Excluding disruptive pupils allows us to teach
I agree it would be better if we did not have to exclude children, but her suggestion of merely monitoring the situation does not help a teacher in the classroom with a disruptive pupil.
Some pupils can stop a class being taught effectively by their bad behaviour. By excluding them, teachers can get back to teaching. This is, after all, what they are paid for. If there were a professional back-up system for disruptive pupils, they would not have to get lost in the system.
In the same edition, in the News Focus on lawsuits, one of the "key cases of 1997" was that concerning six children who were given leave to bring a High Court action requiring the local authority to give them a "suitable education". Why is it that all the rights seem to be given to the parents and children? Why can a local authority or a teacher not sue a parent of a child who is so disruptive that he or she stops or slows down the teaching of a whole class?
I totally accept that we, as teachers, have to raise standards, but then we should be able to do this without children being allowed to disturb our lessons, for whatever reason.
ANNEKE BIBBY, 9 Stanley Grove, Ruabon, Wrexham