Violent children should be stopped regardless of other factors

I was having this exact discussion with a friend who works in education the other day and we were talking about when we were at school in the 90s, there was definitely kids with additional needs looking back but if they were disruptive they were sent out of the room, we were not evacuated. They were included with everything at school but they were not allowed to disrupt everyone else. When we went to secondary school there was a class that the disruptive kids could go to for set periods of the day for lessons. None of the exists anymore and I know from first hand experience of the trouble my DD is having with an undiagnosed boy (waiting for diagnosis) at her school yet it’s me who gets pulled in when she dares to stand up for herself or his family kick of for the 100000th time this week

AR was actually in a pupil referral unit for a while after being excluded from mainstream school for bringing in a knife. Apparently his teacher there was convinced he would kill someone, as he’d said as much to her. But when she raised her concerns with the authorities she was accused of racial profiling.

I was seated waiting in my bank recently when a woman came in with a boy, clearly her child, he was large, probably 10 or 11 years old. She seated him next to me, but quite quickly he started to kick off, shouting, getting underneath the chair, swearing and then kicking. I moved away as he was getting scarily close to kicking me - she plainly took umbrage at my daring to move away, and without me having said anything she started to give me a loud lecture on how he was autistic so it wasn't hus fault. I tried really hard to ignore her and carried on trying to read my newspaper, but no, she was determined to tell me off, even though the boy was so out of control he was trying to hit her at this point. I'm afraid in the end i simply told her that was not my problem, and luckily it was my turn to be seen so i could escape the 2 of them. She plainly didn't care that had he kicked me in the violent way he was behaving he could have injured me. Nope, she just wanted all the people near us to know what a bigot i was. My bad clearly.

Smacking worked, like it or not. The demonisation/illegality of smacking has directly correlated with a rise in violent children. As has the rise of so many children being diagnosed with psychiatric issues which so many parents use as an excuse to stop being parents as they have an excuse for why their child is the way they are.

I’m not convinced about this because let’s face it nothing has improved and kids seem to be more violent these days in educational establishments with no consequences

Indeed.
We have a nephew who was allowed to do exactly that with no repercussions.
Until he got punched back ... by our son, who was given instructions permission should he start to do exactly the same back.
He gave our son a very clear berth after that - ASD or no, on that day consequences were learned.

Widespread evidence shows that smacking raises more aggressive kids. You have taught them that physical violence is acceptable as a way of communicating something or getting what you want. Physical violence against kids is not a way to prevent physical violence by kids.

If of course ARs parents had attempted to get help given what actually did happen and based on my experience with an unwell child would they have got an?

I suspect not

I agree except i think parents need to face consequences in more extreme situations. If I had a dog that attacked someone, I can go to prison, yet if a parent lets their thug child attack someone, there is no consequence for them. Why are dog owners expected to have more responsibility for an animal than parents have for their kids?

Money needs to spent, from where I don’t know. But I am happy to pay more taxes for a better society.
Because without help they might end up in prison when adults

I think both are important. Violent children are not destined to become violent adults and it’s in all our interests for that not to happen. Our prisons are already overcrowded, after all, and, as has been pointed out, very few are sentenced to whole life orders anyway.

But yes, I agree that the other children should be protected in the classroom. Ideally, there should be more specialist provision rather than just throwing more children into mainstream to sink or swim.

Maybe also stop threatening to fine parents in some extreme circumstances? Then maybe at least some parents with violent children will feel able to take them out of school, which is often what posters on these threads say they should do?

And obviously make it easier for schools to suspend /expel violent children. This would be easier to achieve if there were more specialist provision for problem children.

Is it in a young person's best interest to be a repeated victim of a violent thug and forced to continue to share a classroom with them day after day? No? Then we should stop allowing it to happen. That's the priority.

I sometimes turn the thing on its head.

Is it in a young persons best interests to become involved in crime?

No

So it should be treated as a child protection issue and appropriate action taken

Our primary has an inclusion base. I don’t know much about it but it can only take 16 children full time and maybe accommodate 10 others in mainstream safely. I believe it’s for those on the autism spectrum with EHCPs.

I’m sure you could triple the amount of spaces and it would still be a drop in the ocean for our large city. I don’t know what the answer is.

I understand your stance better now. Scotland policy on this isnt great.

Yes the white paper suggestions for England do seem shortsighted all round.

Ik, Labour are gung ho on implementing the same.

I am very sorry this happened and your childs school sounds terrible. Are you in Scotland?

One of the many reasons we went private schooling. These types of kids would be kicked out.

You are incorrect in your assumptions. Victims are a huge part of what is done here too. Many want their perpetrators to do better - to be better members of society, they want justice but that doesn’t always look like locking people away.

but as you say they will come out and if this is what’s done, they will offend again. But that’s ok, if they only do it every few years?

there are very few people on whole life sentences who won’t come out at some point. It also costs an exceptional amount of money to keep someone in custody or sectioned. Public costs would go up hugely - are you willing to pay this? It would not be small increases in taxes etc it would be HUGE.

then it would be ‘I’m not paying to keep these people’ - they can’t pay towards it or for it themselves if they aren’t allowed to be part of society FYI. What do you suggest then?

Your view/argument is a very much ‘I don’t care’ but also screams of an ‘I don’t understand’ how the system or people work.

if we can rehabilitate people they can then contribute towards society, both socially and financially. This is actually largely successful overall. It’s not possible with everyone, no, there will always be some exceptions, but they are fewer and further between than you think - they are just the ones who make the media.

Your way of doing things would see all those people who could be rehabilitated turning into more of the people who can’t due to the experiences of what you suggest is done to them. You would actually make the problem larger on scale of people, and with so many in and out constantly, you’d end up with an almost constant stream of some of them committing offences and as a result more victims.

Your time would be better spent offering it in some of these areas to get an understanding of how it actually works. You can volunteer to work with victims, if you don’t want to go anywhere near ‘these children’

This. Often too many parental excuses, and education excuses, as to why they cannot educate and discipline even younger children. . While other children are left to deal with constantly being worried about being injured. 🤷‍♀️

^This 100%. We’ve been begging for help for our adopted DD1 (17), she’s been on waiting lists for a long time now. She has violent meltdowns, though thankfully not at school. (Though we made the tragic mistake of underestimating the damage to DD2 (14) of witnessing her meltdowns over the years, she’s now living with my DSis and her family.)

I would like to point out, though, that it isn't as clear-cut as violent child vs victim. My DD1 has also been a victim of bullying in school, like a lot of ND children. Particularly of another girl with SEND in year 11.