't cause any problems in school any more because he doesn't hate school any more.

I thought you said his behaviour was caused by a childhood illness? Not from hating school? I thought you said the teacher dealt with things aside from the group? Oh, ok.

Ave Sodalis

Cantremember wrote: »

It does. They just process them differently.

No. Really, it doesn't. With kids with behavioural problems, it's usually small normal things that esculate into something serious so what might have started with "he took my ruler and hasn't given it back" ends up a huge fight and drama. In his new school "he took my ruler and hasn't given it back" ends up a lesson on self awareness, empathy and results in the ruler being given back with any fuss.

Ave Sodalis

Cantremember wrote: »

I thought you said his behaviour was caused by a childhood illness? Not from hating school? I thought you said the teacher dealt with things aside from the group? Oh, ok.

It is cause by a childhood illness. He had cancer when he was two and two is when you start learning right from wrong. Instead, he spent the year in Crumlin. I said school caused it to be worse. I have repeated in several times. They do, and it's resolved before it becomes a problem.

Cantremember

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Has it? Do you know the exact circumstances here?

No, neither do you. We are all dealing withe thing as outlined. But you can see another poster outlined the consequences in their experience of such an approach.

Cantremember

sup_dude wrote: »

It is cause by a childhood illness. He had cancer when he was two and two is when you start learning right from wrong. Instead, he spent the year in Crumlin. I said school caused it to be worse. I have repeated in several times. They do, and it's resolved before it becomes a problem.

No. It is a problem no longer defined as a problem which is deflected before it escalates. That is the approach. The bigger picture is the impact of the deflection on others.