One for the Teachers & Social Engineers

Post a reply


This question is a means of identifying and preventing automated submissions.
Smilies
eyebrow :header: :woteva: :yikes: :smilin: :bawlin: :wubbers: :canny: :nelix: :trollface: :wurms: :doomed: :wubwub: :leer: :grrrrr: :cuppaT: :more beer: :ooer: :whistle: :link: :cronos: :whogives: :dafinger: :Lucia: :pukeup: :Hiya: :paranoid: :bored: :gigglesnshit: :Wiiiine!: :choc: :flog: :twirl: :pmsl: :brickwall: :artist: :dunno: :pointlaugh: :cheers: :yess: :bum: :snooty: :thud: :shell: :shake head: :thumbsup: :hap: :hand: :shame: :popcorn: :monkey: :off head: :bell: :shoot: :mrgreen: :roll: :oops: :razz: :laughing: :cool: :kinell: :wink: :drool: :grub: :awesome: :slap: :again?: :burfday: :srs?:
View more smilies
BBCode is ON
[img] is ON
[flash] is ON
[url] is ON
Smilies are ON
Topic review
   

Expand view Topic review: One for the Teachers & Social Engineers

Re: One for the Teachers & Social Engineers

Post by Trapper John » Thu Oct 12, 2017 1:39 pm

Avon Barksdale wrote:
Trapper John wrote:
Avon Barksdale wrote:
Trapper John wrote:
Now I imagine social services are aware of this poor kid and a younger sibling I'm told, god help her, so is there nothing can be done? I genuinely feel sorry for this little girl but I don't see why my grandson or his classmates should have to witness this sort of behaviour in some of their most formative years.

At some point 'inclusiveness' has to be overridden by common sense and the needs of the majority.


There is something or a couple of things that can be done, but they take time and a lot of paperwork and referrals to achieve.

If this child is as disruptive as you believe they have probably had a CAMHS assessment already. The School may also be considering if an offsite placement would be better and dealing with the appropriate agencies. Permanently excluding a child is difficult and would require enough evidence to be obtained to show it is lawful.

In my experience at least Schools do not put the needs of a troubled child well before that of the majority of other kids and they are acutely concerned to ensure that good decisions are made bearing in mind the outcomes for all children. They do however have an extraordinary amount of red tape to get through before a child can be moved out of School.


Yes I understand that and said so in earlier posts - nevertheless there should be some sort of 'interim' measure which can be put in place, otherwise it's like a doctor saying "we will only treat an illness when we are 100% sure what it is and if it is doing damage to the host" totally ignoring the fact that in the meantime, the illness could be passed on to others - I don't like using the term but 'quarantine' seems to fit.


An "interim" measure such as a fixed term exclusion?

The School has a duty of care to all children as you know. If a child persistently breaches the School's behaviour policy and their actions will result in harm to other children, physically or to their education, then they'll be excluded. The School doesn't need to have a medical diagnosis for the child in question.


Not necessarily.

The school my grandson goes to has two sister schools, both in reasonably close proximity and there are several other non aligned in the near vicinity too. Now my grandson's reception class was one of three on that site, there would be more at other schools I mentioned.

I can't believe my grandson's class was unlucky enough to be the only one with not just one but two kids with behavioural issues. Maybe there is some merit in making a class with all the disruptive kids in the area, so their issues can either be assessed or dealt with. Of course there would be problems but not insurmountable and at least the better behaved children wouldn't have their lesson time disrupted by unruly classmates.

Of course that would attract progressive liberal thinkers to claim 'labelling' but sometimes a spade is a spade and a disruptive child is a disruptive child and if the label fits, it should be stuck on them.

Re: One for the Teachers & Social Engineers

Post by Avon Barksdale » Thu Oct 12, 2017 1:06 pm

Trapper John wrote:
Avon Barksdale wrote:
Trapper John wrote:
Now I imagine social services are aware of this poor kid and a younger sibling I'm told, god help her, so is there nothing can be done? I genuinely feel sorry for this little girl but I don't see why my grandson or his classmates should have to witness this sort of behaviour in some of their most formative years.

At some point 'inclusiveness' has to be overridden by common sense and the needs of the majority.


There is something or a couple of things that can be done, but they take time and a lot of paperwork and referrals to achieve.

If this child is as disruptive as you believe they have probably had a CAMHS assessment already. The School may also be considering if an offsite placement would be better and dealing with the appropriate agencies. Permanently excluding a child is difficult and would require enough evidence to be obtained to show it is lawful.

In my experience at least Schools do not put the needs of a troubled child well before that of the majority of other kids and they are acutely concerned to ensure that good decisions are made bearing in mind the outcomes for all children. They do however have an extraordinary amount of red tape to get through before a child can be moved out of School.


Yes I understand that and said so in earlier posts - nevertheless there should be some sort of 'interim' measure which can be put in place, otherwise it's like a doctor saying "we will only treat an illness when we are 100% sure what it is and if it is doing damage to the host" totally ignoring the fact that in the meantime, the illness could be passed on to others - I don't like using the term but 'quarantine' seems to fit.


An "interim" measure such as a fixed term exclusion?

The School has a duty of care to all children as you know. If a child persistently breaches the School's behaviour policy and their actions will result in harm to other children, physically or to their education, then they'll be excluded. The School doesn't need to have a medical diagnosis for the child in question.

Re: One for the Teachers & Social Engineers

Post by Trapper John » Thu Oct 12, 2017 8:33 am

Avon Barksdale wrote:
Trapper John wrote:
Now I imagine social services are aware of this poor kid and a younger sibling I'm told, god help her, so is there nothing can be done? I genuinely feel sorry for this little girl but I don't see why my grandson or his classmates should have to witness this sort of behaviour in some of their most formative years.

At some point 'inclusiveness' has to be overridden by common sense and the needs of the majority.


There is something or a couple of things that can be done, but they take time and a lot of paperwork and referrals to achieve.

If this child is as disruptive as you believe they have probably had a CAMHS assessment already. The School may also be considering if an offsite placement would be better and dealing with the appropriate agencies. Permanently excluding a child is difficult and would require enough evidence to be obtained to show it is lawful.

In my experience at least Schools do not put the needs of a troubled child well before that of the majority of other kids and they are acutely concerned to ensure that good decisions are made bearing in mind the outcomes for all children. They do however have an extraordinary amount of red tape to get through before a child can be moved out of School.


Yes I understand that and said so in earlier posts - nevertheless there should be some sort of 'interim' measure which can be put in place, otherwise it's like a doctor saying "we will only treat an illness when we are 100% sure what it is and if it is doing damage to the host" totally ignoring the fact that in the meantime, the illness could be passed on to others - I don't like using the term but 'quarantine' seems to fit.

Re: One for the Teachers & Social Engineers

Post by Avon Barksdale » Wed Oct 11, 2017 3:01 pm

Trapper John wrote:
Now I imagine social services are aware of this poor kid and a younger sibling I'm told, god help her, so is there nothing can be done? I genuinely feel sorry for this little girl but I don't see why my grandson or his classmates should have to witness this sort of behaviour in some of their most formative years.

At some point 'inclusiveness' has to be overridden by common sense and the needs of the majority.


There is something or a couple of things that can be done, but they take time and a lot of paperwork and referrals to achieve.

If this child is as disruptive as you believe they have probably had a CAMHS assessment already. The School may also be considering if an offsite placement would be better and dealing with the appropriate agencies. Permanently excluding a child is difficult and would require enough evidence to be obtained to show it is lawful.

In my experience at least Schools do not put the needs of a troubled child well before that of the majority of other kids and they are acutely concerned to ensure that good decisions are made bearing in mind the outcomes for all children. They do however have an extraordinary amount of red tape to get through before a child can be moved out of School.

Re: One for the Teachers & Social Engineers

Post by Vam » Wed Oct 11, 2017 1:01 pm

NastyNickers wrote:
Oh what bollocks.

I'm amazed you gathered all this information through your 5 year old grandson... and the grapevine.
My 5 year old came home the other day and said they'd spent all day drinking in Thailand. They had an 'asian' style lunch. And don't get me started on the bollocks the parents gossip about.


You owe me a keyboard :pmsl:

Re: One for the Teachers & Social Engineers

Post by Trapper John » Wed Oct 11, 2017 12:52 pm

NastyNickers wrote:
Trapper John wrote:
Guest wrote:
Trapper John wrote:
Guest wrote:some parents are too selfish to have children.


I would go as far as to say, some women should be sterilised so they can't have children.


so should a lot of blokes, tj, why just women? it makes more sense to sterilise the blokes, they can father thousands of kids, women have a reproductive shelf life.


Well there is that ...........but! women have the children and are supposed to have the mothering instinct. Men on the otherhand can produce children and then have no further contact or impact on their lives. Lowlife fathers aren't the problem, lowlife mothers are.


Oh what bollocks.

I'm amazed you gathered all this information through your 5 year old grandson... and the grapevine.
My 5 year old came home the other day and said they'd spent all day drinking in Thailand. They had an 'asian' style lunch. And don't get me started on the bollocks the parents gossip about.


Seeing a child asleep on the floor with my own eyes and reading a 'reassuring' letter from the school about a kid who stood in the middle of the classroom to piss herself then runaround with shit on her hands, isn't idle fishwife gossip or the imagination of a 5 year old. :thumbsup:

Re: One for the Teachers & Social Engineers

Post by Puzzler » Wed Oct 11, 2017 12:48 pm

Guest wrote:
Trapper John wrote:
Guest wrote:
Vicky wrote:
Guest wrote:some kids are going to school in nappies at that age. you have to wonder what the future holds for that poor girl.


Aye a woman my mum worked with, her five year old son wasn't toilet trained and she said the teachers can do it, she had enough to do with her job and running a house.

Image


some parents are too selfish to have children.


I would go as far as to say, some women should be sterilised so they can't have children.


so should a lot of blokes, tj, why just women? it makes more sense to sterilise the blokes, they can father thousands of kids, women have a reproductive shelf life.

It’s the women who pick the blokes.

Re: One for the Teachers & Social Engineers

Post by NastyNickers » Wed Oct 11, 2017 12:30 pm

Trapper John wrote:
Guest wrote:
Trapper John wrote:
Guest wrote:some parents are too selfish to have children.


I would go as far as to say, some women should be sterilised so they can't have children.


so should a lot of blokes, tj, why just women? it makes more sense to sterilise the blokes, they can father thousands of kids, women have a reproductive shelf life.


Well there is that ...........but! women have the children and are supposed to have the mothering instinct. Men on the otherhand can produce children and then have no further contact or impact on their lives. Lowlife fathers aren't the problem, lowlife mothers are.


Oh what bollocks.

I'm amazed you gathered all this information through your 5 year old grandson... and the grapevine.
My 5 year old came home the other day and said they'd spent all day drinking in Thailand. They had an 'asian' style lunch. And don't get me started on the bollocks the parents gossip about.

Re: One for the Teachers & Social Engineers

Post by Vam » Wed Oct 11, 2017 11:50 am

Trapper John wrote:
Well there is that ...........but! women have the children and are supposed to have the mothering instinct. Men on the otherhand can produce children and then have no further contact or impact on their lives. Lowlife fathers aren't the problem, lowlife mothers are.


W...T...F...?? :ooer:

No way did you just type that with a straight face. You're definitely on a wind-up.

Re: One for the Teachers & Social Engineers

Post by Trapper John » Wed Oct 11, 2017 11:38 am

Guest wrote:
Trapper John wrote:
Guest wrote:
Vicky wrote:
Guest wrote:some kids are going to school in nappies at that age. you have to wonder what the future holds for that poor girl.


Aye a woman my mum worked with, her five year old son wasn't toilet trained and she said the teachers can do it, she had enough to do with her job and running a house.

Image


some parents are too selfish to have children.


I would go as far as to say, some women should be sterilised so they can't have children.


so should a lot of blokes, tj, why just women? it makes more sense to sterilise the blokes, they can father thousands of kids, women have a reproductive shelf life.


Well there is that ...........but! women have the children and are supposed to have the mothering instinct. Men on the otherhand can produce children and then have no further contact or impact on their lives. Lowlife fathers aren't the problem, lowlife mothers are.

Re: One for the Teachers & Social Engineers

Post by Vam » Wed Oct 11, 2017 11:22 am

Trapper John wrote:
Guest wrote:
Vicky wrote:
Guest wrote:some kids are going to school in nappies at that age. you have to wonder what the future holds for that poor girl.


Aye a woman my mum worked with, her five year old son wasn't toilet trained and she said the teachers can do it, she had enough to do with her job and running a house.

Image


some parents are too selfish to have children.


I would go as far as to say, some women should be sterilised so they can't have children.


But but but....worrabout their meal tickets 'Uman Rites, Traps?! :grrrrr:

Child neglect/mistreatment? I could only respond to your posts up there by swearing - a lot. Think I'll pass.

Re: One for the Teachers & Social Engineers

Post by Guest » Wed Oct 11, 2017 11:19 am

Trapper John wrote:
Guest wrote:
Vicky wrote:
Guest wrote:some kids are going to school in nappies at that age. you have to wonder what the future holds for that poor girl.


Aye a woman my mum worked with, her five year old son wasn't toilet trained and she said the teachers can do it, she had enough to do with her job and running a house.

Image


some parents are too selfish to have children.


I would go as far as to say, some women should be sterilised so they can't have children.


so should a lot of blokes, tj, why just women? it makes more sense to sterilise the blokes, they can father thousands of kids, women have a reproductive shelf life.

Re: One for the Teachers & Social Engineers

Post by Trapper John » Wed Oct 11, 2017 11:13 am

Guest wrote:
Vicky wrote:
Guest wrote:some kids are going to school in nappies at that age. you have to wonder what the future holds for that poor girl.


Aye a woman my mum worked with, her five year old son wasn't toilet trained and she said the teachers can do it, she had enough to do with her job and running a house.

Image


some parents are too selfish to have children.


I would go as far as to say, some women should be sterilised so they can't have children.

Re: One for the Teachers & Social Engineers

Post by Guest » Wed Oct 11, 2017 10:53 am

Vicky wrote:
Guest wrote:some kids are going to school in nappies at that age. you have to wonder what the future holds for that poor girl.


Aye a woman my mum worked with, her five year old son wasn't toilet trained and she said the teachers can do it, she had enough to do with her job and running a house.

Image


some parents are too selfish to have children.

Re: One for the Teachers & Social Engineers

Post by Vicks » Wed Oct 11, 2017 10:48 am

Guest wrote:some kids are going to school in nappies at that age. you have to wonder what the future holds for that poor girl.


Aye a woman my mum worked with, her five year old son wasn't toilet trained and she said the teachers can do it, she had enough to do with her job and running a house.

Image

Top