rationalskepticism.org

I'm With Stupid wrote:

tuco wrote:

I'm With Stupid wrote:

tuco wrote:Indeed, it's a let's say a curious method. Who OK'ed it, well, who came up with it? I mean, what is the reasoning, what is it based on?

I think it's more based on stopping a kid disrupting the rest of the class, rather than benefiting the disruptive kid themselves. They had it at my secondary school growing up, but I only remember it being used once for about a week. It was basically one step below suspension and definitely not designed to be used for any sort of extended period. And what it would probably mean is that you spend the week doing work in the headteacher's office. But yeah, the main reason for it is lack of funding to have a dedicated staff member to deal with troubled kids.

Out of curiosity, how disruptive one had to be to get isolated? Practical example? My education was during the so-called communist era and I have never seen or heard about isolation boot and I've been pretty disruptive myself.

Apparently, isolation boot philosophy continues to adulthood, right?

I didn't really have any classes that I remember with the kid who was put in isolation at my school, but in the one class we did have together (PE) he was definitely the sort of kid who just spent most of his time dicking about. I don't think it's about the seriousness of the offence as such, more the fact that it went on for so long with no signs of improvement. No doubt they went through countless detentions, and being on report, and meetings with parents before it got to that. But I can't say I know any of the details. But it was a pretty good school, so I don't think they'd do it without considering it carefully.