Quote:
Originally Posted by Clodfobble
On the other hand, sometimes they are disruptive precisely because they require a different type of environment than the one that they are being given. Yes, the abusive household set the dominoes up, but the behavioral opportunities of the one-size-fits-all classroom model allows them to fall. I think the real problem is that the rehabilitative environment they really need--extra emotional support and retraining, that is, not extra punishment--is not something the schools can realistically afford. And every publicly-funded attempt I've seen at such an environment ends up being somewhere between a slight and a colossal failure.
.
|
I agree with all of that. My problem though is the current tendency, in the UK at least, to exclude disruptive children. Some of that is through the formal system of exclusion, sometimes handled well, with intensive units to help those kids for a time, and then return to the main school community. But some of it is in admissions and is hidden. As our school system has become more and more centred on academies and 'free schools', essentially partially privatising the state school sector, there is a lot more room for schools to be selective in their admissions. They also can use exclusions as a way to trim away kids who jeopardise their targets.
I don't like a lot of the rhetoric involved either, in public dicussions about classroom discipline. It's a heartbeat away from 'bad kids shouldn't be allowed in our schools ruining good kids' education'. Meanwhile, as politicians make hardline speeches, funding to help kids who are struggling with the school environment gets stripped further and further back.