There’s no limit to good causes, but at some point teachers have to put these to a side and concentrate on their main responsibility – teaching Maths, English and Science.
It’s really frustrating to be told to put the ever-packed curriculum on the backburner to teach about road safety, internet safety, sex education, fire safety and for some, gambling ed. It’s not that these causes aren’t important. On the contrary, they are very important!
It’s just that it leaves us precious little time for doing what we are evaluated to do – teach the curriculum!
Schoolchildren as young as 12 should learn about “responsible betting” to tackle problem gambling, the Government has been told.
Pupils should be taught about risk and probability, and how to gamble responsibly, in the same way they are taught about the risks of drinking alcohol and taking drugs, according to a charity that supports gambling addicts.
I’ve got a novel idea. How about we ask the parents to teach some of these skills?
Occupational Health and Safety have gone mad! They have decided to take control of school monkey bar wrung by monkey bar wrung. They have hatched a plan so conniving and out of control, that Principals have reached out for their white flags in despair (only to find out that white flags are a violation of OH&S, because someone might get poked in the eye by the stick).
Below are 5 nonsensical examples quoted in today’s paper of health and safety gone mad:
1. Teachers are expected to put on masks, surgical gloves and gown to apply Band-Aids to students!
2. Schools must have 5 different types of first-aid kits. These kits must be regularly monitored.
3. Staff must undergo regular hearing tests and the results are recorded on their files.
4. Schools must identify all sources of ultra-violet light radiation.
5. Students are banned from bringing their own liquid paper or sunscreen to school.
And don’t get me started with these new boring playground designs, custom-made so that children wont even get a scratch. They are dull and absolutely unfair to children who instinctively want to climb and swing at recess. No one wants to see a child hurt themselves, but get over it – it happens!
If we provide an environment without risk, we are essentially providing an environment without reward. Schools will flourish when the best interests of kids, teachers and parents are paramount and the fear of lawsuits isn’t a stumbling block for a vibrant and fun-filled educational experience.
I have been reading about the dramatic increases in suspensions as a response to schoolyard violence and unruly behaviour. A few months ago I wrote about the 900 British students reportedly suspended per day.
VIOLENT schoolyard attacks have marred the start of Term 4 as figures show more than 100 suspensions were handed out every school day last year for physical misconduct.
A 14-year-old girl was hospitalised at Tara, west of Dalby, on Wednesday after she was stabbed in the head allegedly by another student, 14, with a steak knife during a lunchtime scuffle.
Tara Shire State College went into lockdown shortly after 1.30pm and police were called.
A 14-year-old girl has been charged and will be dealt with under the Youth Justices Act. She has also been suspended. The injured student required stitches.
The question has to be asked: Are suspensions working?
In my day the threat of a suspension was extremely effective in moderating our behaviour. But with so many seemingly disregarding the inevitable consequences of violent or unruly behaviour, I am of the opinion that suspensions are not working. It seems an opportune time to consider an alternate form of action.
What has been your experience with suspensions? Do they work in your school?
Why is it that Government and now the courts think it’s appropriate to constantly change our role and responsibilities? Why can’t we do the job we have been doing for centuries without having to take on new unfamiliar duties?
A 14-Year old was acquitted for holding up a service station and stabbing the attendant because the teacher he confided in reported it rather than caution him. Apparently, the teacher had a duty to warn the student about his legal rights. Because the teacher failed to have that discussion, the child got off.
TEACHERS could be forced to warn students as young as 10 about their legal rights before counselling them after a remarkable court decision.
A 14-year-old boy who confessed to his teacher that he robbed a service station and stabbed the attendant with a knife, has been acquitted after the District Court refused to allow the teacher’s statement into evidence because he had not “cautioned” the boy.
It could change the way teachers and students relate to each other, NSW Teachers Federation President Bob Lipscombe said yesterday.
“This is potentially very serious for teachers,” Mr Lipscombe said.
“Teachers are expected to provide advice, assistance and counselling to young people on a daily basis and during the course of that, many things are disclosed to teachers.
“Most are fairly insignificant but often there are matters disclosed that are quite significant and in such cases teachers have never been advised that they can only act on information if they have previously cautioned the student,” Mr Lipscombe said.
The federation was taking urgent legal advice, he said.
“No teacher in the course of their work would caution students in the way this case states,” he said.
“Clearly this teacher did think he was doing the right thing and acting responsibly.”
Last time I checked teachers were neither police officers or lawyers, so why should we be expected to act like them? Surely this teacher acted responsibly, first for consulting his/her superior and then for reporting the matter.
What do they mean by giving a caution anyway?
“Next time, I recommend you not stab the person. He may get hurt.”
Yet another ridiculous and insane development for Australian teachers.
I don’t object to Sex Education lessons in Primary Schools, but I do object unreservedly to schools continually being forced to undertake programs. Schools should be able to decide for themselves what extra programs they wish to take on.
Some primary schools are being forced by local authorities to teach sex education to their pupils, a report has claimed.
The research, published on Monday, raises concerns over the “considerable level of inconsistency” across the country. Many local authorities are incorrectly informing primary schools in their area they will not be eligible for the ‘Healthy School’ status if they did not teach sex education, it suggested.
Every week a new program is being established for schools throughout the world. If it’s not Sex-Ed it’s suicide prevention, bullying, cyber bullying, cyber safety, hygiene, traffic safety, Stranger Danger etc. Whilst all these initiatives have good intentions and are worthy causes (with perhaps the exception of Stranger Danger), it causes a great strain on teachers already struggling with time constraints. The more programs undertaken by schools the harder it is to cover the curriculum.
At some point in time we will have no choice but defer some of the responsibility of sex-ed on the parents of our students. After all, educating ones child about sex is a perfectly reasonable thing to expect from a parent.
As a teacher, it isn’t uncommon to confront opinionated students. Of course, many of their opinions I don’t personally agree with (some of which are a reflection of their immaturity). That being the case, I still feel that it is much healthier for a child to have too many opinions that to have none at all. As our job description includes nurturing each childs’ critical thinking skills, you would have thought that the canvassing of opinions is vital to a functioning classroom.
But you would be wrong. More than ever before, the powers that be have been stifling debate, silencing contrasting views and imposing a mantra of political correctness. Take the case of Dakota Ary:
The mother of a Fort Worth student said she unhappy her son was given in-school suspension for making a comment in class about homosexuality and Christianity.
During a discussion in his German class at Western hills High School on Tuesday, freshman Dakota Ary said he commented to a friend that his religious beliefs say homosexuality is wrong.
“I said, ‘I’m Christian and, to me, being homosexual is wrong,'” Ary said. “And then he (the teacher) got mad, wrote me an infraction and sent me to the office.”
It is my view that you don’t change a person’s viewpoint by silencing or suspending them. Whether I agree or disagree with my students is immaterial, they are still entitled to share their views with the class. Usually views materialise from only considering one side of the argument. A healthy classroom discussion often features a range of insights and perspectives. This healthy discussion often leads kids to change or alter their views and accept differences of opinions.
Unfortunately, in the age of political correctness opinions are becoming a thing of the past.
Below is an article that exemplified the absolute lack of balance and common sense in our Education system. To have three separate school uniforms in the one school grounds, with each uniform representing a different learning ability, is just plain insane! It is demeaning, offensive, inexcusable and achieves the exact opposite of what a school is supposed to achieve.
A school isn’t just a place where information is disseminated. Schools serve as a microcosm for society as a whole. They prepare students for the challenges faced in the real world. They are supposed to help children realise the importance of responsibility, empathy, teamwork, leadership, perseverance and acceptance.
Children from aged 11 are being segregated, taught in colour-coordinated buildings, playing in separate fenced-off areas and eat lunch at different times.
The move has caused concern that it is stigmatising children who are placed in lower quality sets.
Pupils are ranked as they leave primary school and placed into one of three mini schools at Crown Woods College, Greenwich.
The brightest go to Delamere and wear purple ties and purple badges. The rest go to Ashwood, which wears blue, or Sherwood, which wears red.
The two latter schools are made up of pupils with mixed abilities but are still streamed into three tiers.
Critics have warned that the move is demoralising for pupils and encourages resentment and animosity amongst those in different sets.
Michael Murphy, the head teacher at the comprehensive, said: “I felt if we made explicit the provision for high-ability children we would be able to attract those children and their parents who would rather not put them in to a grammar.”
“Mrs Thatcher said you can’t ignore the market, you have to respond to it.”
Kevin Courtney, deputy secretary of the National Union of Teachers has condemned the practice.
He said: ‘The idea of taking a large school and turning it into three mini schools is likely to be good for [the school’s] relationships, but streaming is a step backwards. It leads to competition for children rather than improvement in teaching.”
Labelling a student based on their current learning level is extremely damaging. Schools should be doing all they can to eliminating labels and focussing not on what makes us different, but rather, on the things which unite us. We all want to feel respected and cared about. We want to be appreciated for the skills we have and supported in obtaining skills that don’t come easy to us.
Instead of drawing attention to discrepancies in ability, we should be drawing attention to the fact that each and every child has unique qualities which make them important. Just like a vibrant society requires people from all walks of life, political perspectives and skills, a schoolyard does too.
How would teachers like it if they were colour coded according to their teaching ability?
Whilst Simon Hughes’ call for Primary schools to offer career advice has some basic merit, it deviates from the most important needs of a primary student.
Youngsters will be urged to start thinking about their careers from the age of ten under plans unveiled today by the Coalition’s education access czar.
Simon Hughes, the Liberal Democrats’ deputy leader, wants primary schools to start giving career counselling to pupils.
Mr Hughes said: ‘It is never too early for people to start thinking about future careers and educational opportunities.
‘Children in their last year of primary school can be inspired, and can form their first clear impressions of the world of work and further study.’
Primary schools will have to host career advice sessions with industry experts and parents to discuss what qualifications are needed.
He hopes the move will make youngsters start thinking about university before they even start secondary school. Mr Hughes said: ‘The message I have heard from young people around the country is clear.
‘We need better careers advice, starting early, and with parents as well as students given better information about going to university.
If you give students the encouragement and support to help them see where their qualities lie, what they are good at and how they can use those skills to contribute to a classroom, school and society you never need to worry about career advice. The reason why so many students seem aimless and unsure of their future is because not enough time and energy has been put into their strengths and too much time tends to be focussed on their weaknesses.
By Grade 6 students seem to be aware of where they are academically, what they struggle to do well and how they are regarded by teachers and fellow students. What they might not be aware of is that there is so much more than academics in the makeup of a person. There is their personality, creativity, street smarts and leadership skills. Teachers must understand the strengths of all their students and praise them accordingly.
A student who is aware of what they love to do, where their talents lie and how they can use those skills and traits to contribute to society never need worry about career advice. Not at 10 years old anyway.
In Australia, if a school Prinicipal was seen to be authorising the handcuffing of students to polls, all hell would break loose! The Principal would be sacked immediately, and the school would be faced with closure. In America, it seems that it’s more complicated than that.
A recent school alleged to have shackled its students for hours at a time needs to have been proven contravene a rule that allows handcuffing of kids in certain instances, before legal action can be imposed.
US civil rights activists have filed a lawsuit against a school they claim shackled children to railings and poles to punish misbehaviour.
Five pupils at Capital City Alternative School in Jackson, Mississippi, claim staff there handcuffed by their wrists, and sometimes the ankles too, for up to six hours at a time.
Some say they were forced to eat lunch while handcuffed, and had to shout to be released to use the bathroom, sometimes unsuccessfully.
They allege school principals often ordered the shackling, WLBT reported.
The Southern Poverty Law Centre filed a lawsuit naming Jackson Public Schools and Capital City Alternative School officials and seeking class-action status on behalf of all the school’s students.
The complaint says the alleged punishments violate the US Constitution and school board policy.
The centre’s director, attorney Jody Evans, said that the policy states students can only be handcuffed if they present a danger to themselves or others, or if they are destroying property.
‘In these instances, none of these occurred. Students were simply (saying) I forgot my belt today, have the wrong shoes on. They were handcuffed,’ he said, according to WLBT.
Critics of the Capital City Alternative School in Jackson say the allegedly excessive punishment makes students more likely to drop out of school – and commit crimes later in life.
The school admits pupils in grades 4-12 who have been suspended or expelled from Jackson Public Schools for 10 days or longer.
School district officials said the agency takes the allegations seriously and will respond through legal channels.
It deeply upsets me that schools should ever have the authority to handcuff students. That’s the job of the police. Misissippi needs to change their education policy quickly. It is not acceptable for this practice to be allowed in any form.
Some schools just don’t get it! Their job goes beyond education. They are looking after people’s kids! Schools are duty bound to actually look after the safety of their students (as opposed to just saying they do in a catchy but meaningless slogan). They must understand that parents don’t give the responsibility of having others look after their kids lightly. It’s not like giving over the keys to your car to the valet. It’s a huge deal.
That’s why schools must do their utmost to earn the confidence and respect of their parents. They must be actively protecting the students whilst also communicating regularly with parents. To have a school issue a dictate that all students wear baggy clothes to ward off probable paedophiles is a disgrace! How is a parent supposed to take that advice?
Furious parents yesterday criticised a school after they were asked to buy their children baggy clothes to deter paedophiles.
King’s Park Secondary School, in Glasgow, asked parents to ensure modesty in their children’s uniform in a bizarre letter which claims sex offenders may be taking pictures of schoolboys in tight trousers.
The letter, dubbed ‘paranoid in the extreme’ by one parent, was sent home even though police say there have been no incidents of schoolchildren in the area being targeted.
And children whose parents fail to conform to the approved dress code could be forced to miss out on fun school trips.
The letter says: ‘We believe an appropriate school uniform protects children from being targeted by sexual predators.
‘There is recent evidence in south Glasgow of adults photographing schoolgirls in short skirts and schoolgirls/boys in tight trousers, then grooming them through the internet.
‘We must do all we can to keep our children safe. A modest school uniform is more appropriate than fashion skirts, trousers or tops.’
The crackdown on pupil attire has been slammed by shocked parents whose children don’t want to obey the strict rules.
One blasted: ‘There is no way an ugly uniform is going to deter a predator and determined sex offender.
‘This is just paranoid in the extreme. There are better ways to safeguard children than spreading needless panic.’
Another added: ‘It is laughable to think the uniform can act as some sort of paedophile-repellent.’
The tough new policy forces cash-strapped parents to shop from an approved list of items available only at high street store Marks and Spencer.
Girls can wear only knee-length pleated skirts or trousers and boys loose-fitting trousers.
This is an awful thing to do to parents. To play on their fears and insight paranoia is just unacceptable. I am glad Australian schools aren’t so stupid and downright insensitive!
Topical Teaching 