With lack of discipline from the younger generation and a lack of options teachers have available to them. Should teachers come equipped with tasers?

LOL.  No, but it would help if their hands weren't tied by petty bureaucrats and whiners. 

What got me thinking about it is that i remember when i was young and yes i did get the cane. I remember it being said they can not use the cane as its not legal to use corporal punishment in Australia. Then i got to thinking well police use tasers as a punishment when people resist arrest to get them to comply so why cant we have teachers do the same.

Lack of discipline with the grey haired carbon denialists, perhaps tasers for nursing homes, to keep them under the thumb is a better discussion.

Tasing is not a lasting solution to  the problem.
More than likely mum & dad will be suing the teachers before the ticks stop as little Johnnie is an angel.
No a better solution would be a handgun.

Fix a problem right, you only have to fix it once.

BlOoDy RiPpEr wrote on Jun 1^st, 2012 at 1:35pm:

What got me thinking about it is that i remember when i was young and yes i did get the cane. I remember it being said they can not use the cane as its not legal to use corporal punishment in Australia. Then i got to thinking well police use tasers as a punishment when people resist arrest to get them to comply so why cant we have teachers do the same.

Police don't use taser's as a punishment, they use it to protect either themselves or the general public.

Teachers have the same right to protect themselves from a student who is dangerous to either the teacher or the other students, but taser's seem are possibly a little over the top  :P

BlOoDy RiPpEr wrote on Jun 1^st, 2012 at 1:35pm:

What got me thinking about it is that i remember when i was young and yes i did get the cane. I remember it being said they can not use the cane as its not legal to use corporal punishment in Australia. Then i got to thinking well police use tasers as a punishment when people resist arrest to get them to comply so why cant we have teachers do the same.

Well because tasers are sometimes lethal and the cane isnt.

SOB

PoliticalReality wrote on Jun 1^st, 2012 at 1:42pm:

BlOoDy RiPpEr wrote on Jun 1st, 2012 at 1:35pm: What got me thinking about it is that i remember when i was young and yes i did get the cane. I remember it being said they can not use the cane as its not legal to use corporal punishment in Australia. Then i got to thinking well police use tasers as a punishment when people resist arrest to get them to comply so why cant we have teachers do the same. Police don't use taser's as a punishment, they use it to protect either themselves or the general public. Teachers have the same right to protect themselves from a student who is dangerous to either the teacher or the other students, but taser's seem are possibly a little over the top  :P

They arent supposed to use them as punishment anyway. I have seen a few newstories lately about how they need to change the way the yank police use them though.
'
SOB

LOL

Nah I've always found it very effective to have a quiet word in the ear of one of their peers to bring them into line, rather than get your own hands dirty.

... wrote on Jun 1^st, 2012 at 1:43pm:

LOL Nah I've always found it very effective to have a quiet word in the ear of one of their peers to bring them into line, rather than get your own hands dirty.

No there's a practical teaching tip right there! :)

of course I'm not saying to give the little kiddies as much of a jolt that police tasers do. If i had it my way we would just bring back the cane, i admit i wanted the cane banned as a kid but as an adult i see why we use to use them. After all i remember often being given the choice of scab duty or the cane, we use to choose the cane.

BlOoDy RiPpEr wrote on Jun 1^st, 2012 at 1:47pm:

of course I'm not saying to give the little kiddies as much of a jolt that police tasers do. If i had it my way we would just bring back the cane, i admit i wanted the cane banned as a kid but as an adult i see why we use to use them. After all i remember often being given the choice of scab duty or the cane, we use to choose the cane.

But when did the police in Australia ever use the cane?

Gist wrote on Jun 1^st, 2012 at 1:53pm:

BlOoDy RiPpEr wrote on Jun 1st, 2012 at 1:47pm: of course I'm not saying to give the little kiddies as much of a jolt that police tasers do. If i had it my way we would just bring back the cane, i admit i wanted the cane banned as a kid but as an adult i see why we use to use them. After all i remember often being given the choice of scab duty or the cane, we use to choose the cane. But when did the police in Australia ever use the cane?

Didnt they have billy sticks? My dad had a billy stick but that was in Saigon and Malaysia.

SOB

The majority of students are well behaved. Of course there are always exceptions to the rule.

These exceptions to the rules will behave in such a way that makes teaching difficult if not impossible.

Therefore we should be able to remove the child from the classroom temporarily and/or permanently. Question is where do we put these children? You look at their history and make a decision. Continued disruption, fighting, conflict etc will certainly paint a good picture of what the child is like.

Create a "special school" for them.

This is where the social apologists comes in and tell us we can't do this because it damages this child....blah blah blah.

Here's the reality check. If this disruptive child is left in the classroom he/she will damage the other 20+ children in the classroom. So are we going to sacrifice the future of 20 children for the sake of 1 child?

Ask any parents and they should tell you - get rid of the one child.

But of course the bureaucrats are too politically correct to take tough actions.

There are "special schools" for disabled children and gifted children so why not disruptive children.

You put all the disruptive ones in the one school then there will be a more focused allocation of resources to help them. If they are scattered then it actually costs more to assist.

So what happens when they are reformed? Nothing! They continue to stay at the school because its the same curriculum. Or if they wish or transferred to another school with the undertaking from the special school that this child has completed his rehab.

Take that and chew on it for awhile apologists

Should teachers come equipped with tasers?

.................................................................

No. I once stole a biscuit from the tuckshop and I'd be dead now if the teacher had a taser.

Quote:

Create a "special school" for them.

Make sure its a private school.

SOB

Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Jun 1^st, 2012 at 2:15pm:

Should teachers come equipped with tasers? ................................................................. No. I once stole a biscuit from the tuckshop and I'd be dead now if the teacher had a taser.

Hmmmmmmm

Can bringing in tasers be done retrospectively?

;) ;D

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 1^st, 2012 at 2:18pm:

Quote: Create a "special school" for them. Make sure its a private school. SOB

Why?

While I agree a lack of effective disciplinary methods is a factor, I think thats just one part of an overarching problem - the shift towards more female-centred curriculum and teaching methods.  One size fits all doesn't work, and this is reflected in the decline in boys grades and the commensurate rise in girls grades over the last 20 years or so.  I never liked the idea of all-boys schools when I was that age, but now I'm thinking it's probably the best option for my son. 

We could always take the easy way out and expel the trouble makers from the school. And that's exactly what smart principles do.

Not having an education is punishment enough, as is evidenced on here.

Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Jun 1^st, 2012 at 2:22pm:

We could always take the easy way out and expel the trouble makers from the school. And that's exactly what smart principles do. Not having an education is punishment enough, as is evidenced on here.

You mean the sort of education that would enable one to know the difference between principles and principals? 

FriYAY wrote on Jun 1^st, 2012 at 2:20pm:

[quote author=65747B667C242C2024150 link=1338520682/14#14 date=1338524133]Should teachers come equipped with tasers? ................................................................. No. I once stole a biscuit from the tuckshop and I'd be dead now if the teacher had a taser.

Hmmmmmmm

Can bringing in tasers be done retrospectively?

;) ;D



I knew someone would be too thick to associate it to a recent event.

Maqqa wrote on Jun 1^st, 2012 at 2:13pm:

The majority of students are well behaved. Of course there are always exceptions to the rule. These exceptions to the rules will behave in such a way that makes teaching difficult if not impossible. Therefore we should be able to remove the child from the classroom temporarily and/or permanently. Question is where do we put these children? You look at their history and make a decision. Continued disruption, fighting, conflict etc will certainly paint a good picture of what the child is like. Create a "special school" for them. This is where the social apologists comes in and tell us we can't do this because it damages this child....blah blah blah. Here's the reality check. If this disruptive child is left in the classroom he/she will damage the other 20+ children in the classroom. So are we going to sacrifice the future of 20 children for the sake of 1 child? Ask any parents and they should tell you - get rid of the one child. But of course the bureaucrats are too politically correct to take tough actions. There are "special schools" for disabled children and gifted children so why not disruptive children. You put all the disruptive ones in the one school then there will be a more focused allocation of resources to help them. If they are scattered then it actually costs more to assist. So what happens when they are reformed? Nothing! They continue to stay at the school because its the same curriculum. Or if they wish or transferred to another school with the undertaking from the special school that this child has completed his rehab. Take that and chew on it for awhile apologists

or just line the naughty kids up at the front of their peers of the class and cane them. problem solved right then and there. the kid being caned realises if it keeps being a wanker his going to cop a cane every time therefore learning to respect authority, and the rest of the class get to learn about it too. this would also see a drop in use of medications for conditions such as ADD and ADHD

So you see the benefits of caning far out way the non use of canes

Respect for authority for not just the kids in school but this respect will last a life time
No need for dangerous mind altering drugs pushed by billion dollar pharmaceutical companies.
Less chance of kids becoming substance abuses on Legal and illegal drugs later in life.

Maqqa wrote on Jun 1^st, 2012 at 2:13pm:

The majority of students are well behaved. Of course there are always exceptions to the rule. These exceptions to the rules will behave in such a way that makes teaching difficult if not impossible. Therefore we should be able to remove the child from the classroom temporarily and/or permanently. Question is where do we put these children? You look at their history and make a decision. Continued disruption, fighting, conflict etc will certainly paint a good picture of what the child is like. Create a "special school" for them. This is where the social apologists comes in and tell us we can't do this because it damages this child....blah blah blah. Here's the reality check. If this disruptive child is left in the classroom he/she will damage the other 20+ children in the classroom. So are we going to sacrifice the future of 20 children for the sake of 1 child? Ask any parents and they should tell you - get rid of the one child. But of course the bureaucrats are too politically correct to take tough actions. There are "special schools" for disabled children and gifted children so why not disruptive children. You put all the disruptive ones in the one school then there will be a more focused allocation of resources to help them. If they are scattered then it actually costs more to assist. So what happens when they are reformed? Nothing! They continue to stay at the school because its the same curriculum. Or if they wish or transferred to another school with the undertaking from the special school that this child has completed his rehab. Take that and chew on it for awhile apologists

Looks good on the surface. No really it does. However there will always be the possibility that some kid(s) will come out worse than they went in. By itself it wouldn't work, penalties across the board need to be harsher, especially for violent crime.

Tasers, no, but there should be a 'Refuse to Teach' clause in every teacher's contract.

If a kid is disruptive, violent or a bully, teachers should have the option to refuse that
kid admittance to the class-room, until or unless that kid 'lifts his/her game'.

Ideally, there'd be another class-room, with a MATURE, NON-PC MALE teacher who's
as strict as an Army RSM, and will DEMAND and ENFORCE their obedience.

With the cane, if necessary....

Deborahmac09 wrote on Jun 1^st, 2012 at 2:43pm:

Maqqa wrote on Jun 1st, 2012 at 2:13pm: The majority of students are well behaved. Of course there are always exceptions to the rule. These exceptions to the rules will behave in such a way that makes teaching difficult if not impossible. Therefore we should be able to remove the child from the classroom temporarily and/or permanently. Question is where do we put these children? You look at their history and make a decision. Continued disruption, fighting, conflict etc will certainly paint a good picture of what the child is like. Create a "special school" for them. This is where the social apologists comes in and tell us we can't do this because it damages this child....blah blah blah. Here's the reality check. If this disruptive child is left in the classroom he/she will damage the other 20+ children in the classroom. So are we going to sacrifice the future of 20 children for the sake of 1 child? Ask any parents and they should tell you - get rid of the one child. But of course the bureaucrats are too politically correct to take tough actions. There are "special schools" for disabled children and gifted children so why not disruptive children. You put all the disruptive ones in the one school then there will be a more focused allocation of resources to help them. If they are scattered then it actually costs more to assist. So what happens when they are reformed? Nothing! They continue to stay at the school because its the same curriculum. Or if they wish or transferred to another school with the undertaking from the special school that this child has completed his rehab. Take that and chew on it for awhile apologists Looks good on the surface. No really it does. However there will always be the possibility that some kid(s) will come out worse than they went in. By itself it wouldn't work, penalties across the board need to be harsher, especially for violent crime.

If we had unlimited funds then we can cater for every child.

At least this way we should save most of these kids

Kat wrote on Jun 1^st, 2012 at 2:51pm:

Tasers, no, but there should be a 'Refuse to Teach' clause in every teacher's contract. If a kid is disruptive, violent or a bully, teachers should have the option to refuse that kid admittance to the class-room, until or unless that kid 'lifts his/her game'.

So what your saying is give up on the child?
think about what your suggesting
A generation of kids becoming unlawful adults creating massive increases in crime and violence toward the general public.
Come to think of it, its exactly what happened over time since we banned the cane.

BlOoDy RiPpEr wrote on Jun 1^st, 2012 at 2:56pm:

Kat wrote on Jun 1st, 2012 at 2:51pm: Tasers, no, but there should be a 'Refuse to Teach' clause in every teacher's contract. If a kid is disruptive, violent or a bully, teachers should have the option to refuse that kid admittance to the class-room, until or unless that kid 'lifts his/her game'. So what your saying is give up on the child?think about what your suggesting A generation of kids becoming unlawful adults creating massive increases in crime and violence toward the general public. Come to think of it, its exactly what happened over time since we banned the cane.

Not at all, quite the contrary. Re-read the entire post.

**Edit: - When I was at school in the 60s and early 70s, many of our male teachers were ex-military.

You misbehaved with these men at your peril. Funnily enough, most of us turned out just fine.

And they tended to be the ones who got the respect, because they earned it. Some remained friends
LONG after I left school. Sadly, most are now long-gone....:-(

BlOoDy RiPpEr wrote on Jun 1^st, 2012 at 2:56pm:

Kat wrote on Jun 1st, 2012 at 2:51pm: Tasers, no, but there should be a 'Refuse to Teach' clause in every teacher's contract. If a kid is disruptive, violent or a bully, teachers should have the option to refuse that kid admittance to the class-room, until or unless that kid 'lifts his/her game'. So what your saying is give up on the child? think about what your suggesting A generation of kids becoming unlawful adults creating massive increases in crime and violence toward the general public. Come to think of it, its exactly what happened over time since we banned the cane.

Parents are not allowed, why should a teacher.
Good question, is the cane considered a weapon?

Kat wrote on Jun 1^st, 2012 at 2:58pm:

BlOoDy RiPpEr wrote on Jun 1st, 2012 at 2:56pm: Kat wrote on Jun 1st, 2012 at 2:51pm: Tasers, no, but there should be a 'Refuse to Teach' clause in every teacher's contract. If a kid is disruptive, violent or a bully, teachers should have the option to refuse that kid admittance to the class-room, until or unless that kid 'lifts his/her game'. So what your saying is give up on the child?think about what your suggesting A generation of kids becoming unlawful adults creating massive increases in crime and violence toward the general public. Come to think of it, its exactly what happened over time since we banned the cane. Not at all, quite the contrary. Re-read the entire post.

I did and a kids not going to lift its game if its kicked out of school. its like suspending students, i remember by time i got to high school the cane was banned. so teachers started to suspending students. only problem was is the kids getting suspending bragged about getting time off school. then after some time i ended up getting suspended, only difference in my case is i didn't get the time off school. both my parents owned a business each. so i had to go to work for the total time i was off school. hours where longer and i didn't get paid. i guess i was lucky to have parents who cared enough to not allow the school to give up and make sure i was punished.

BlOoDy RiPpEr wrote on Jun 1^st, 2012 at 3:08pm:

Kat wrote on Jun 1st, 2012 at 2:58pm: BlOoDy RiPpEr wrote on Jun 1st, 2012 at 2:56pm: Kat wrote on Jun 1st, 2012 at 2:51pm: Tasers, no, but there should be a 'Refuse to Teach' clause in every teacher's contract. If a kid is disruptive, violent or a bully, teachers should have the option to refuse that kid admittance to the class-room, until or unless that kid 'lifts his/her game'. So what your saying is give up on the child?think about what your suggesting A generation of kids becoming unlawful adults creating massive increases in crime and violence toward the general public. Come to think of it, its exactly what happened over time since we banned the cane. Not at all, quite the contrary. Re-read the entire post. I did and a kids not going to lift its game if its kicked out of school. its like suspending students, i remember by time i got to high school the cane was banned. so teachers started to suspending students. only problem was is the kids getting suspending bragged about getting time off school. then after some time i ended up getting suspended, only difference in my case is i didn't get the time off school. both my parents owned a business each. so i had to go to work for the total time i was off school. hours where longer and i didn't get paid. i guess i was lucky to have parents who cared enough to not allow the school to give up and make sure i was punished.

Well, how did you miss this....


"Ideally, there'd be another class-room, with a MATURE, NON-PC MALE teacher who's
as strict as an Army RSM, and will DEMAND and ENFORCE their obedience.

With the cane, if necessary.... "


And when they've learned how to behave, they could return to their regular class.

Who said anything about kicking them out of school.....?

Kat wrote on Jun 1^st, 2012 at 3:23pm:

BlOoDy RiPpEr wrote on Jun 1st, 2012 at 3:08pm: Kat wrote on Jun 1st, 2012 at 2:58pm: BlOoDy RiPpEr wrote on Jun 1st, 2012 at 2:56pm: Kat wrote on Jun 1st, 2012 at 2:51pm: Tasers, no, but there should be a 'Refuse to Teach' clause in every teacher's contract. If a kid is disruptive, violent or a bully, teachers should have the option to refuse that kid admittance to the class-room, until or unless that kid 'lifts his/her game'. So what your saying is give up on the child?think about what your suggesting A generation of kids becoming unlawful adults creating massive increases in crime and violence toward the general public. Come to think of it, its exactly what happened over time since we banned the cane. Not at all, quite the contrary. Re-read the entire post. I did and a kids not going to lift its game if its kicked out of school. its like suspending students, i remember by time i got to high school the cane was banned. so teachers started to suspending students. only problem was is the kids getting suspending bragged about getting time off school. then after some time i ended up getting suspended, only difference in my case is i didn't get the time off school. both my parents owned a business each. so i had to go to work for the total time i was off school. hours where longer and i didn't get paid. i guess i was lucky to have parents who cared enough to not allow the school to give up and make sure i was punished. Well, how did you miss this.... "Ideally, there'd be another class-room, with a MATURE, NON-PC MALE teacher who's as strict as an Army RSM, and will DEMAND and ENFORCE their obedience. With the cane, if necessary.... " And when they've learned how to behave, they could return to their regular class. Who said anything about kicking them out of school.....?

Because you edited your post

Teachers dont need tasers if the male teachers were kept in the field. But that is another whole new topic of similar reference.

Kat wrote on Jun 1^st, 2012 at 2:58pm:

BlOoDy RiPpEr wrote on Jun 1st, 2012 at 2:56pm: Kat wrote on Jun 1st, 2012 at 2:51pm: Tasers, no, but there should be a 'Refuse to Teach' clause in every teacher's contract. If a kid is disruptive, violent or a bully, teachers should have the option to refuse that kid admittance to the class-room, until or unless that kid 'lifts his/her game'. So what your saying is give up on the child?think about what your suggesting A generation of kids becoming unlawful adults creating massive increases in crime and violence toward the general public. Come to think of it, its exactly what happened over time since we banned the cane. Not at all, quite the contrary. Re-read the entire post. **Edit: - When I was at school in the 60s and early 70s, many of our male teachers were ex-military. You misbehaved with these men at your peril. Funnily enough, most of us turned out just fine. And they tended to be the ones who got the respect, because they earned it. Some remained friends LONG after I left school. Sadly, most are now long-gone....:-(

Yep, that'd do it.  Around 80% of teachers are female - surely even the most strident equalitymonger must admit that's significant.

BlOoDy RiPpEr wrote on Jun 1^st, 2012 at 3:32pm:

Kat wrote on Jun 1st, 2012 at 3:23pm: BlOoDy RiPpEr wrote on Jun 1st, 2012 at 3:08pm: Kat wrote on Jun 1st, 2012 at 2:58pm: BlOoDy RiPpEr wrote on Jun 1st, 2012 at 2:56pm: Kat wrote on Jun 1st, 2012 at 2:51pm: Tasers, no, but there should be a 'Refuse to Teach' clause in every teacher's contract. If a kid is disruptive, violent or a bully, teachers should have the option to refuse that kid admittance to the class-room, until or unless that kid 'lifts his/her game'. So what your saying is give up on the child?think about what your suggesting A generation of kids becoming unlawful adults creating massive increases in crime and violence toward the general public. Come to think of it, its exactly what happened over time since we banned the cane. Not at all, quite the contrary. Re-read the entire post. I did and a kids not going to lift its game if its kicked out of school. its like suspending students, i remember by time i got to high school the cane was banned. so teachers started to suspending students. only problem was is the kids getting suspending bragged about getting time off school. then after some time i ended up getting suspended, only difference in my case is i didn't get the time off school. both my parents owned a business each. so i had to go to work for the total time i was off school. hours where longer and i didn't get paid. i guess i was lucky to have parents who cared enough to not allow the school to give up and make sure i was punished. Well, how did you miss this.... "Ideally, there'd be another class-room, with a MATURE, NON-PC MALE teacher who's as strict as an Army RSM, and will DEMAND and ENFORCE their obedience. With the cane, if necessary.... " And when they've learned how to behave, they could return to their regular class. Who said anything about kicking them out of school.....? Because you edited your post

Um.....no.