This is a rewritten version of an entry that has appeared previously but is no longer available. Apologies if you have read it before.
I’ve noticed that I read a lot of the same questions being asked, often by NQTs (Newly Qualified Teachers), on teacher forums on the internet. So I have decided to answer those questions here.
Are there any good books about dealing with behaviour?
Yes. For ordinary schools read “The Craft of the Classroom” by Michael Marland. It’s an excellent description of basic classroom management, and recommends unfashionable but effective methods such as sitting at the front of the class and asking students to come to you. For “challenging schools”, i.e. schools where the discipline system has broken down, read “Surviving and Succeeding in Difficult Classrooms” by Paul Blum. It tells you how to cope in the battlefield that many of our schools have become and is worthwhile just for the effort it takes to remind you it is not your fault. Bill (William) Rogers has also written many useful books.
A well known but unhelpful book is “Getting the Buggers to Behave” by Sue Cowley. Avoid it, as it would be better named “Letting the Buggers Misbehave”. It makes suggestions such as letting older children swear, chew gum and keep their coats on. It even suggests pretending to eat dog food as a way to win the students over, which is, quite frankly, as demeaning a suggestion as you are ever likely to hear.
What can I do about low level disruption?
Firstly, make sure you have the students in a seating plan. This means you will have everyone’s name to hand, half the battle with low level disruption with a new class is just knowing the names of students that are talking. Then use a system of warnings (either noted down on a paper register or written on the board) for each interruption with escalating sanctions such as detentions and removal from the room for any student who gets too many warnings. Do not tolerate shouted answers (or questions), insist on hands up and waiting for quiet.
If the problem is not deliberate disruption, merely an excess of noise, then getting the students to stand up and wait for quiet often works and can be a good way to start the lesson. This is more effective with younger classes that actually want to learn than with hardcore troublesome classes where individuals may be looking for a confrontation.
One of my classes hates me, what can I do?
Stop caring. It’s probably their fault not yours. In particular, if it’s year 10 it’s to be expected and you should worry more if they don’t hate you.
I have been verbally abused/assaulted and nothing’s happened, what can I do?
Something should have happened. You have to chase this up immediately. Make sure you have a written account of the incident. There is a hierarchy of steps you can take to follow up. You take each step in order until something is done. The more steps you take the more you will be seen as a troublemaker, however, it is better to be seen as a troublemaker by SMT than a walkover by the kids.
- Talk to the Head (or Deputy Head, according to availability) and give him/her your written report.
- Talk to your union rep and get them to talk to the head.
- Ask to fill in an “accident/assault form”. (This is a report for the LEA that schools must provide but rarely tell staff about). Keep a copy.
- Contact the police (for assaults or the very worst forms of verbal abuse)
- Go to your doctor and see how long you can get off with stress.
- Contact the press.
Alternatively, if you actually do want to be seen as a troublemaker start at the bottom of the list and work your way up.
I’m not enjoying my job because of behaviour, does it get any better?
Yes. But it takes time. In my experience it takes a couple of years at a school to have real authority around the site. With classes I find year 8 improve after Christmas, Year 9 take slightly longer, Year 10 take a couple of terms minimum and Year 11 classes only improve if you’re lucky and the worst kids start truanting (which happens quite often for bottom sets or in tough schools).
Entries (RSS)
February 26th, 2008 at 1:31 pm
“It even suggests pretending to eat dog food as a way to win the students over, which is, quite frankly, as demeaning a suggestion as you are ever likely to hear.”
When I first read this I was dubious, as I did not believe that anyone, no matter how brain damaged, would rate and pass around a book with such a suggestion.
Have checked google for ‘getting the bugger to behave dog food’ I found this page on BBC Woman’s Hour:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/womanshour/2001_37_thu_01.shtml
“Sue Cowley is the author of a teaching manual with a difference. She says the key to capturing a class’s attention is to surprise them with stunts such as:
* eating from a can of dog food to teach the power of marketing
* ripping up a five pound note to question the value of money.
She talks to Jenni about the methods she suggests to keep pupils engaged.”
This does not seem demeaning. It seems more about demonstrating something that is hard to show practically. I would hope that you would agree that, as distasteful as this is, linking knowledge to practical actions is a good way of teaching. Bruner argued that learning in school is predominantly decontextualised, and that learning used to be far easier as it was linked to the activities themselves (e.g. learning how to be a shepherd). Contextualising more is surely very beneficial?
February 26th, 2008 at 6:51 pm
Please explain precisely what they are learning by watching a teacher eat dog food.
February 27th, 2008 at 7:05 pm
The point is not what is being learnt. Your original point of contention was that this activity was a “way of winning the students over”, when it is not apparently presented by the author in this way. If you could therefore amend your post it would be more truthful.
In order to engage with your new point, however, please explain what students learn by:
watching a video
being shouted at
seeing another student being shouted at
being asked to go outside and wait to be disciplined
…and so on. I can think of all sorts of standard teacher activities that do not themselves lead to learning. The point is that they may increase learning at some point in the future.
What I have quoted above is about “engagement”. Engagement is not necessarily the same as learning. Engagement, however, has as its aim to increase future learning by motivating the students through intrinsic interest in what is going on.
February 27th, 2008 at 8:12 pm
You have now resorted to pedantry. Is “winning the students over” really so distinct from “capturing their attention [with stunts]“? The line between teacher and children’s entertainer has been crossed regardless of how you justify it.
Oh, by the way, it was you who talked about this being contextualised learning not me, so I suggest you point your rhetorical question at yourself.
February 29th, 2008 at 12:54 pm
It has been really interesting to read this comments as a struggling NQT, thank you for time to write them.
February 29th, 2008 at 2:35 pm
“You have now resorted to pedantry. Is “winning the students over” really so distinct from “capturing their attention [with stunts]”? The line between teacher and children’s entertainer has been crossed regardless of how you justify it.”
So now your problem is not that eating from a dog food can is “as demeaning a suggestion as you are ever likely to hear” (and I can imagine worse, to be fair) but that capturing the students’ attention is like being an entertainer.
I would imagine, then, that shouting is like being an entertainer?
February 29th, 2008 at 2:38 pm
Is “winning the students over” really so distinct from “capturing their attention [with stunts]”?
Yes, as appeasement is not the same as being interesting.
February 29th, 2008 at 3:35 pm
Telling teachers to act as children’s entertainers is not a separate issue from telling them to eat dog food. Eating dog food was an attempt to entertain rather than teach. Using stunts to get their attention is quite clearly about providing entertainment.
I don’t know why you keep going on about shouting. The only place I mentioned shouting was where I said children shouldn’t be allowed to shout.
March 3rd, 2008 at 1:41 pm
“Eating dog food was an attempt to entertain rather than teach. Using stunts to get their attention is quite clearly about providing entertainment.”
One of my colleagues has a video of himself dressed up in period garb to present a news programme from the 50s. He also comes in once a year dressed in Tudor garb.
Are these just entertaining stunts? I imagine that when this behaviour is stopped by an effective SMT the History students who complain that it helped them learn are lying.
March 4th, 2008 at 9:31 pm
News is Good, there is a difference between dressing in role for relevant historical or dramatic effect and eating from a can of dog food to jack up the level of interest via disgust. The fact that you can’t see it makes me think I have you to thank for being expected to entertain to the lowest common denominator in an effort to “engage”.
March 5th, 2008 at 2:12 pm
“News is Good, there is a difference between dressing in role for relevant historical or dramatic effect and eating from a can of dog food to jack up the level of interest via disgust. The fact that you can’t see it makes me think I have you to thank for being expected to entertain to the lowest common denominator in an effort to “engage”.”
Sure. Let’s extend your argument - dressing up for “relevent historical effect” is good, dressing up to shock the students is bad (e.g. in some sort of PVC catsuit). Is there a similar difference between “eating from a can of dog food to jack up the level of interest via disgust” and “eating from a can of dog food to teach the power of marketing”?
If the latter is about the “relevant educational effect” then surely, by your argument, it is OK?
We only differ in regarding whether eating from what looks to be can of dog food might ever be educational.
March 7th, 2008 at 5:22 pm
You seem to have forgotten that you were completely unable to identify any actual learning that would result from pretending to eat dogfood.
March 10th, 2008 at 9:30 am
I did not think it was a real question because it seems to me absolutely obvious to see what is learned from this situation.
Consider that what is being eaten is LABELLED dogfood but not ACTUALLY dogfood.
Consider that the objective is about the POWER OF MARKETING.
It seems to me the same sort of teaching technique as, say, showing a video of schizophrenic behaviour to teach the characteristics of schizophrenia - e.g. teaching by giving an example.
March 10th, 2008 at 7:26 pm
Far from being absolutely obvious I am still lost as to what has been learned.
That labels tell you what is in a tin?
That people generally believe labels?
That if the freak show isn’t recruiting then teaching is the next best thing?
Please enlighten us.
March 11th, 2008 at 9:49 am
“That people generally believe labels?”
I’m afraid that we are still asked to teach students facts that we think should be patently obvious.
March 14th, 2008 at 5:37 pm
With respect, Old Andrew, there are two clear alternate learning outcomes from the “dog food” trick.
(1) The class do not realise it is a trick
“The teacher is a completely sad sicko”
(2) The class realise it is a trick
“The teacher is a complete d*ckhead”
I am not, however, aware of either being in the National Curriculum.
March 14th, 2008 at 5:45 pm
Any good teacher will be aware of the sudden reverse and the grab to get the attention of a group of children, which is presumably what this means.
My concern is not about the basic concept but the degree. If you cut your leg off with a saw it would gain their attention as well, but it’s not a good way of doing it. The “dog food” is in this sort of category.
Ripping up the fiver is not quite so asinine, but I’m not sure quite what you achieve by it ? Money isn’t everything, it’s just paper ? I can see a possible use for it for good money management - one could show the cost of cigarettes by rolling up a fiver and setting light to it, maybe. Not saying it’s a great idea, and unless you’re good at sleight of hand it’s expensive, but it’s not totally moronic.
I’d be concerned that an inexperienced reader of the book would think that this is the sort of level you need to “go to” to teach effectively.
June 21st, 2008 at 12:20 pm
This takes on a new aspect in light of this:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/7450552.stm
How far are teachers meant to go in order to entertain?
July 1st, 2008 at 1:30 am
You can discuss what’s appropriate and what’s not until you’re blue in the face (fingertips?), but at the end of the day you have to tailor your teaching style depending on the class.
No, you’re not an ‘entertainer’, but why strive for the ‘disciplinarian’ end of the spectrum? Your job as a teacher is to engage pupils and invoke a joy for learning. Being a boring old fart and shouting your mouth off to ‘teach them a lesson’ doesn’t teach them much at all, aside from contempt for learning.
Eating out of a can labeled as dogfood might not be something that works for you, but it seems to for Sue Cowley. Unless you’ve seen the technique used in class and the way she executes it, how can you say that nothing is learned from it? That’s a totally uninformed conjecture, and to be honest I find it quite closed-minded. Drilling work into kids’ heads might get them through their exams, but will it make them excited about their next English or History lesson? Most certainly not.
The best classrooms I’ve ever been in and taught in are the ones in which the teacher has a laugh and enjoys themselves, and brings the class along with them. Of course you have to keep a firm grip and punish when necessary, but there’s absolutely no wrong in having fun.
July 1st, 2008 at 6:58 am
“Unless you’ve seen the technique used in class and the way she executes it, how can you say that nothing is learned from it? That’s a totally uninformed conjecture, and to be honest I find it quite closed-minded.”
Are you seriously suggesting that it is up to me to prove something isn’t educational?
Surely it is up to the dog food eaters and the stripping teachers to prove that their behaviour is educational?
July 1st, 2008 at 1:40 pm
I never asked you to prove anything. I’m just saying that unless you’ve seen the technique used in class you can’t tell me it’s useless; at least not with any authority. Our ‘fun’ lesson at Easter involved dancing like Kylie Minogue for a prize… You might say that’s equally pointless, but it was a great laugh and actually had some economics behind it.
Also, bundling in the dog food eaters (who, might I add, aren’t eating ACTUAL dog food) and the stripping teachers together is ridiculous. They’re worlds apart in terms of conduct, and I’d consider the latter completely unacceptable.
July 1st, 2008 at 7:39 pm
I’m sorry but I really don’t have to be in a classroom where the teacher is pretending to eat dogfood to know that it is not of educational value and that it is an insult to the profession to suggest we do such things. As for classing it with the stripping teacher, please explain why demeaning yourself by pretending to eat dogfood is any better than demeaning yourself in any other way? Either way you are trying to win kids over by entertaining them in an undignified manner rather than teaching them. It’s still a freakshow.
July 6th, 2008 at 11:52 am
In my limited experience I’ve found that well behaved and motivated classes do not need any such entertainment. I’m lucky enough to teach a few classes of this type and dog food nor stripping is required to keep them engaged and motivated.
Poorly behaved classes have no respect for the teacher nor lesson (if they did they would not behaved badly) so it is here where you reach for the can. My questions are these…
1. Why would eating a can of dog food encourage children who already have nothing but contempt for teachers and school to improve their behaviour?
2. What would happen once the ‘dog food’ moment expires and children have to get on with the more normal tasks associated with learning?