If I was Principal I'd...

... well what would you do?

It was the favoured question of oral examiners to test your mastery of the conditional tense but if you were Minister for Education or a school principal, what would you do to improve school/the education system.

The first thing I'd do is train all teachers in special needs teaching - especially in dealing with dyslexia and ADD/ADHD. Many teachers still leave our teacher training colleges with risible skills in managing SEN and it has the possibility not only of improving outcomes for those students but for assisting in classroom management.

Seems like a nobrainer to me.

I'd make it perfectly legal for teachers to fuck out the students who disrupt the class. It's a school not daycare for the benefit if useless parents.

If your little spawn thinks it's OK to ruin the education of 20-30 other children just because they're stupid or bored or whatever they'd have another thing coming.
Convert one room for the useless twats to go and bang their heads off a wall or whatever and let the rest of the students learn in peace.

Well there are students with genuine disorders (diet induced or not), and there are genuine twats. They need to be treated differently for obvious reasons, but neither should be done in the mainstream classes.

Dealing with both cases should be part of teacher training. I'm a bit shocked if it isn't.

Class teachers should have the right to request the twats be removed and placed in custody of the principal, or returned to parental custody.

Disorder cases should be referred to the special needs teacher, if there is one.

D'athróinn rialacha na scoile agus cheannóinn halla spóirt nua agus thabharfainn níos mó corp oideachais agus,eh, like, bheadh sé go hiontach.

Isn't this the only answer to that question?

I wouldn't take the job of principal on unless I was allowed to sack teachers who had no interest in teaching.
The Principal should be able to build a team.

Then I would get everyone taught to read and write - with phonetics as the core method.

I would get rid of stupid uniforms with badges that cost 40€ on cheap crappy acrylic ganseys.

I would make sure that there was a breakfast pre-school, enough decent drinking water and that the school was clean.

I would ask the local community groups to run after school homework clubs and get retired teachers to help with homework

I would make sure every child in the school knew that they were good at something and that teachers could see some progress.

I would get more advanced children to help children who were lagging.

Exercise of one kind or another for everyone and a good lunch.

EVM wrote

Quote :

Well there are students with genuine disorders (diet induced or not), and there are genuine twats. They need to be treated differently for obvious reasons, but neither should be done in the mainstream classes.

Why not?


Seathrún wrote

Quote :

D'athróinn rialacha na scoile agus cheannóinn halla spóirt nua agus thabharfainn níos mó corp oideachais agus,eh, like, bheadh sé go hiontach.

Isn't this the only answer to that question?

Rinne tú dearmad ar na culaith scoile atá ag cur isteach ar do fhéiniúlacht...

Why not? Because the 90% majority have a right to disruption free education.

EvotingMachine0197 wrote:

Why not? Because the 90% majority have a right to disruption free education.

Their right to education is no greater than that of the 10%.

And where do you draw the line between what's disruptive and what is not? I think the large proportion of student indiscipline is caused by teacher indiscipline. There are kids who act up in some classes but not in others - not necessarily because the teacher terrorises the kids into submission but because the there a quality of relationship there that means there's less likelihood of the kid going off the rails.

Do you think that long term it's viable to exclude kids from mainstream education - we can't exclude them from mainstream life?

Kate P wrote:

Their right to education is no greater than that of the 10%.

I never said it was. I said the 90% had a right to be educated without disruption.

Quote :

And where do you draw the line between what's disruptive and what is not?

Up to the teacher and consultation with the principal, and dept of education if necessary

Quote :

I think the large proportion of student indiscipline is caused by teacher indiscipline. There are kids who act up in some classes but not in others - not necessarily because the teacher terrorises the kids into submission but because the there a quality of relationship there that means there's less likelihood of the kid going off the rails.

Yeh, but all powers of disciplining have been removed from teachers, and parents. Except for shouting. We're all pissing against the wind in this regard.

Quote :

Do you think that long term it's viable to exclude kids from mainstream education - we can't exclude them from mainstream life?

I said mainstream class, not mainstream education.

Quote :

EVM wrote

Kate P wrote:Their right to education is no greater than that of the 10%.

I never said it was. I said the 90% had a right to be educated without disruption.

Indeed you said that - in the context of the other 10% being absent. The difficulty with sending 10% to the custody of the principal or to their parents custody is that they are denied their education.

Quite apart from the fact that the principal has other things to do than mind up to 80 kids in a decent sized secondary school - who should be in class with their teachers.

Quote :

And where do you draw the line between what's disruptive and what is not?

Up to the teacher and consultation with the principal, and dept of education if necessary

All schools have discipline policies and the department has its own guidelines in terms of how it will deal with serious indiscipline. The unions offer guidelines too.

However the issue with indiscipline is that rather than putting good resources into schools in the early years - with psychological services, support services, remedial and other services - we end up chasing our tails and spending more time, money and resources on tidying up messes that would never have happened had kids gotten the help they needed earlier on.

The problem with leaving teachers in charge of discipline is that most of them think that discipline is about them, when it's not; it's about the kids. A child may choose who to act out with either because he can do so without recrimination and there is some peer related pay off, or because a teacher offers a safe space - in other words, doesn't take it personally and gets to the bottom of the issues.

Teachers need to put far more energy into the relationships they build with students.The relationship is all that matters, everything else hangs on that.

Quote :

Yeh, but all powers of disciplining have been removed from teachers, and parents. Except for shouting. We're all pissing against the wind in this regard.

I have to disagree with you on that one. Shouting is not a power of discipline for a start - it's an act of indiscipline and when carried out by a teacher or other person in a position of 'authority' confuses a bad situation and makes it infinitely worse. The only guideline that can work in teaching and parenting too (though I have no experience of that) is to cherish the child and punish the behaviour. Parents who shout at their children except in a situation of emergency or danger are guilty of a form of abuse. It frightens me to listen to people who would surely tell me they love their kids shouting and screaming at them. Where I see this most is in supermarkets and department stores. Anyone who has to shout has lost control of themselves.

How can we expect kids to behave well when teachers shout at them and parents shout at them?

Quote :

Do you think that long term it's viable to exclude kids from mainstream education - we can't exclude them from mainstream life?

I said mainstream class, not mainstream education.

One of the worst possible things you can do for a child is remove him from his class. Think back to when you were fourteen or seven and how you would have felt to be educated separately from your peers. A special class in a mainstream school is not a mainstream education.

I have to ask, Kate - do you have kids yourself?

What about several a-post teachers being given discipline duties to cover the timetable during the week.

When summoned to a class by way of teacher sending pupil with permission slip . The pupil to be escorted from class to designated area to be dealt with by vp or priomhoide or in most cases talked to by a-post teacher explaining the unacceptability of his/her behaviour.Clear levels of sanction follows. And only if the child is loosing the run of themselves which can happen to the best of kids as well as persistent malcontents

No, ibis, I don't.
As I said in the last post, I don't have any experience of parenting. But I have a lot of experience of teaching, which I worked at for almost ten years and I'm finishing a H Dip in Positive Behaviour Management.

I have a fairly good idea why - but why do you ask?

EvotingMachine0197 wrote:

Why not? Because the 90% majority have a right to
disruption free education.

Oh I would't agree with that. Will I wouldn't agree with the segration bit. Education is
education regardless of how it is done and teaching children with learning disorders
along with children without learning disorders is still teaching. I believe those who
are without such disorders will benefit as much from the varied methods of education
used to teach those with special needs as much as it benefits the children with special needs. I don't view that as a disruption. 

Taking children who do want to learn but have difficulty for whatever reason out of
 the general clasroom environment will do nothing but damage them more, if not for
 their education certainly
 socially. 
 
I don't recall when it was exactly, probably first or second class in primary school I 
was ruthlessly dumped into the "remedial" English class because I was falling behind.
The classroom was what used to be the cloak room (though I don't think anybody
in the school's history wore a cloak) and it was filled with rejected furniture from the
Juinor's class. What was thought was basically Ann and Barry-esque stuff. Not so much remedial as it was English for the slow children. There was 
no consultation, no investigation or nothing. 
I was, of course, suffering from dysgraphia but had been pegged as being dumb or slow.

Now it took fire and brimstone from my parents and one very caring teacher to have
me removed from that class (and have the useless woman who never figured me out
moved on) and I say with some pride, look at me now. I have a firm belief to this day
that being put in that class for less than a week did more damage to my self esteem
and self confidence than any other period in the life thus far.

I was never a disruption, and even say a child with Tourette's might be seen as a disruption they are not. Children have a trememdous capacity for understanding and tolerence but only when it's fostered by their 
surroundings and their peers. 
And the disruptive little shits are exactly the ones who would make fun of the child with 
Tourette's or the "slow" child or the different one.  


I don't know what is going on with this post. It's formatting is all over the place and half the
text is off the page. I've tried to improve it a little! 

SeathrúnCeitinn wrote:

What about several a-post teachers being given discipline duties to cover the timetable during the week.

When summoned to a class by way of teacher sending pupil with permission slip . The pupil to be escorted from class to designated area to be dealt with by vp or priomhoide or in most cases talked to by a-post teacher explaining the unacceptability of his/her behaviour.Clear levels of sanction follows. And only if the child is loosing the run of themselves which can happen to the best of kids as well as persistent malcontents

Did I pick up from a thread in the Irish section that you are a teacher?

I think what you describe there should only be necessary in an emergency situation. And to cover upwards of 40 classes a week would be a considerable strain on A post holders. But it is necessary.

I did my dip in Maynooth in the late 90s and it was a good course. But there was no training in dealing with special needs and the classroom management, with respect to the lecturer had more to do with technique than with building relationships. In fact, the class I learned most in - because it was the class where I had to think most about myself as a teacher - was the philosophy lecture with Pádraig Hogan - a wonderful educationalist.

What I learned from him and what was reinforced to me over the course of my teaching and latterly the PBM course, is that no matter what is going on for you as an adult the most important thing you can do is realise that the success of your teaching revolves around your success in building respectful relationships with kids.

And that means not calling them twats or scumbags for a start.

Another thing I'll say is that it's never the job of the teacher to control the class. It's the job of each individual in that class to control himself and the job of the teacher to facilitate that and support it - which is where the respect, relationship, self-awareness of the teacher and the training in SEN are invaluable.

Did I pick up from a thread in the Irish section that you are a teacher?


You deduce correctly Mrs.Worthington's daughter. That and the fact that I've been spending an inordinate amount of time posting on this website this last number of days.

But one has to be careful what one posts in relation to the teaching profession. Very easy to slip into practical illustrations of your previous expeience.

SeathrúnCeitinn wrote:

Did I pick up from a thread in the Irish section that you are a teacher?


You deduce correctly Mrs.Worthington's daughter. That and the fact that I've been spending an inordinate amount of time posting on this website this last number of days.

But one has to be careful what one posts in relation to the teaching profession. Very easy to slip into practical illustrations of your previous expeience.

Spoken like a true teacher. You got the job of up the discipline policy / code of conduct so...

Quote :

When summoned to a class by way of teacher sending pupil with permission slip . The pupil to be escorted from class to designated area to be dealt with by vp or priomhoide or in most cases talked to by a-post teacher explaining the unacceptability of his/her behaviour.Clear levels of sanction follows. And only if the child is loosing the run of themselves which can happen to the best of kids as well as persistent malcontents

And repeated it at a hundred parent teacher meetings?

Kate P wrote:

No, ibis, I don't.
As I said in the last post, I don't have any experience of parenting. But I have a lot of experience of teaching, which I worked at for almost ten years and I'm finishing a H Dip in Positive Behaviour Management.

I have a fairly good idea why - but why do you ask?

Actually, it was specifically in respect of the question of shouting at your kids, and more generally in respect of attitude to discipline.

It's almost impossible to say exactly what provokes me in the matter without either being rude or sounding like the crustiest of old fogeys. Assuming you know me (as a poster!) well enough not to take offence, I have to say the usual - until you have your own kids, all your views are informed by theory, not practice. And while in theory there's no difference, in practice there is. That is true for teachers as well as everyone else, because you're not teaching your kids.

The application of the very worthwhile idea of "cherish the child, punish the behaviour" is extremely difficult in practice. As far as the child is concerned, you are punishing them, thanks - and when a child persistently engages in some piece of objectionable behaviour or other, the line becomes pretty meaningless.

I certainly do shout at my daughter. I don't have to do it very often, and I've never yet had to do it in public. Most of the time it's quite sufficient to point out that I will shout.

Your own children are not theoretical, model children, and they do not go home to someone else. They will require discipline - and disciplining your child is the most thankless task ever invented. Most people either hate it so much that they overdo it, or hate it so much that they underdo it. But children do run out into the road. They do hit their siblings, other children, their parents. And it will happen when you're run ragged, brain-boggled, sleep-deprived, and utterly furious with your partner, because you're a parent, and that all goes with the turf.

Deciding that shouting at children is wrong means that when you do shout at your child, you won't be in control of the situation, and it will be almost impossible to handle it properly. The alternative, that you will actually never shout at your child, almost inevitably means that you are not even trying to discipline them.

Anyway, you will learn all this in time, I'm afraid. The only people who have all the answers aren't parents. I would suggest a dip into Mumsnet - check the "am I being unreasonable" threads in particular.

Kate P wrote:

EVM wrote:

Kate P wrote:

Their right to education is no greater than that of the 10%.

I never said it was. I said the 90% had a right to be educated without disruption.

Indeed you said that - in the context of the other 10% being absent. The difficulty with sending 10% to the custody of the principal or to their parents custody is that they are denied their education.

Quite apart from the fact that the principal has other things to do than mind up to 80 kids in a decent sized secondary school - who should be in class with their teachers.

Can I just deal with this bit , if I may, because the argument is expanding.

Quote :

Indeed you said that - in the context of the other 10% being absent. The
difficulty with sending 10% to the custody of the principal or to their
parents custody is that they are denied their education.

No. No. Not denied anything. Referred to school authority/parent. Subsequent placement back in class or with special needs teacher. Main thing here IMO is that the childs behavior is communicated to the relevant persons. i.e. parents.

Quote :

Quite apart from the fact that the principal has other things to do
than mind up to 80 kids in a decent sized secondary school - who should
be in class with their teachers.

I never suggested that a school principal become a childminder. Are you trying to put words in my mouth ? I said the disruptive children (disorder or twats) shhould be removed, for the benefit of the 90%, and referred according to their needs, whatever they may be.

EVM's original post

EvotingMachine0197 wrote:

Well there are students with genuine disorders (diet induced or not), and there are genuine twats. They need to be treated differently for obvious reasons, but neither should be done in the mainstream classes.

Dealing with both cases should be part of teacher training. I'm a bit shocked if it isn't.

Class teachers should have the right to request the twats be removed and placed in custody of the principal, or returned to parental custody.

Disorder cases should be referred to the special needs teacher, if there is one.

Quote :

EVM wrote

Indeed you said that - in the context of the other 10% being absent. The
difficulty with sending 10% to the custody of the principal or to their
parents custody is that they are denied their education.

No. No. Not denied anything. Referred to school authority/parent. Subsequent placement back in class or with special needs teacher. Main thing here IMO is that the childs behavior is communicated to the relevant persons. i.e. parents.

Quote :

Quite apart from the fact that the principal has other things to do
than mind up to 80 kids in a decent sized secondary school - who should
be in class with their teachers.

I never suggested that a school principal become a childminder. Are you trying to put words in my mouth ? I said the disruptive children (disorder or twats) shhould be removed, for the benefit of the 90%, and referred according to their needs, whatever they may be.

Apologies if I misinterpreted what you said - the word 'custody' suggested to me that they were no longer in the care of their class teacher - especially when your first paragraph says they should be treated differently outside of mainstream classes.

My point is that removing children from their peer group is counterproductive.

Quote :

Quite apart from the fact that the principal has other things to do
than mind up to 80 kids in a decent sized secondary school - who should
be in class with their teachers.

I never suggested that a school principal become a childminder. Are you trying to put words in my mouth ? I said the disruptive children (disorder or twats) shhould be removed, for the benefit of the 90%, and referred according to their needs, whatever they may be.

Again the use of the word 'custody' suggests otherwise but fair enough. I'm not trying to put words in your mouth. I'm trying to interpret the words you've written - and to be fair, there aren't many in the original post.

I have to first say to Kate that I am in awe of anyone who deals one to one with groups of 30 plus for a full working week.
I do occasional lectures and training with adults and find it very high energy, a bit like doing a theatrical performance and sitting an exam simultaneously.

I think that a lot of children don't get as much as they could from the school system.
I remember reading recently that some children have NEVER experienced praise for good behaviour at school.
If you read Rate My Teacher you will see that students recognise instantly if a teacher likes, respects and cares about them. They also value teachers who can keep control without bullying.
I am a great believer of carrot and stick combined and also of role models. Children should get loads of praise for doing well and teachers should be role models of good behaviour and respectfulness -as I am certain Kate P is.

Thanks, CF.

Rate My Teacher is an interesting phenomenon. It's weird to have people write personal comments about you in such a public forum. Stripping in public. It's important that students get a chance to speak their mind - the only problem is that most teachers don't read it much ( I know I didn't!) because you can't tie the comment to the student. Which makes it pretty pointless if someone has an issue and you don't know who it is. There's nothing you can do to improve a situation. I remember one stand-out negative comment that I would like to have been able to do something about but...

I don't know if other professions would tolerate it. Maybe students feel better by submitting to it but since it's anonymous and there's a chance the teacher won't see it it's hard to see how effective it can be. It boils down to the relationships again maybe.

If I was to go back to my schooldays, the main thing I'd improve was the quality of career guidance. I made some stink-awful decisions that some good careers advice might have prevented.

I should add, by the way, that I'm just finished the first year of a career break so I haven't been teaching this year.

Rate My Teacher is an interesting phenomenon.


I dont mind a site like this. Im sure if there is negative comments on this site theres ten times worse on the kids' facebooks or bebo.

Having viewed it several times its a common tactic to just hit the lowest mark in every category.

On the other hand I do know a teachar who openly boasted of getting friends to give him a series of top marks ,

"....and now I've got a smilie with shades on when I looked like a grumpy f**ker..." he boasted as I gently drifted into other company

Seathrún wrote

Quote :

On the other hand I do know a teachar who openly boasted of getting friends to give him a series of top marks ,

"....and now I've got a smilie with shades on when I looked like a grumpy f**ker..." he boasted as I gently drifted into other company

There was a lot of that around - when it started up first especially. And there were a few teachers encouraging kids to vote for them too.

I know one or two members of staff were very, very upset by comments made. I think when they enlisted in teaching they hadn't expected that kind of soldiering, having come from an era when the teacher was 'respected' no matter what. I think it's a good thing that that has changed.

Kate P wrote:

Seathrún wrote

Quote :

On the other hand I do know a teachar who openly boasted of getting friends to give him a series of top marks ,

"....and now I've got a smilie with shades on when I looked like a grumpy f**ker..." he boasted as I gently drifted into other company

There was a lot of that around - when it started up first especially. And there were a few teachers encouraging kids to vote for them too.

I know one or two members of staff were very, very upset by comments made. I think when they enlisted in teaching they hadn't expected that kind of soldiering, having come from an era when the teacher was 'respected' no matter what. I think it's a good thing that that has changed.

Im not the most sensitve sort when it comes to this stuff.

I once knew a principal whose sexuality was being questioned repeatedly on the desks, benches and even on the base of a religious statue. Only thing was, they wrote "Dr. ********* is gay"

He said "Thats the thing about our boys here, they'll always afford you your proper title"