Oh dear! Just when you thought the discourse regarding education was getting rather strange, comes a most odd suggestion.
Apparently, because I haven’t been given specific training about teaching left-handed students, I am risking their self esteem. I wonder why people assume that teachers have an inability to apply common sense to the needs of their students:
Every teacher should be trained to recognise the needs of left handed children, a former minister has said.
Teacher training and the national curriculum should be overhauled so that children are given the space and “correct implements” to achieve the same results as right handed pupils, Peter Luff said.
The current lack of understanding is leaving the “self-esteem and self-worth” of left handed children at risk as they often end up struggling with right handed scissors or having cramped, illegible handwriting because teachers are unaware of their differing needs, he said.
The former Conservative defence minister said children were left feeling “clumsy and awkward” in the classroom and on the sports field and were not being able to reach their full creative potential.
Mr Luff has written to David Laws, the Schools minister, asking him to bring a simple set of guidelines into mandatory teacher training that takes into account the “slightly different needs” of those children who favour their left hand.
Mr Luff told The Telegraph: “If teachers are made to realise that someone is left handed, then maybe there are some things that they would want to do differently than for the rest of the class.
“Using left handed scissors, writing differently, having the mouse on the other side of the computer. In the sports room they could be taught how to use a bat or racquet in a better way.
“There are all sorts of small things which are terribly, terribly easy to put right – it’s just that teachers need to be told as part of their training to look out for those kind of kids and make sure their slightly different needs are addressed thoughtfully in the classroom.
As if book publishers and sellers don’t have enough to worry about. There used to be plenty of bookshops in my area, now there is one (which has changed management 3 times in 3 years!).
I do not like gender stereotyping and I detest sexism, but let our children read the books they want to read. If boys centered books attract a new market of male readers – isn’t that a good thing? If girl centered books features ideas and insights that are almost exclusively meaningful to girls, is that really objectionable?
Why can’t we allow our children the right to decide for themselves whether they want to read a book pitched at their gender without having others ban them from making such a choice? Why can’t we support our writers, publishers and sellers, who are already facing challenges within the ailing industry:
A national campaign to stop children’s books being labelled as “for boys” or “for girls” has won the support of Britain’s largest specialist bookseller Waterstones, as well as children’s laureate Malorie Blackman, poet laureate Carol Ann Duffy, Philip Pullman and a handful of publishers.
The Let Books Be Books campaign seeks to put pressure on retailers and publishers not to market children’s books that promote “limiting gender stereotypes”.
A petition calling on children’s publishers to “stop labelling books, in the title or on the packaging, as for girls or for boys” because “telling children which stories and activities are ‘for them’ based on their gender closes down whole worlds of interest,” has passed 3,000 signatures.
Let’s all agree to extend an early Happy Father’s Day to this Chinese dad who will do just about anything to give his son with disabilities every opportunity in the world.
Yu Xukang, 40, a single dad from the Sichuan Province in China, walks 9 miles every day with his son, Xiao Qiang, strapped to his back so that the boy can get an education. The 12-year-old has a disorder that has caused his arms and legs to become twisted and his back to be hunched over, and there is no public transportation available to take him to class, Central European News (CEN) told The Huffington Post in an email.
To support himself and his young son, Yu works as a farmer, according to China Daily. Since last September, Yu has woken up every day at 5 a.m., prepared a lunch for his son and then secured Xiao Qiang — who is about 3 feet tall — in a basket that he attaches to his own back.
The pair makes the 4.5-mile trek to school across the rugged terrain, then Yu walks back home so that he can work. The devoted dad then returns to pick his boy up from school and carries him all the way home –- an 18-mile round trip, according to CEN.
The single dad estimates that he’s walked about 1,600 miles since he started taking his son to school.
“I know that my son is physically disabled but there is nothing wrong with his mind,” he told CEN. “However, I couldn’t find any school here with the facilities to accept him and was constantly rejected.”
Once Xiao Qiang was accepted to the Fengxi Primary School, Yu vowed to do everything in his power to make sure his son would get there every day.
His dream is for Xiao Qiang to one day go to college.
After word of the father and son’s daily journey got out, authorities decided to step in to help the two. They agreed to provide a small room near the school for them, according to CEN.
Xiao Qiang has already climbed to the top of his class.
“I know that he will achieve great things,” his father told CEN.
The push to make our children more resilient both goes against the grain of the evidence and sends the wrong message to children. Evidence suggests that children have a greater resilience than adults, yet it has been a policy for a while to get teachers to instruct their students to become more resilient. This resilience message also encourages victims of bullying to internalise their hurt rather than approaching a teacher. Any such deterrent is problematic.
Above is a brilliant clip, depicting teachers making light of hurtful comments made about them. If it wasn’t for the cameras, some of these comments would really hurt and frustrate.
Teachers, entrusted with the job of building resilience struggle with negative commentary just as much, if not more, than their students. Watch how they turn to mush when a parent criticizes them or a colleague questions their professionalism.
These are the very teachers encouraging our children to harden up and turn the other cheek.
Whilst it was a relief to see the evil killer of poor young Daniel Morcombe receive his guilty verdict, it came with a most horrifying revelation.
Only after a trial verdict is delivered can the criminal record of the accused be released to the public. It turns out that Daniel’s killer, Brett Peter Cowan, has a past:
Daniel Morcombe’s killer Brett Peter Cowan was finally found guilty when the longest-running police investigation in Queensland’s history came to a dramatic end on Thursday.
Fairfax Media can now reveal Daniel was not Cowan’s first victim.
Ten years before taking Daniel from a Sunshine Coast bus stop, Cowan lured a six-year-old boy into the bush in the Northern Territory.
Cowan viciously raped the little boy on a rusted car wreck, leaving him with severe head injuries, a collapsed and punctured lung, a deep cut at the base of his scrotum, a bloodied nose and scratch marks over his torso.
The boy was found wandering naked, dazed and distressed near a petrol station on the Stuart Highway and taken to the Royal Darwin Hospital where he was placed in intensive care.
Cowan, then aged 24, initially denied having any involvement in the attack, but confessed when questioned a second time by police.
He told police he needed help and requested to be imprisoned in the Moreton Correctional Centre in Queensland, where he could participate in a sexual offenders treatment program.
Cowan was already a repeat offender by this stage. In September 1989, Cowan took a seven-year-old boy into a public toilet in Brisbane, where he digitally and orally raped the child.
Cowan was sentenced to seven years’ jail for his assault on the boy in the Northern Territory, but his non-parole period was set at no more than three years and a half years.
How can they let a man who has raped and nearly killed a child out of prison within 4 years? Why is there such a gulf between the sentences of child sex offenders and murderers? To me they are highly comparable.
In my opinion a child sex offender should receive a similar sentence to a murderer, and should they ever re-offend upon release, they should never see light of day again.
I tried to dress formally in the beginning stages of my career. I would front up to school in a shirt and tie and black leather shoes, but I just couldn’t keep it up. It felt awkward and uncomfortable and it was starting to effect my teaching.
Yes, I often teach in a pair of black casual pants, polo shirt and runners, but I feel comfortable doing so. I am not one of those teachers who sits at his desk all day and only tends to students who are prepared to trek to the teacher’s desk. I am constantly on my feet and shifting from desk to desk. Those black leather shoes were causing me to sit down too often because of the strain on my feet, and the tie simply got in the kids’ faces when I bent over to read their work.
When I made the change I felt less presentable, but rejuvenated all the same.
Teachers at a secondary school have been criticised in an Ofsted report for dressing too scruffily, the first in Britain to be reprimanded in a drive to raise dress standards in the classroom.
Some teachers at Acland Burghley School in Camden, North London were singled out for wearing clothes that were “too casual” and risked undermining standards, the inspectors said.
After a visit to the comprehensive, which specialises in the arts, they warned that the teachers’ failure to dress smartly could have a negative effect upon pupils’ work.
The school, which does not require pupils to wear a uniform, has been classed as “requiring improvement” and been under extra scrutiny since a full inspection in September.
In a letter to head teacher Jo Armitage, inspector Mark Phillips wrote that he was particularly disappointed by the failure of many staff to dress smartly in order to inspire pupils.
Mr Phillips, whose letter appeared after a follow-up monitoring visit, said: “Students are not required to wear school uniform. Some staff take your lead and dress in a business-like fashion.
“However, in other cases, teachers’ attire is too casual and does not promote high professional standards or expectations.”
Ofsted’s first move to improve dress standards was launched last month.
It plans to overhaul inspections of teacher training to include focussing on teachers’ clothes, conduct in the classroom and ability to control badly behaved pupils. Ofsted said it wants “professional dress and conduct” in the classroom.
The report on Acland Burghley School also criticised the way that students answer back and use bad language.
Ms Armitage has already announced she is standing down in August and governors are currently recruiting for a new head teacher.
I don’t want my students to call me Michael because I believe it is important to remind them that I am their teacher and not their friend. This is important, because if you want your advise to be respected, I think it helps to have a more formal title.
Still, I think it is over the top to suspend a child for 5 days for referring to you by your name outside of school. Sure it was rude, but it amazes me how badly punishments fit the crime nowadays:
A boy has been suspended from classes for five days after he called a teacher by his Christian name outside of school hours.
Sean Roberts, 14, has been banned from Wellington Academy in the mornings and in the afternoons he must attend the school’s ‘department for naughty kids’.
The school in Tidworth, Wiltshire, is sponsored by Wellington College and its executive head is political historian Dr Anthony Seldon. Yesterday, Sean’s mother Julie Roberts, 42, demanded her son be allowed back in class ‘as the punishment is over the top’.
She claimed the Academy was ‘making an example’ of her son.
Hairdresser Mrs Roberts – who has already lost 106 pounds in wages staying at home to look after him – said she was only told about the punishment in an evening phone call from the teacher Head of Department Barry Seymour
‘This happened in the village where we live – it was outside of school. My son was walking home and my son shouted out to him Hi Barry. Barry followed him and challenged him at school the next day and my son said he did it.
‘Then I had a phone call telling me my son was not allowed in school for five days but I have had nothing in writing and no official meeting. The night he called the punishment was due to start the next day.
‘The teacher involved said to me your son shouted my name in a way that made me feel small and undermined. I said to him because I know this guy ‘come on Barry he is a 14 year old kid – you should not be intimidated by a 14 year old. Is that all he said and he said yes.
‘I would have thought if they were sanctioning something so serious then I would have been called in for a meeting and laid out on the table what was going to happen – a structured plan. But I have had nothing – just a phone call from the teacher involved. I have had nothing in writing.
Some primary school children are at risk of developing kidney and bowel problems because they have difficulty getting permission from their teacher to go to the toilet.
And others say they are avoiding the school toilets because of where they are located and worries about sanitation and security.
Almost 1,000 school-aged children attending eight Irish primary schools in the east coast were surveyed and 545 children responded.
While, overall, children had a positive perception of their school toilets, and used them if they needed to, around 57pc said they experienced difficulties going to the toilet.
The findings emerged in a survey of pupils by Maeve Smyth, a public health nurse with the Health Service Executive (HSE) in Wicklow. She was prompted to investigate the issue after school-aged children attending her bedwetting clinic said they found difficulties following their care plans while at school.
“These children described how they were reluctant to use the school toilets and permission was often denied,” she told the nursing and midwifery conference at the Royal College of Surgeons.
“Significantly, 57pc of the children had difficulties getting permission from the teacher to use the toilet when they needed to.
“And 34pc of children also intentionally avoided using them. These findings were significantly related to age, location, sanitation and security.”
She added: “Prolonged postponing increases the risk of, or exacerbates the problem of, urinary and bowel disorders.”
A spokesman for the Irish National Teachers Organisation (INTO) said the finding that 34pc of children intentionally avoided using school toilets should be further investigated by the schools concerned.
He said: “Regrettably, sanitation was an issue in some schools due to government neglect of school buildings. While progress has been made in many schools in recent years, there is still a backlog of schools awaiting funding.
“A school board has a duty to ensure that the overall hygiene of a school is of an acceptable standard. But where it is identified that it is of a less than acceptable standard, then the board should be funded by the Department of Education to urgently redress the situation.”
He added: “In general, the union advises against children being forced to line up to go to the toilet at specific times.
“Where possible, children should be facilitated to go to the toilet when the need arises. However, this is not always possible where toilets are external to the classroom.”
I said it from the beginning and it has turned out to be the case – the schoolgirl that ran off with her teacher to France was not in a healthy relationship. Not only did I maintain that a teacher who is involved in a sexual relationship with their student deserves prison time, but that those that defended it on the grounds that this was “true love” would soon see their theory unravel.
That’s why I am not surprised that the schoolgirl has a. found another partner and b. found another teacher:
The teenage schoolgirl who was abducted to France by her teacher has begun a relationship with another teacher, it has emerged.
The girl sparked an international search in 2012 when, aged 15, she fled to France with Jeremy Forrest, a maths teacher at Bishop Bell school in East Sussex.
Forrest, 31, was jailed for five-and-a-half years for child abduction and five charges of sexual activity with a child at Lewes Crown Court in June.
The teenager, who is now 16 and cannot be named for legal reasons, is now “ridiculously happy” in a relationship with a 20-year old teaching assistant, the Sun on Sunday reported.
Her mother told the newspaper: “He is really nice and we have welcomed him into the family and I am very happy for my daughter. We would now appreciate that they are left alone.”
The man is reportedly a PE assistant who lives in a different town and has no connection with the girl’s school, so there is no suggestion of any wrongdoing. The man also works part-time in security. The girl posted a photograph on the internet of the two together and has exchanged publicly-visible messages with him.
The girl had previously told newspapers she wanted to marry Forrest when he was released from prison. However, she was banned from visiting him in jail because of his child sex conviction.
She also claimed she had instigated the relationship with the maths teacher and that it had been her suggestion to run away together to Bordeaux after their relationship was uncovered.
Please click on the links to read two related posts on the same story:
Now more than ever, our children feel the strain of living up to the judgmental and often unrealistic expectations of the “fashion police” crowd. Every classroom and every school seems to have them. Magazines thrive on it. Office water cooler discussions is dominated by it.
And like society’s skewed and misguided view of success, the definition for a “body beautiful”shuts so many out of contention from birth. Is this right? Is this fair?
It isn’t. But at the same time, by giving oxygen to shows such as Fashion Police, we are giving permission for the message to harm our children. We can’t make life better for our kids if they feel we are buying into the very lie we wish to protect them from. They wont feel better about themselves if we continue to buy the magazines and watch the disgusting elitist rubbish.
Take this appalling example of how low these shows can go. Imagine poking fun at a woman pregnant with twins?
Topical Teaching 