In this thead

[LeoCrasher]

You seem to have this notion that brighter kids are highly pressured by situations such as people messing in class, it "disrupts" them in their work.

It is entirely possible that its the case. Any even if its not, disruptive pupils still take teacher time and reduce the workrate of the class as a whole. We've put children through suffering with these types for long enough, why make them suffer another two years?

They should make everyone take their exams at 15, those who fail, those who do badly, and jave a bad track record with attendance, and **** like that should be put into a forced work scheme with reduced pay etc. un til they are 16 That way they are in the working world, and have "experience" meaning they get jobs easier without their decent qualifications.

Those who do well, or even "good" should be put onto AS level courses, with the option of making them full A-levels if they decide to stay on.

I think they should remove hugely disruptive pupils even sooner. About the age of 12-14 before they can do any real damage to those around them. Put them in separate classes with facilities designed specifically to teach them. I know this happens with the uber bad at the moment where they get sent elsewhere, but it means they that have to be almost dangerous to get sent away. I just want it so they are separate in general. If they improve, they get put back.

How can you honestly say that segregation at such a young age would be beneficial to society?

Easily. Because this way, they are not harming others. Segregation over things you have control over (behaviour) is not a bad thing.

/Leo

 

[Atomicide]

Simply because it occurs naturally at a point anyway. Were looking at two extreme's of a social ladder. What were talking about is a decision being made at 15, that most would chose at 16 anyway, when those who want education chose it, and those who dont, dont.

The difference when using my idea is, by the age of 16 where segregation occurs by choice, those who cant/dont want to learn have a year of work experiance, and those who DO want to learn have a better standard of education. A system that benefits the two parties respectively, and actually levels the playing feild in the job market, as employers value experiance almost as much as base education.

 

[LeoCrasher]

those who cant/dont want to learn have a year of work experiance, and those who DO want to learn have a better standard of education.

I like the idea in principle, but I don't think its feasible. Its something like 1 in 3 children in the north east leave education at 16, with around 1 in 5 down south. Theres already a shortage of apprenticeships, never mind work placements for thousands of undereducated school leavers.

/Leo

 

[ipixel]

It is entirely possible that its the case. Any even if its not, disruptive pupils still take teacher time and reduce the workrate of the class as a whole. We've put children through suffering with these types for long enough, why make them suffer another two years?



I think they should remove hugely disruptive pupils even sooner. About the age of 12-14 before they can do any real damage to those around them. Put them in separate classes with facilities designed specifically to teach them. I know this happens with the uber bad at the moment where they get sent elsewhere, but it means they that have to be almost dangerous to get sent away. I just want it so they are separate in general. If they improve, they get put back.



Easily. Because this way, they are not harming others. Segregation over things you have control over (behaviour) is not a bad thing.

/Leo

disruptive or not, children at such a young age shouldn't be categorized, there is just too many factors that affect their behaviour.

12-14? Puberty and growing up is a major part of this age group, children will be disruptive, temperamental, hyperactive, branding them failures so early on is just fuelling the problem, not solving it.

 

[LeoCrasher]

disruptive or not, children at such a young age shouldn't be categorized, there is just too many factors that affect their behaviour.

12-14? Puberty and growing up is a major part of this age group, children will be disruptive, temperamental, hyperactive, branding them failures so early on is just fuelling the problem, not solving it.

Children at that age are categorised currently (ability sets), and its not a problem. It doesn't matter what factors result in their behaviour, merely that it is effected. In order to protect the other children they should be removed. The move doesn't have to be permanent at all.

Moving them into a class equipped with facilities best designed to deal with them isn't labelling them failures. Its ensuring each child is surrounded by the environment best suited to help them.

Keeping them in class for another two years isn't solving anything. Just making it worse... for everyone.

/Leo

 

[Atomicide]

I should be a gymnast tbh, it was ****ing awesome in school, but I got lazy, I should be doing backflips of park benches. Anyway, I might go learn it somewhere.

 

[ipixel]

Children at that age are categorised currently (ability sets), and its not a problem. It doesn't matter what factors result in their behaviour, merely that it is effected. In order to protect the other children they should be removed. The move doesn't have to be permanent at all.

Moving them into a class equipped with facilities best designed to deal with them isn't labelling them failures. Its ensuring each child is surrounded by the environment best suited to help them.

Keeping them in class for another two years isn't solving anything. Just making it worse... for everyone.

/Leo

No matter what way you lump it, children will be prone to bad behaviour, you have High schools, and Grammar schools, the latter being for the "less intelligent" i went to grammar school, supposedly a better standard for those who are intellegent, yet i was disruptive, as where quite a few around me, and this honestly had no effect on the way i was taught, or what i achieved.

Same thing happened when i hit college, i knuckled down, tore ahead of my class because my heart was in it, if your doing something you want to do, things like a bit of background noise or the odd peice of paper being thrown around are irrelevant.

Kids dont deserve to be branded, and thankfully they aren't to the extent you wish them to be.

 

[AgentSmith]

[Posting after scanning first few threads]

I agree with the forced education thing all i know is at 16 without parents who are the guiding force behind you all you wanna do is hang with mates and try to get the opposite sex into bed, well thats all i wanted to do when i was 16.

if you ask me we should take a leaf out of the Americans book isn't school mandatory till the age of 20?

 

[Pyraine]

Leo, oh how you need to re-read your posts. The only reason I called it a marxist opinion is because you seem to be saying school only causes disruption for brighter pupils while higher education doesn't. This IS a marxist theory.

As for the rest it, you may not directly be persecuting people for social class and capability you have in fact stated on multiple occassions that these are the things that cause disruptive pupils and this is what you are persecuting against. The fact you want the less wealthy to stay less wealthy and the dimmer people to stay dim IS a conservative theory.

 

[LeoCrasher]

Leo, oh how you need to re-read your posts. The only reason I called it a marxist opinion is because you seem to be saying school only causes disruption for brighter pupils while higher education doesn't. This IS a marxist theory.

No. You need to reread my posts (and proof read your own). I said disruptive pupils cause disruption for others in the class. What sort of idiot would say 'school causes disruption for brighter pupils'. Also note you called it a conservative opinion. So are you also effectively saying that its simultaneously Marxist and Conservative(1997-2007)? I've made no mention of higher education whatsoever. I've concentrated on FE only.

As for Marxism. Karl never once wrote about education directly - only the workforce. So god knows why you think there could be a specific 'Marxist theory' on it. Or do you want to invent something there too?

As for the rest it, you may not directly be persecuting people for social class and capability you have in fact stated on multiple occassions that these are the things that cause disruptive pupils and this is what you are persecuting against. The fact you want the less wealthy to stay less wealthy and the dimmer people to stay dim IS a conservative theory.

What the hell are you going on about deary. I've made NO MENTION of social class or income. If a highly wealthy student is the one causing the disruption, all of my argument still applies. I have not given ANY social group ANY sort of back out, heck I didn't even note allowances for the mentally challenged.

Also, where have you got this idea that I want the less wealthy to stay less wealthy? Again, not once have I mentioned anything about any prolonged income status. Why on Earth are you so keen on putting things in my mouth. I type what I do very clearly, and with a lot of thought. It should be immeasurably easy for anyone to understand. There is absolutely no need to invent things to get your point across, I'm perfectly capable of responding to things you question without the need for you to incorporate fantasies.

you may not directly be persecuting people for social class and capability you have in fact stated on multiple occassions that these are the things that cause disruptive pupils

I challenge you. QUOTE the 'multiple occasions' I have stated SOCIAL CLASS is a reason behind the disruptive behaviour of a student. I'll happily concede (with clarification) to you if I have.

/Leo

 

[ipixel]

Need atom in here to throw some lube in and get the boobies out.

FIGHT GIRLS FIGHT.

 

[Atomicide]

Its nothing to do with Society, its all to do with immigration.

 

[Pyraine]

First of all, Karl Marx was not the only Marxist, he was merely the founder, Marxism is not a private club in which he is the only member, nor is he the only Marxist who's theories are official Marxist theory, if you think there are no Marxist theories on education, then you may well consider picking up the simplest of GCSE textbooks and you will find there is plenty written and plenty for you to think about, never mind the A level syllabus. Also Marxist theories don't end with what you're taught in school or college, there are plenty of other theories for you to read up on. So maybe you should do a little bit of research on Marxism before you claim that I am making theories up.

And here are some quotes from what you have said:

"They wouldn't be able to afford it" - What does this suggest, the parents wouldn't be able to afford to send their child to boarding school? Not that they wouldn't want to afford it.. hence.. lower class. Basically, the whole conversation between you and Peart was subtely suggesting that's only the lower class who are disrubtive.

Also you keep relating the problem of disruption to social problems such as bad parenting, teen pregnancy, 'gang alliance' and bad influences. who's heard of all these social problems in the higher social classes? I mean if they do suffer the same social problems as the lower class they sure as hell cover it up alot better.

Basically, if people keep up your views and your attitude, you will do nothing but create a vicious circle of degrading, self-fulfilling prophecies.

You are the cancer of society.

 

[LeoCrasher]

First of all, Karl Marx was not the only Marxist, he was merely the founder, Marxism is not a private club in which he is the only member, nor is he the only Marxist who's theories are official Marxist theory, if you think there are no Marxist theories on education, then you may well consider picking up the simplest of GCSE textbooks and you will find there is plenty written and plenty for you to think about, never mind the A level syllabus. Also Marxist theories don't end with what you're taught in school or college, there are plenty of other theories for you to read up on. So maybe you should do a little bit of research on Marxism before you claim that I am making theories up.

Very well. I'll take you word for it. Although I still believe its absurd that anyone would say school disrupts brighter pupils - as you have. I do like however, that you have not answered my question

And here are some quotes from what you have said:

"They wouldn't be able to afford it" - What does this suggest, the parents wouldn't be able to afford to send their child to boarding school? Not that they wouldn't want to afford it.. hence.. lower class. Basically, the whole conversation between you and Peart was subtely suggesting that's only the lower class who are disrubtive.

Ok Pyraine. I asked you to quote instances of where I said SOCIAL CLASS is the direct cause behind disruptive pupils. Inferring someone can't afford to send their child to boarding school does not at all infer thats a reason for their disruptive behaviour. So all you can effectively say is that I suggested it? Well done. You failed and now look a tad silly.

Also you keep relating the problem of disruption to social problems such as bad parenting, teen pregnancy, 'gang alliance' and bad influences. who's heard of all these social problems in the higher social classes? I mean if they do suffer the same social problems as the lower class they sure as hell cover it up alot better. [/quote[

I'd imagine they would. Those with a more comfortable lifestyle would in no doubt have more money or availability of time to dedicate to sorting out such issues when they occur. With that in mind though, it does in no way suggest I was talking about a lower income group exclusively.

Basically, if people keep up your views and your attitude, you will do nothing but create a vicious circle of degrading, self-fulfilling prophecies.

You are the cancer of society.

Why? Because I have a well founded, well formed and well explained opinion on this particular subject. I've not shown any sort of bias, nor have I made any type of allowance. I kept away from all taboo subjects - yet you still managed to bring up very unrelated subjects. So I'm guessing that anyone that doesn't think exactly like you is also a 'cancer'?

Rather than offer an alternative solution, or explain why my opinion may be flawed, you instead have attacked solely what you see as social prejudice in my argument... despite how very little of it was dedicated to any description or example. In doing so, you have completely ignored my argument itself - 'disruptive pupils interrupt the education of others in their classes, and thus diminish their opportunities to be educated up to a level they desire'. This narrow minded thinking is plain useless, and doesn't help me understand the situation any better, or change my train of thought at all. All it serves to do is show your incapable of making logical rebuttals, and instead only concentrate on things you find of moral outrage. Well done on successfully diverting the subject off hand, bit of a shame you couldn't answer most of my questions and failed where you did attempt to.

In future, you may consider talking about the subject at hand, rather than just trying to insult me .

/Leo

 

[Peart]

Consequentialist libertarianism ftw anyway

 

[Pyraine]

I'm only trying to insult you because all you care about is retaining standards. I never once said you claimed anything was the direct cause between pupils being disruptive, you simply implied some things were and stated others were, yes, it was pretty close to showing no bias. But because it was slightly bias towards conservative views is even worse because it's more subtle and people are easier tricked into believing what you are saying is right.

Here's a nice simple way of explaining how your views are conservative, as my other attempts seem to have failed.. if you don't understand this, ignorance is your only excuse..

Conservative. The hint is in the name.. you want the brighter people to stay bright. You want the people who underachieve removing.

The only possible way I could have misperceived what you are saying is if you agree with another issue that hasn't been brought up. Do you agree that the grade bracket should be lowered for pupils to enrol on A level courses?

If not then all that I have said is correct. I'm not insulting you on a personal level, I'm insulting you due to the statements you have made in this thread.

 

[LeoCrasher]

I'm only trying to insult you because all you care about is retaining standards.

Is that such an immoral desire? Of course I want to retain and improve standards! I want people to be happier, richer, with more free time. If people cannot operate within the economy effectively it may very well result in a reduction of happiness. I can't imagine many people enjoy having to work long hours for little money just to keep a roof over their head. A good education is the first step to ensuring that doesn't happen. I don't want disruptive pupils spoiling the life chances of others.

I never once said you claimed anything was the direct cause between pupils being disruptive, you simply implied some things were and stated others were, yes, it was pretty close to showing no bias. But because it was slightly bias towards conservative views is even worse because it's more subtle and people are easier tricked into believing what you are saying is right.

Its not tricking anyone. Its simply a means of explaining my point of view further. If someone is too stupid to distinguish where opinion ends and authoritative information beings, that's their problem. I should not have to neglect including text in my diatribe against the leaving age for fear of influencing someone.

Here's a nice simple way of explaining how your views are conservative, as my other attempts seem to have failed.. if you don't understand this, ignorance is your only excuse..

Conservative. The hint is in the name.. you want the brighter people to stay bright. You want the people who underachieve removing.

No. Stop telling me what I want. I want non-disruptive pupils to have the atmosphere they deserve by removing the rogue elements to another area better suited to deal with them. My wish to do this sooner rather than later is a change in the status quo, thus - not your narrow definition of conservatism. Again, I don't care what their attainment is - merely their behaviour and therefore effect on other pupils.

The only possible way I could have misperceived what you are saying is if you agree with another issue that hasn't been brought up. Do you agree that the grade bracket should be lowered for pupils to enrol on A level courses?

If not then all that I have said is correct. I'm not insulting you on a personal level, I'm insulting you due to the statements you have made in this thread.

There is no 'grade bracket'. Each institution has its own requirements for entry into A-level courses. This is fine, as its promotes choice... and fits in exactly with my point of view. As those with good grades (and thus, have tried harder) will be in separate institutions to those with low grades (more likely to be disruptive, and/or apply less effort). The colleges with lower entry requirements should therefore have a much greater ability to help troublesome pupils. Although, I would prefer it if they also offered entry options to those who could prove they are good students. Discriminating on academic ability alone is unfair and the only reason I can imagine for it is league tables.

Insulting me for whatever reason is not the way to go. It only makes you look weak. Attacking my arguments with counter arguments is the only way to proceed.

/Leo

 

[Pyraine]

THERE YOU GO.

The first time since I entered the argument, you give me something worth quoting.

"low grades (more likely to be disruptive, and/or apply less effort)."

What happend to 'I do not persecute for capability'

Places with low grade requirements are not of the same standard of those of high grades so they are not given the chance to improve only the chance to remain at their low level. University is where people should get the education which is level of their capabilties. The American education is a prime example of what education SHOULD be like.

As for 'what's so immoral about wanting to conserve'?

Take a look around you Leo, you live in Newcastle so surely you can see there is absolutely nothing worth conserving, every city in the UK has places that NEED to improve and if people are cut out of education at a lower age then things will only decline, those who are disruptive will remain disruptive, in the work force and in society in general, prisons are already too full, poverty is already far too high for a first world country, basically your views only help the minority, adolescents who want to work are very hard to come by, probably about a third of all state schools contain the people you want to receive your benefits. NO. disruptive children need to be kept in education longer so they can be forced to mature. We don't need to retain standards, they desperately need to improve.

 

[LeoCrasher]

"low grades (more likely to be disruptive, and/or apply less effort)."

What happend to 'I do not persecute for capability'

I don't. A student which applies less effort or motivation is more likely to be disruptive. This is not an opinion, this is fact. Sure you have those oddballs which are disruptive and of high achievement, but they are the exception. Although - they would still be removed from classes under my wish.

Places with low grade requirements are not of the same standard of those of high grades so they are not given the chance to improve only the chance to remain at their low level. University is where people should get the education which is level of their capabilties. The American education is a prime example of what education SHOULD be like.

Of course they're not! Low grade establishments are full of students which are disruptive. There's no way in hell they'll achieve the same as those which discriminate on entry. Its just a shame that good behaving, well motivated but poor attainment students are forced into this route too - that's the only crime of the current system (and a few good colleges do make allowances for those which make a considerable effort but attain badly - summer schools and such. This is brilliant!).

As for 'what's so immoral about wanting to conserve'?

Take a look around you Leo, you live in Newcastle so surely you can see there is absolutely nothing worth conserving, every city in the UK has places that NEED to improve and if people are cut out of education at a lower age then things will only decline, those who are disruptive will remain disruptive

Yes!!! So why should we stick those that remain disruptive with those that have the opportunity to flee? Keeping them in the same room will only stop them from being able to progress themselves. So instead of 12 students with A*s, you have 2 students with A*s. Whereas you remove them entirely and you have 15 students with A*s.

in the work force and in society in general, prisons are already too full, poverty is already far too high for a first world country, basically your views only help the minority

Thats the thing. By keeping disruptive pupils with those of better behaviour, we reduce the number of good attaining or well motivated students. Thus, we increase the number of people with fewer opportunities, and the minority gets smaller still. My idea is more akin to containment. When a virus spreads, you isolate those infected for treatment, then let them back when cured. This is what I want. Cure those with the virus before it spreads, and therefore increase the size of the minority to give more people more chances.

adolescents who want to work are very hard to come by, probably about a third of all state schools contain the people you want to receive your benefits. NO. disruptive children need to be kept in education longer so they can be forced to mature. We don't need to retain standards, they desperately need to improve.

Yes. I agree! Disruptive children do need to be kept in education longer - just not the same room as those which have shown themselves to be of good behaviour and motivation.

Disruptive children need to be in their own facility/room with staff and resources best equipped to help them appropriately. They should not be disrupting (contaminating) the learning environment of others.

/Leo

 

[Pyraine]

Yes Leo, disruptive children need to be kept in an establishment which will help them mature and which will force them to succeed, hence, forcing them to stay in education for an extra two years, regardless of what room they are in. Which is the whole point of this argument.

What it knuckles down to is:

My point: They should be forced
Your point: They should not be forced.

But from your latest posts it seems you're arguing for the sake of arguing because you yourself actually believe they should be kept in education and given opportunities, just not with higher achieving students.