Discipline in education works, apparently.

Post Reply New Topic

Hmmmmm. This is easy to claim when the school is a private school who can pick and choose students and exclude students who can't conform.

So you are saying that discipline is or isn't effective/beneficial in the learning process?
You seem to be rather ambiguous in regards to this point, to me at least.
Perhaps you have skirted away from my main interest in this topic and are addressing a personal or political "bug-bear"?

Who can tell?
Well, you can, presumably.
<adopts Pauline Hanson mode>
"Please explain?"

He's trying to say the validity of the sample being analyzed isn't necessarily explaining the correlation, as it doesn't control for confounding factors.

You do understand my desire to understand where he stands in regards to discipline in schools though.

And yes, I understand your point (assuming you implicitly intended to make one in support of his comment), but the complexity of that particular situation does not inherently negate the suggestion that discipline in the schoolroom is a good thing.

Assuming you disagree here, can you give a convincing argument that classroom discipline does not improve academic achievement.

Perhaps I should simply ask you to clarify your position in this discussion:
-Do you have a position?
-Was it your intention to support aquafelix's "non-position" in regards to discipline in the schools?
-Do you accept I am interested in the place of discipline in the schooling system?
-Do you understand that your and his post is dancing around the explicit suggestion that discipline helps academically?
-Do you disagree with my implied but actively considered affirmation that discipline improves academic achievement?
-Do you agree with my now stated, err, statement that the decline of the education systems in countries like Australia and the UK are largely the result of the lack of discipline in the education system?
-Are we on the same page now?

Dare I say: You seem to be rather ambiguous/undefined in regards to your motives and position on this thread's topic and my response to aquafelix's post.
Let loose the inner intellectual beast within you and enlighten me.
"Please explain."

Hi Pepe, I wanted to explain my response to your post. I wasn’t disagreeing with your proposition that “discipline in education works”. I agree with that . I believe that a disciplined school environment has always helped academically motivated students to work to their best. The Michaela School is a good example of this principal in action. I suspect we are on the same page on that point.

My response was to the article you quoted.

I think I can understand your frustration with the decline in the education system over the years and the loss of discipline in schools (I don’t think it’s just in schools). The Michaela School looks like a return of discipline, respect and values in schools and it’s clearly producing results. However, I saw something quite sinister hidden in the article you quoted. A hidden set of standards that seriously impacts autistic and neurodiverse people.

I’m happy to "please explain" my issues with the article. (I like the Pauline Hanson mode joke, though I'm not sure how many non Aussies got it). I read the whole article you referenced. It credits Michaela’s success to its disciplined school environment and traditional teaching approach. I’m sure this approach has contributed to the schools GCSE results success. However, Michaela is not unique. I’ve worked in and around similar school in Australia for 20 years. School with similar traditional values and high academic expectations of their students. I know firsthand how these schools actually go about getting these high scores (NAPLAN is equivalent in Australia). They do this largely by excluding academic non-performers, potential troublemakers and non-conformists who may upset the schools order and distract the serious students from focusing on academics.

The article conveniently failed to mention how the enrollment policies of Michaela School (and schools like it) also raise the average academic performance of their students. Michaela School's policy is clearly stated on the admissions section on their website - https://mcsbrent.co.uk/

An example from the schools website: “At Michaela, we have very high expectations of all pupils and take discipline seriously. We expect 100% support from parents.” .

This sounds great on first appearances, but I’ve seen school’s use such language to routinely exclude many of the kind of aspies and neurodiverse people who frequent this website. Many aspies would not be able to conform to the rigid rule structure, and unforgiving expectations of a school like Michaela. This school states a ” no excuses for bad behaviour” policy. In practice this means an aspie, after a couple of meltdowns, or too much questioning of the rules (interpreted as arguing and talking back) will be swiftly kicked out or pressured/shamed into leaving such a school.

“Private school ethos, no fees” is Michaela School’s slogan. This school may be a return to a more traditional teaching values, but just cause it's free doesn't mean it not elitist or snobby. Only academically motivated students who can consistently (remember, no excuses) conform to a set of very strict arbitrary rules will be able to thrive at such a school (this doesn't sound like most aspies I know). It is a school that systematically excludes people like us. This school's goal is not to whip spoilt, undisciplined and defiant kids into shape with old school values and discipline. It's prime aim is to create an environment where academically motivated students can be focused on their studies and achieve high GPA's and increase the reputation of the school, without being distracted by those "other kids" who can’t fit in.

Many aspies and people with ADHD and learning disabilities are those "other kids". Those who can't fit in live on the Wrong Planet. I hope that explains my response to the article you quoted.

Pepe,

I admittedly don't know very much about the UK school system. However, I have two degrees in education and I have experience in the field here in the U.S.

I want to know what exactly you mean by "discipline."

When you say "discipline" I'm assuming you mean strict rules that students must adhere to or they're punished in some way. Classroom management techniques are a lot like parenting, but with more students. Keeping students engaged is usually the "best" technique for keeping kids out of trouble and paying attention in the classroom, because trying to prevent disruptive behavior is easier than constantly trying to extinguish "bad" behavior. However, I think in some ways this is problematic because it assumes that it's easy for teachers to keep students with varying educational backgrounds and needs engaged in the same way, as if they are clowns in a circus. It doesn't really make much sense overall and no one knows exactly how to implement the classroom management strategies we're taught. Smaller class sizes would definitely help solve this issue.
I don't know about the UK, but here in the US classrooms tend to be oversized, the demands placed on teachers are increasing, and it's generally a mess.

My issue with saying "discipline works! Look at these high test scores!" is that private schools such as this one are self-selecting. That is, they tend to be elite schools that exclude students who do not meet their standards, or whose behavior is "bad" which leaves out neurodiverse students and kids with IEPs, for instance. Many private schools will not accept students who have a disability. Now, I'm not saying disabilities have anything to do with low/high test scores, but I am illustrating how private schools get to cherry pick which students they take and which they exclude. They are more likely to accept students who are already high-achievers and who have the sort of discipline you're talking about in their home life so they find it easier to adapt to that in a school setting.

Guys and gals.
Err, well actually "guy and girl".
Please excuse the political incorrectness.
I am an older person after all.

I have pretty much exhausted my solid gold pearls of wisdom at the moment, err, so to speak and will have to restock before I reply.
Consider this a compliment since it means I need to seriously contemplate my reply to you both before, err, replying.

P.S.
You both caught me on the hop because I was expecting simple criticism.
I guess I spend too much time on NT websites (and in the PPR forum).
There is a hell of a lot more objectivity here than there.
Well, I sincerely hope so.

Be back soon.
I am sure you will appreciate my brilliance, so the wait will be worth it.

Hi Princess.
I was a Martian too before I joined the Vulcan Confederacy, btw.

I decided to reply to your post first,
Because it has fewer words.

Sorry for the tangent but I think it important.
You say you are/were a teacher.
Based on experience, teachers are usually left-wing leaning here in Australia.
I don't know what it is like in America.
May I ask where your political affinities lay?

I am a non-partisan *Australian* conservative.
It has been established that American conservatives are quite different.
I'm also a hardcore atheist and a person who respects scientific methodology.



I guess I use the term in a generic/garden-variety way.
The usual.
Instilling hierarchical respect for the teachers.
Creating an environment where students are not being disruptive,
And not threatening the teachers and other children.
Establishing that students are focusing on what is being taught rather than being distracted by mobile phones, etc..

Were you thinking along the lines of corporal punishment?
That is too much to hope for. <joke>



Damn!
I should have done my "homework" first and researched the school concerned.
I might do this later today.

I only came across this situation a couple of days ago where a woman from the school was interviewed on one of the "news" channels here in Australia.

But at the core of this thread is the observation that lack of discipline and declining academic standards here in Australia seem to be firmly intertwined.
Rather than starting a new thread, could I hear a more in-depth opinion on this?

In a nutshell, my 2 questions to you:
1. Does a disciplined learning environment help with, err, learning?
2. Is an environment full of chaos, disorder and a lack of respect for the teachers, conducive to greater academic achievement?
Surely the answer is axiomatic?

As you pointed out, the hard part is the implementation.

Personally speaking, I believe a major problem with lack of discipline within the schooling system, and particularly here in Australia, has been caused by a societal shift driven by left-wing ideology.
Rather than teaching children to think for themselves, they are being indoctrinated into clutching personal freedoms without the necessary psychological tools required for managing these freedoms.

For example:
You let a puppy run free and wild,
And you end up with a feral creature which no respect for anyone.

May I ask your position on what I have said above?

I thank you.
<gets of soapbox>
<exits stage centre>

P.S.
I told you my reply would be worth the wait.

Implementation is the concern at question primarily here. I don't think you'll find anyone that would doubt that an orderly and respectful learning environment is conducive to success of students. Still, what do you mean by discipline? You seem to have stated some of it's putative aims but not described in any concrete detail what discipline itself is. Without clearly defining what is being debated about no profitable debate can be had and one is free to hedge their words and make a variety of claims. Especially if one is predisposed to a particular ideological stance coming in to a debate, i.e. what's the point imputing the political leanings of fellow debaters other than to find cause to de-legitimize their comments without respect to the merit of the comments themselves while safeguarding a pre-existing stance in a way that no reasoned discussion can assail?

I'm glad we see eye-to-eye on this point.
To me, it seems to be self-evidently, err, axiomatic.

Yeah, I should have done my homework.
I am consciously getting a little sloppy with my posts because I find, most of the time, the extra brain-power is unwarranted.
Perhaps I need to get back to my more disciplined ways.

Yeah, I've read quite a bit about stats manipulation, in regards to our Australian achievement scores.
Though I don't have a problem with removing those kids who simply want to be disruptive.
In my last year of high school, my area was considered one of the least disciplined and disruptive in the state, btw.
Not Barberino or Horshack territory though.

In regards to the Pauline Handson reference, I am well aware that most wouldn't be, err, aware of who Paulie was.
It was more for my benefit rather than others.
I do this all the time.
Some people think I am unaware of my esoteric content.
Call it an "insiders joke".

Yeah, an Epic Fail for me here.
As I said, I didn't do my homework.

But I am a reductionist by nature.
Bottom line is, disruptive kids are, err, disruptive and do affect the learning process.
Harsh but true,
What can you do?

I am a full-blown aspie.
More aspie than a lot of people on the aspie spectrum,
But I can't remember being disruptive.
I was very, very quiet until I discovered Coke-a-cola (caffeine) in my early 20s.
I had an inherent respect for the establishment in its entirety,
And despite my autism, naivety and psychological abuse, did reasonably well because I had a respectful attitude.

The attitude of young people these days, in a collective sense, is woeful.
BTW, I don't feel "frustrated" by bad-mannered kids of today.
I feel disgusted by the social influences that have brought us to this point.

Cheers mate.

P.S.
Once again I have to delete your content because the filtering system is kaput. <sigh>

Nice.




I am unsure what this has to do with the present conversation, but I tend to be pretty radically left. I am atheist and respect scientific methodology as well.




I whole-heartedly believe in creating an environment where students are less disruptive (there's never any time where there are zero disruptive students in a classroom, haha). By "disruptive" I mean distracting those around them, yelling out when it's quiet, arguments for the sake of arguments, etc. Students sleeping or being on their phones not listening doesn't really count as a disruption for me. They're just choosing to not listen and engage.

Hierarchical respect for adults is a difficult concept for me to entertain. Do you think respect should be automatic and not earned? I don't, and it has nothing to do with my political leanings. For example, if a teacher is verbally harassing students, or if a teacher is physically assaulting students, I don't need to respect them and I don't expect that any of their students will either. To have a successful classroom (or relationship with anyone, really) you have to establish rapport from the beginning, mean what you say, set clear boundaries and expectations, and as the adult you model the behaviors you want your students to emulate.

The best thing you can do in a classroom is set high expectations.




Can you explain the declining academic standards you're talking about? I'm unfamiliar with that.



1. Yes.
2. No, but we need to question *why* the academic environment has this happening in the first place.




What is it about left-wing ideology that makes you think people don't carefully consider their positions?
Although I am pretty radically left, the positions that I have on issues are based on evidence that I've carefully considered. If I obtain evidence that's stronger against my current position, I have no qualms with modifying my opinion/position/point-of-view. For instance, when I was younger I was very right-leaning. I started digging deeper into things and looking at legitimate sources and found evidence that ran counter to my beliefs, but it was logical enough to change my position. I don't see anything wrong with being flexible politically. In fact, I think that's a weakness of the right-wing Americans. It's easy to hold on to things that we're familiar and comfortable with (such as our ideas about "tradition"), it's less comfortable to directly challenge your own ideas and positions. Not enough of us do it.

I first learned to think for myself in high school, in English class. We were writing persuasive essays and we first learned some primitive research methods (such as how to see if the source you're using is biased and/or legitimate). Research methodology and evaluating research papers/scholarly sources was solidified for me in college. I feel the opposite you do - in fact, I thank college for helping me become the critical thinker that I am today. Do I think people can do that without going to college? Absolutely. That's just where I got more practice with it.

Evaluating social change is really difficult. Aristotle was complaining about youths 2,500 years ago. We're nothing special. Generations tend to think the ones below them are disrespectful and somehow society is going to collapse because *kids these days*, dangit!
When I evaluate social issues, I try to see it from various points-of-view. Let's use an example of the puppy you gave. Has this puppy been abandoned and he's hungry and focusing on survival? Does the puppy have a human owner who is caring for it, and the puppy is neglected and that's why it's not trained? Context matters a lot. If a puppy is feral that means it's being neglected. What personal freedoms are you referring to that is a parallel to this?

If the discipline is fair and reasonable it might have a positive effect .

When I was 9, at prep school , I was waiting quietly for the headmaster to come in and take the class . Some other boys were being noisy .The headmaster came in and instead of heading to one of the boys who were being noisy singles me out. He asks me what I'm doing ,and I say 'nothing'. He then tells me I should've been doing something and tells me to go to his study to get the cane.
I had something of a meltdown in the study over not comprehending why I was going to be caned. Indeed I got so distraught the headmaster couldn't cane me.

Such abusive treatment would, rightly, not be tolerated nowadays .

Please don't beat yourself up about your post. The article didn't mention the dodgy stuff about the school in question, so how were you to know about the dark side without some insider information on the education system that martianprincess and I had.



I can't disagree with that. I believe kids who don't want to learn and just want to be disruptive simply make it harder for already overworked teachers to teach the kids who want learn. Everyone is usually better off if those kids can go to an alternative learning school or can leave school and get a job.



I had a "laugh out loud" moment when I read "Please Explain". I assumed you knew I was an Aussie, so who cares if we had a our little giggle amongst ourselves. Pauline Hanson, love her or hate her, she is a true cultural icon in Oz.



I wasn't disruptive at school either and always was respectful of authority (even to those teachers who probably didn't deserve it), so I find it hard to relate to kids that are disruptive. It makes no sense to me



Yes, some kids behaviour and attitude is truly disgraceful, but I know lots of young people who are respectful and pro social and wonderful people. I trust those kids to run the country when I'm old and retired.



"Cheers Mate" (aquafelix holds up his beer)

martianprincess, I can't quote what you have said because of the web filtering system is broken.
Sorry.

"Radical left"?
Oh dear,
Houston, I think we have a problem.

Should kids show respect?
Pretty much for children who are not really in a position to effectively reason due to the immaturity of their neocortex.
Attitude is very important in the learning process.
A bad attitude only exacerbates the problem, assuming there is a problem in regards to a teacher's abilities.

Declining standards?
Take a look at this article:

Three years later and the situation hasn't improved, apparently.

Left-wing politics?
You are on the spectrum.
We tend to be more intellectual and less emotionalistic.
BTW, Have a look at my signature where it says: "Autistic/scout motto: "Give me a better argument and I will listen..."

Perhaps you are an anomaly in regards to left-wing politics.
Based on my experience here in Australia, those with left-leaning philosophies *tend* to focus more on emotional rather than rational considerations.

Sorry to cut this post short.
I am over the filtering nonsense. <exasperation>

To aquafelix.

For some reason, the filter lets your quotes through but when I add to the post, it doesn't allow my contribution. WTF?

Anyway, thanks for your civil reply.

I'm not the only one who is having this problem, btw.
And it only started a couple of days ago.
Go figure.
Hopefully, it will fix itself.