Gove : Bring Back 'Old Fashioned' Punishments

[aliceBB]

How would they learn not to be dysfunctional, if you stop them from feeling the pain of the consequences of their own actions?

 

Human beings are not rats or circus animals. Whipping them (mentally, emotionally or physically) achieves nothing other than making them resentful and fearful, especially if they don't like themselves much to begin with and they sense nobody else does either. Simply punishing them for a particular action does not stop them wanting to perform the action, it just makes them want to avoid being caught again. You have to get them to a point where they don't want to misbehave in the first place.

 

They only learn not to be so dysfunctional by being in an environment where they feel loved, valued and praised. In most cases, that cannot be a school - I doubt it can even be in a residential care home; it can only be with good parents (if not their own, then foster or adoptive parents), who can spend a lot of time building up their self-esteem and social skills. It is one of the hardest things in the world to turn round the behaviour of disaffected teenagers, but it can be done.

[Waldo]

Where have I suggested whipping people Alice? I'm not advocating punishing people at all. Punishing people is very different to not shielding people from the natural consequences of their own actions.

 

Regarding the rest of your post, providing an environment where people feel loved, valued and praised etc; I agree with you.

 

I think in my response to BF though, I was talking more generally; not specifically about kids of school age; what do you think though, is there any value in allowing kids even to reap the natural consequences of their own dysfunctional behaviour? Or should they be shielded from consequence?

[aliceBB]

Where have I suggested whipping people Alice? I'm not advocating punishing people at all. Punishing people is very different to not shielding people from the natural consequences of their own actions.

 

I am really sorry, I misinterpreted your phrase 'the painful consequences of their actions' too literally! (I'll blame it on the painkillers!)

 

I agree with you that people should be made aware of the consequences of their actions- but the problem often is that with disaffected pupils, they cannot empathise (because they have never had any good role models to show them how) and until they can, they won't care if they have hurt/upset others/spoilt things for others.

[Halibut]

I am really sorry, I misinterpreted your phrase 'the painful consequences of their actions' too literally! (I'll blame it on the painkillers!)

 

I agree with you that people should be made aware of the consequences of their actions- but the problem often is that with disaffected pupils, they cannot empathise (because they have never had any good role models to show them how) and until they can, they won't care if they have hurt/upset others/spoilt things for others.

 

Empathy is a skill that can be practised and developed in most cases. Many schools have this embedded into their disciplinary policies.

[Waldo]

It's okay Alice, I think you've offered some great insight, and made valuable contributions to the thread; whereas I sound more like a prospective leader of Nazi party 2.0!!

 

Yeah, WRT to shielding kids from the consequences of their actions, I guess it's finding the right appropriate balance for the individual and circumstance. You want kids to feel loved and valued, and excited about the learning process and discovering cool new stuff. That's incredibly important, especially the feeling loved and valued bit. But also, to educate them to make the best decisions for themselves; not to do dumb stuff because they know and don't want the consequences; and they know there's a whole world of good out there instead.

 

This was interesting by the way. From this thread: http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showthread.php?t=1274169

 

What happens if you let kids do whatever they want: http://tvnz.co.nz/national-news/school-ditches-rules-and-loses-bullies-5807957

[boyfriday]

I believe in equality and fair play too. I'm not sure I agree with the idea of giving the indolent a few crumbs from the table, just to stop them revolting. I don't want people to live with that frame of mind, I want people to be heroic and grasp the opportunity to improve matters for themselves; and we need to put plenty of opportunity out there for people to do just that.

 

Ultimately though, I feel people should have the freedom to choose for themselves, and if they choose dysfunction (when they could have chose otherwise) then I'm not sure we really do them any favours by shielding them from the natural consequences of dysfunction.

 

How would they learn not to be dysfunctional, if you stop them from feeling the pain of the consequences of their own actions?

 

Again I don't think we're too far away in our thinking. When looking at the indolently 'dysfunctional' as a homogenous group I'd sometimes like to turn the water canon and carbolic on them, but I try hard to see society as a collection of individuals-hence my dislike of negative generalisations about people whoever they are.

 

I'm guessing but I reckon most of those dysfunctional have a compelling narrative-reasons why they are as they are. I don't think many believe they're 'rewarded' for their indolence, after all state benefits are hardly generous compared to the lifestyle being educated and in work commensurate with our skills allows us.

[salsafan]

I am really sorry, I misinterpreted your phrase 'the painful consequences of their actions' too literally! (I'll blame it on the painkillers!)

I agree with you that people should be made aware of the consequences of their actions- but the problem often is that with disaffected pupils, they cannot empathise (because they have never had any good role models to show them how) and until they can, they won't care if they have hurt/upset others/spoilt things for others.

 

You also have to remember that, the children cannot be marginalised too. Regardless of whether you want to achieve the good results and to protect the good of the majority of others. Even with those who want to learn, in letting them pursuing excellence and intelligence, you start to emotionally disconnect with the rest of the group of children and praise one or a handful of children because they produce better results and therefore can create a biase situation in terms of the educational graph too.

 

There is actually a learning curve and group dynamic which need to exist in a group of students. A lot of teachers in my student days made sure we worked in a group. That is, a diverse group, to bring up the weak and the strongest in a team to equalise the results of the group. That is how you will make children learn to care and to share and behave also too. And not to let one person's brilliance shadowed the rest of the group also. I used to think that this is not so important, but in actual fact, in my line of work now, I can see why this is so important. There are also biases too when you do not work with diversed individuals in a group.

 

I once read a book on programming written by a technical coder, and he mentioned the importance of group work and the team's dynamic. Whether efficiencies are achieved or not as a team, depends on the communication and the method used by all. i.e. empathy skills. When a group of technically brilliant Stephen Hawkins sit together and ideas flow everywhere, you still need someone to ground that group by taking out important factors which is applicable and applies to the goal of the group. There are actual biases in the results and in the goals, when you get a group of the same people together to work to produce something. I wondered how many educators actually put empathsis also on the group learning aspect as well as the individual learning and natural skillset of the individual ?

[poppet2]

There were two main methods of disciplining children in our school.

 

1. Most of the naughty pupils in a class, sat together on the same table. The teacher would purposely ignore those noisy kids on that table. Those kids thought they were clever for not doing or handing in any work at the end of the lesson. The teachers wouldn't even waste their time and effort disciplining those kids, who obviously didn't want to learn, they would just resort to telling those pupils to keep quiet every so often.

 

2. Other students who were more hard core, were disciplined by loosing out on their sports lesson or any other lesson they excelled at, until their behaviour improved.

 

3. It was no co-incidence that the parents of students who were naughty, never bothered to come to the parents evenings each year. It stands to reason, that parents who didn't care, saw such behaviour reflected in their children's behaviour.

[ivanava]

There were two main methods of disciplining children in our school.

 

1. Most of the naughty pupils in a class, sat together on the same table. The teacher would purposely ignore those noisy kids on that table. Those kids thought they were clever for not doing or handing in any work at the end of the lesson. The teachers wouldn't even waste their time and effort disciplining those kids, who obviously didn't want to learn, they would just resort to telling those pupils to keep quiet every so often.

 

2. Other students who were more hard core, were disciplined by loosing out on their sports lesson or any other lesson they excelled at, until their behaviour improved.

 

3. It was no co-incidence that the parents of students who were naughty, never bothered to come to the parents evenings each year. It stands to reason, that parents who didn't care, saw such behaviour reflected in their children's behaviour.

 

That seams a little unfair on the other kids, in my days at school they would have been removed from the class and made to stand outside.

[poppet2]

That seams a little unfair on the other kids, in my days at school they would have been removed from the class and made to stand outside.

 

Read the second part of that same sentence. Today, in this PC world, such children would complain they were being picked on, if they spent every lesson outside. How many children were sent outside in 'Educating Yorkshire'?

 

Those naughty children lost out by leaving school with no qualifications, so they only had themselves to blame. I think that was the teachers' message.