Advanced search

Michaela School and behaviour - AIBU

(988 Posts)
herculepoirot2 Fri 23-Aug-19 10:36:28

AIBU to think that you might read this behaviour policy and think it is authoritarian and unnecessary, but to also think that, with results four times better than the national average, these people might have a point about the benefits to young people of being expected to work hard and behave well?

Tonnerre Fri 30-Aug-19 08:20:22

Those weren't fines, noblegiraffe. The councils were clawing back funding relating to the pupils in question.

SansaSnark Thu 29-Aug-19 21:30:24

I agree that more and well funded PRUs are the answer for some children. Some PRUs make a real difference to the lives of the students that attend them, in a way that possibly/probably isn't possible in mainstream school. It's also a very different environment and so they can deal with some things in a way that just wouldn't be possible in a mainstream school.

Exclusion doesn't have to mean the end of the road for a student- it should be the start of a process of rehabilitation in an appropriate environment- whilst ensuring the safety of everyone in the mainstream school.

noblegiraffe Thu 29-Aug-19 01:00:41

Do they not fine routinely any more? They used to back in the day

Actually sounds like the sort of thing Gove would get rid of.

Tonnerre Thu 29-Aug-19 00:17:01

Schools are fined for permanently excluding pupils too, and aren’t exactly awash with money to do this!

Only if they refuse to reinstate having been found to have acted unlawfully or wholly irrationally in relation to the exclusion. It's a power the is used very rarely.

herculepoirot2 Wed 28-Aug-19 21:01:53


But it’s a good one. Lots of people fall into the trap of thinking firm behaviour policies and funding are mutually exclusive. They are not. I want to see funding AND firm behaviour policies. That necessitates different solutions for students whose behaviour seems outside their control.

Teachermaths Wed 28-Aug-19 19:00:05

There should be more and better funded PRUs. They should be available as a "choice" when leaving primary school to students who are referred by primary school. They don't need to be called PRUs, support or small school... Just somewhere that actually properly met the needs of students who need a smaller, calmer environment.

Currently mainstream schools are failing students due to having to deal with so many conflicting issues in one room. Mainstream doesn't work for some students, the classes are just too big. I agree that PExs have reached the point of being almost unachievable in most schools. Most schools don't bother anymore because it's not worth the hassle. Being fined for PExing a student is a false economy. It should lead to that student attracting extra funding to attend a smaller school. Obviously this is a pie in the sky idea currently.

SmileEachDay Wed 28-Aug-19 18:34:09

And in some cases, because there is fuck all support, a PEX and time in a PRU is the only way extremely troubled youngsters have any chance of success. They simply can’t make it work in mainstream.

SabineSchmetterling Wed 28-Aug-19 18:19:44

Bloody hell. How can a whole LA have a zero exclusion policy? That is mind boggling. Maybe the extra power for HTs to exclude is needed after all. I’m not against inclusion but there has to be some limit to what schools are expected to tolerate. How can you keep your pupils and employees safe if you cannot exclude students who have been repeatedly violent to other students and to staff?

SmileEachDay Wed 28-Aug-19 18:08:04

Our LA (currently in special measures) has a “zero exclusion policy”.

They’ve not told us what the alternative is and funding for one of our only remaining outreach services for vulnerable families finished in July.


Piggywaspushed Wed 28-Aug-19 18:04:09

I don't know myself tonnerre but it is paperwork and procedures related.

noblegiraffe Wed 28-Aug-19 17:57:26

Schools are fined for permanently excluding pupils too, and aren’t exactly awash with money to do this!

Tonnerre Wed 28-Aug-19 17:49:50

What technicality, out of curiosity, Piggywaspushed? Governors aren't supposed to work on technicalities, and Independent Reviewing Panels can only quash a permanent exclusion on judicial review grounds, which are considerably more than technical.

MoltoAgitato Wed 28-Aug-19 17:23:39

Our LA will make a HT’s life not worth living if they PeX. We are in the middle of a primary PEx - it’s taken years to get to this point, children leaving the school left right and centre because of one child and if their behaviour and language was a film we couldn’t show it to our children as it would be at least a 15 rating. Staff regularly punched. Children hurt, even with specialist 1:1. And the LA have threatened and blustered and refused to support and finally our Ht has had enough. It’s nearly broken out extremely experienced HT. Child has seen numerous medical professionals who all say no diagnosis. Guess what, parents are complete arseholes. It took us 5 terms before our HT finally PExed, and blow the consequences the LA are threatening.

Piggywaspushed Wed 28-Aug-19 17:20:59

Perhaps you should have sat on our panel then which overturned ours on a technicality so we now have a violent and abusive student back in our school...

Tonnerre Wed 28-Aug-19 17:16:39

I've sat on exclusion panels. Unless it was accidental, in self-defence or a reaction to deliberate provocation, I would have no hesitation in upholding the permanent exclusion of a child who broke another child's nose.

SabineSchmetterling Wed 28-Aug-19 17:10:24

Wow! Must depend on the local area. We’ve had PE upheld for less than that and because we were undersubscribed until a few years ago have taken our fair share of kids who were permanently excluded from other schools, they have usually been excluded for less than that too.

Piggywaspushed Wed 28-Aug-19 16:56:45

We have just had an exclusion overturned. Can't go into details but more than one violent incident.

SabineSchmetterling Wed 28-Aug-19 16:27:17

We’ve never had any issues with PE for kids who have been violent. We don’t use PE often but in my 10 years at the school there have been a few. Breaking someone’s nose would get a PE and would not be overturned on appeal here. Ofsted didn’t have any issue with out PE record when they visited either. Who is stopping HTs from excluding violent kids at the moment?

Hidcote Wed 28-Aug-19 13:02:53

A year 8 girl in my dcs' school kicked a teacher. The girl continued at the school. The teacher left sad No SEN/difficult home life as the girl was in dd's class at primary school.

noblegiraffe Wed 28-Aug-19 12:57:47

The kids I know of who have been PE have had years of serious incidents on file. Schools have to show that they have given the kids every chance, every possible intervention and support before expulsion.

herculepoirot2 Wed 28-Aug-19 12:42:47

We had students involved in full on organised brawls not permanently excluded. Pushing or threatening members of staff resulting in an afternoon in isolation. The net result is students walking round damaging property, abusing each other and adults, not learning anything except how to dominate others, and ultimately passing into a life of frustration and failure.

It isn’t hyperbolic to call inclusion tragic, in some respects. Obviously in others we need it, and children need it. But someone has to apply some common sense and lateral thinking to it.

noblegiraffe Wed 28-Aug-19 11:54:02

I would have thought that’s a PE in any school.

I’d be surprised if breaking another kid’s nose resulted in a PE in any school.

BelindasGleeTeam Wed 28-Aug-19 11:49:12

Welcome to reality.

This kid intimidated classmates, staff and his parents too.

Twenty years ago he'd have gone on PE. Not any more.

Inclusive education innit? He has "anger issues" and some SEN related to his emotions. So he gets to beat kids up and not be chucked out.

And school is almost powerless. They tried everything to help this lad. I know how much work the SENCo put in.

SabineSchmetterling Wed 28-Aug-19 10:36:07

Belinda shock
How is breaking someone’s nose anything other than a PE?
If it was a totally out of character incident from a kid with real mitigating circumstances (e.g. extreme provocation or sudden family tragedy) then perhaps I could see a longer FTE being appropriate but under any other circumstances I would have thought that’s a PE in any school. I’m genuinely shocked that it isn’t. Who’d want to send their kid to a school where someone can break your nose and be back in class with you in less than a week?

BelindasGleeTeam Wed 28-Aug-19 08:28:59

Absolutely. Heads need not to fear exclusion.

Example: year 10 kid starts full on fight. His first punch breaks other kids nose.
Three day exclusion.

To me that's two weeks, governor disciplinary and on last warning before PE.

Can't do it. Kid has "anger issues" (no shit!) and dominates the year group through fear.

That's where we need efficacy.

Join the discussion

Registering is free, quick, and means you can join in the discussion, watch threads, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Get started »