Doesn't sound like things are going too well on the other side of the pond:
Nearly half of the country's secondary school teachers have suffered mental health problems due to worsening pupil behaviour, a survey has revealed. The research, by the Association of Teachers and Lecturers, on 300 secondary school teachers, showed that abuse at the hands of pupils had left 46 per cent taking antidepressants or facing long lay-offs from school through stress.One teacher told researchers he had been assaulted 10 times during 18 years in the profession and had suffered two breakdowns. He said he had been on antidepressants for more than three years as a result.
The survey also revealed that 72 per cent of teachers had considered quitting their jobs because they were worn out by some pupils' persistent disruptive behaviour...One in seven (14 per cent) said they had suffered actually bodily harm from pupils. However, in many of the cases, the school had turned a blind eye to abuse and failed to exclude the pupils involved.
I'm wondering how this sample was chosen. Was it random? Or were inner-city schools more likely to be chosen? Also, the article mentions 300 teachers researched, but does that mean 300 surveys were returned? Out of how many sent out? Certainly, an emotional topic like this could have produced quite a self-selection effect, if only the teachers who are completely fed up with things were the most likely to respond.
Interestingly, the Association of Teachers and Lecturers have voted, at their annual conference, to oppose the idea of 200 private academies being set up to replace inner-city schools. The ATL claims that the public sector could run these new private academies, but at the same time they claim their hands are tied in dealing with their own students. It sounds like they view the suggestion of private academies as a way for the best students to be siphoned off, while the problems with public schools go untreated.
Posted by kswygert at March 23, 2005 11:12 AM