To think disruptive behaviour in schools is out of hand?

This is why I'm already saving up to hopefully send my son to a private secondary. I'm just not putting him through what I went through in a state school in a deprived area. It was hopeless, pointless being at school, when you couldn't possibly learn because of the chaos all around you. Children deserve better and unfortunately I think schools have their hands tied in so many ways and are often simply unable to exclude children when it's clear nothing helps to improve their behaviour, so everyone else in the class drowns on the sinking ship too. It's a national shame.

I know why they say they’re successful. I have suspicions about why else they’re successful that they’re much less forthcoming about. But I think there’s a place in the education system for a few schools like Michaela, for parents and children who want that. I don’t think applying the Michaela model across the whole secondary system would work and I don’t think they can be held up as the answer to behavioural problems in schools.

Friends Dd was at private school late diagnosed autistic and was displaying challenging behaviour. Her feet didn’t touch the ground - expulsion.

As the mother of conscientious “good” girls half of me felt sympathetic to my friend but then again sympathy runs out when your own child’s education is persistently disrupted…

Privately funded ??? Eh? Who said anything about that?

I worked in the primary school my son attended and this is why I now home educate. I watched him be evacuated from class multiple times, he witnessed police have to come in to restrain a pupil who absolutely destroyed a classroom and couldn't be talked down. On a daily basis, every lesson was dealing with constant low level disruption, the kind that eventually not only affects your learning but grinds you down. None of us would accept working every day with numerous colleagues shouting out constantly that your boss is a useless c*nt, or deciding that today you will be the one hit on the head constantly (yet you're told to just ignore it!) or find it funny to spend every lesson just switching the lights on and off and you be expected to not only concentrate but produce your best work- these are just a few examples.
My boy left six years of primary, more than 3 years behind, despite his effort being reported as excellent. Now I'm not saying the disruption was entirely to blame but it certainly didn't help!
But I am going to say that I felt nothing but sympathy for the main protagonists (some of the kids were just cocky kids who needed a bit of discipline) but I watched others spend most of their days stalking the corridors looking like caged animals. They got nothing from being there and the level of stress and frustration was palpable. Some of this was unmet needs and some was just needing something different. There should be more special schools for learning and SEMH issues but also more vocational style schools, where less academic pupils can go and learn practical skills - they'd get so much more from that environment than being forced into an institution that causes this level of stress.
We also need to accept home education and independent schools as good alternatives to the state offering, instead of the current level of suspicion or envy - parents need to be able to try and do what's best for their child. Until there is a massive overhaul of the education system, these are currently the only alternatives which is thoroughly unacceptable for those who can't access these options.

Where has anyone said that?

My DC needs additional support at his school and gets it. The difference is he is not disruptive or badly behaved. Why, if he was, should the rest of the class have their education ruined?

I would 100% back the school to find alternatives that suit him if that was the case.

I would definitely support that.

Their brilliant reputation is built on failing children. I expect them to support the children, if my child's financially struggling mainstream school can do it I'm sure a privately funded school can.

@Absentosaur I teach a subject (science) that involves setting. It makes a world of difference! Whilst you get some chatting and cheekiness in top sets, it's nothing like the bottom sets where very little learning takes place. Fights, assaults, swearing, internal truancy and vandalism are commonplace. Most students have challenging behaviour, poor executive and cognitive function, poor impulse control, low literacy and numeracy skills and are also hellbent on destroying the education of others. I even have to cut down science practicals because it is so unsafe to do with my bottom sets. I really feel for the lovely kids in these lower sets who though low ability, are earnest, hardworking and respectful and really want to learn some basic maths, English and science.

I have a very high opinion of the Michaela school and if I had children, I would have no problem sending them there if I was in the catchment. They achieve their great success through the deadly combination of a) having cultivated a reputation meaning only parents who have strong agreement/buy-in to the schools ethos around behaviour, expectations, discipline and attainment will send their children there, b) a high second and third generation immigrant intake whose culture/community usually have very pro-education values and stigma around having a child who misbehaves or underachieves, and c) good systems and policies in place with a strong emphasis on traditional teaching methods.

Demographic and intake by far has the biggest effect on the outcomes of a school. The teachers and teaching itself at private schools, grammar schools and state schools are all very similar. That's not the biggest variable. You either select the demographic based on ability and/or financial means or you cultivate such a reputation and ethos that those that don't align with how you want to run your school don't apply there in the first instance.

They're given chances. They get put in smaller classes. They're given support at home. But if they don't turn it around and they continue behaving badly then yes they're asked to leave completely.

The school used to have an awful reputation. Its now a brilliant school with results climbing year on year.

What else do you expect the schools to do?

Well farmers regularly say since Brexit they can't get vegetable pickers.
A 14 year old could do that.
Also get rid if a lot of the red tape that currently means employers struggle to employ under 18s.

Because the government says that all children are entitled to an education and I believe that is in the best interests of society. Lots of children need support be it due to disability, abuse, parental loss, childhood illness. You think that children that have gone through those major life events should be shipped off as damaged goods?

Part of the issue is that schools and class sizes are just too big for teachers to be able to manage behaviour effectively

Other ideas....
More vocational schools from the age of 11 (the few that exist mostly start from 14. That's too late).
At vocational schools a high proportion of the lessons should be physical "doing" lessons and have lots of outdoor lessons.

It’s a difficult issue but ultimately it does come down to how society has changed and many parents don’t instil any rules at home and no respect for “authority” figures. Schools like Michaela are not really the solution because they are not really able to address the issue but instead need to work around it - by having almost prison like rules.

My dd went to a local primary - a school regarded as being very good - and the behaviour was pretty good until year 6, when some children started being disruptive. We were fortunate that we were able to send her to a private secondary that had no disruption, and no draconian rules. Just kids behaving well in quite a relaxed environment. She would have had a nervous breakdown in a really disruptive environment, and perhaps even more so in an environment with rigid rules as her anxiety would have been off the scale because of her fear of inadvertently breaking rules.

i don’t know what the solution is. I think some sort of a societal shift in attitudes and parenting.

Well obviously. But with the steep increase in NEETs recently, I'm not hopefully they will all magically find jobs.

Why is it a mainstream school’s job to ‘deal with trauma’ fgs? They are there to educate children. There needs to be alternative provision for those that cannot cope with education. They should not be allowed to take their trauma out on other kids.

State schools massively pander to the disruptive kids at the cost of the decent ones who want to learn. It's a disgrace.

It’s not the schools role to create good behaviour - it’s the responsibility of the parents.

My DS is one of the disruptive kids (autistic, ADHD, sensory processing disorder, etc). He was thrown out of two schools by age 7 (one independent, one state) for his violent meltdowns, and his behaviour included urinating on a TA and throwing a chair at another pupil. DH and I were at a loss: we both have professional careers, postgrad education and were swots at school, never having so much as a lunchtime detention between us. DS now attends a specialist setting, where he is thriving.

I had to keep sending DS to state school while the LA insisted he was fine in mainstream, despite the above. It took almost 3 academic years before he was offered a suitable place and I fully appreciate that is a lot of lessons disrupted. Parents are between a rock and a hard place, and most of the decent ones feel awful for their own kids and others'. If we take our disruptive child out of school, the LA washes its hands of them and one of the parents has to quit work (plus, in my case, additional caring responsibilities). If we leave them in situ, we are slated for causing disruption to other pupils and making teachers' lives hell. In the vast majority of cases, all we want is for the LA to offer a suitable school place, but we are made to feel like we are asking for the moon on a stick.

Anyone who wants to see less serious disruption in mainstream classes must accept that some (but not all) of that disruption is caused by the unmet needs of SEN children. Meeting those needs is expensive, but essential if all children are to get the education they deserve.

That would be the part where I said if it works for other people then good for them.

No, I deem a good school one that recognises struggling DC, gets them the support they need so that they thrive.

Your alternative, a DC that goes through trauma must learn to bury it or fail. Because their wellbeing is not of interest to the school.