Zero Tolerance, No Excuses...what should happen to pupils who can’t behave?

GnomeDePlume

They are two very different things.

Being sworn at
and
being in the vicinity of someone swearing.

Sorry, it's very late, so I haven't had a chance to read all the comments, but the children of two friends of mine were royally fucked up by a school that came down very hard on them for minor misbehaviour. Totally separately, but both children had suffered their parents separating just before they started secondary school and then they soon became labelled as bad by the school. They ended up spinning out of control for a good few years.

There needs to be control and discipline is schools for everyone's benefit, but there also has to be pastoral care.

Whether it mattered would depend on the whether the sanctions for swearing at or being heard by a teacher were different.

Does zero tolerance allow for a 'court of appeal' within the school?

No opportunity for a student to say that homework got left at one parent's house and student had to stay at the other parent's house at no notice?

No opportunity to say that the student needs to be home on time to look after sibling as single parent has to get to their evening shift/visit sick relative?

No opportunity to say that there are other, bigger, things than school going on in that student's life?

I'm lucky, my DCs are lucky. Their home life isnt chaotic. Throughout their school days there has been a parent at home to take up any slack. They have sailed through school without incurring a single detention between them. But that does not mean that I dont see that this isnt the case for all of their friends.

That's the problem with zero tolerance, it hits hardest on the students and families who are struggling to keep the show on the road.

GnomeDePlume

That doesn't matter, because we both agree the swearing is unacceptable.

Pengggwn and BoneyBackJefferson, you have read the situation differently so interpretation is taking place.

With zero tolerance there is no opportunity for the student to explain why the homework got forgotten or why the parent is so frustrated by the detention.

GnomeDePlume

but in some situations it can be down to interpretation.

Parent cries 'I'm going to make your life difficult and you will lose your fucking job' and slams down the phone.

I pass on to my line manager (who explains that abuse is not allowed and they will have to deal directly with them) and I refuse to take further calls from an abusive parent.

No interpretation required.

Parent cries 'oh ffs' and slams down the phone.

I pass on to my line manager who explains the rules of the school

No interpretation required.

I accept that swearing in front of them and swearing at them aren't the same, but 'oh FFS' is swearing at them. It isn't just that they happen to be there, you are swearing because (in your eyes) their answer is frustrating. Again, would you speak to anyone in a professional context like that?

Absolutely being sworn at or threatened is unacceptable but in some situations it can be down to interpretation.

This is the problem with zero tolerance. A situation may be far more nuanced than the bare facts portray. Not allowing the context to be considered can escalate what was a misdemeanor up to a serious offence with long term consequences.

Yes there is a difference between being sworn at and in the presence of.

but being sworn at or threatened is not acceptable, yet some parents do so knowing that teachers cannot respond in the same way.

Would you recognise that there is a difference between swearing at and in the presence of?

Take this situation:

Student has forgotten homework. Teacher says '1 hour detention'. Parent phones school to say the student cant go into detention for a reason (eg no bus to get home or student needed at home to look after sibling). Teacher says 'no exceptions allowed'. Parent cries 'oh ffs' and slams down the phone.

Has the parent shouted/sworn at the teacher, the situation or the problem created by their offspring?

GnomeDePlume

Try swearing at the doctors receptionist or the Dr.

On a help line to a call center.

At the police, why should teachers have to put up with it?

GnomeDePlume

But still unacceptable. I'm not there to be shouted at and sworn at, full stop.

But often 'Feels like they are not being listened to' actually means 'Can't get their own way, because what they are demanding is completely unreasonable'. And parents shouting and swearing at staff is unacceptable and should not be tolerated under any circumstances, regardless of how articulate someone is or isn't and regardless of context. Lord knows there are enough things driving teachers out of the profession, without being expected to take abuse from parents as well as kids.

The problem is that 'rude', 'difficult', 'disruptive' etc are all subjective. As are 'reasonable' and 'unreasonable' behaviours from parents. Context can be very important.

It is easy to say that shouting or swearing are unacceptable at any time but for a student or parent who feels they arent being listened to and may not be as articulate as the teacher this can feel like the only way of being heard.

I'm not talking about parents with genuine concerns (although some parents appear not to know how to communicate genuine concerns in a reasonable manner). I am talking about arseholes.

youarenotkiddingme, I don't understand why it varies so much. I sometimes wonder if the school are frightened of the father of the child who assaulted my grandson.

But 'difficult' parents aren't always difficult. They are perceived that way because they are questioning the school.

The school I mentioned above that's 'driven out 7 Sen pupils on 18 months has done so by creating situations where the parents have to fight and they can say they are difficult and relationship has broken down.

2 examples i can give.

1. pupil was having 1hr intervention. Had been having it for 5 months. It was going fine and not once was it mentioned they couldn't manage it. That intervention had been 1hr at previous school too. When child needed 2 other interventions and parent got it agreed after fight they decided to declare they couldn't manage the hour intervention - so they put all 3 within that hour slot. Parent questioned it and was accused of being difficult and trying to falsify D.C. Sen. (Eg make out it was worse than it is)

2. pupil has FT 1:1 named on EHCP. They were struggling with having 4 members of staff over the week. In meeting agreed that he particularly responded well to the Male and they'd try only 3 different lsa to reduce transition. La were present at this meeting as AR. Half hour after meeting parent sent new lsa timetable - with 5 different staff members and the one he responded to well was removed. Parent contacted la and school via email to say "this was agreed, x timetable not acceptable." La also contacted school. School sent parent letter from their solicitor saying they were on initial warning for being aggressive and making staff lives difficult.

I'm am parent 1. My ds now at different school on EHCP and I don't have to have that much contact with school or 'be difficult' because they do what's right and best.

Actively trying to exclude difficult pupils is happening all over. 99% of the time - support and some tlc would solve the issues.

Eolian, I think you are right. This child's father is well known to local police, who knows what he sees and hears. (Husband is retired Police Officer so knows many local criminals by name/sight.) I am sympathetic to him but also the other 29 kids in the class, particularly the group of boys he targets.

You're quite right, and I didn't think you meant learning didn't matter too! It is very difficult to deal with aggressive and disruptive kids. Even when you are very sympathetic about the reasons for their behaviour, it is hard to balance the needs of the individual and the many. In some cases the reason for poor behaviour is simply poor parental role models.

Eolian, sorry I didn't mean that losing learning time didn't matter, just baffled by the schools attitude to this boy's behaviour. He is 11 and has no idea about consequences because there aren't any. If he ends up in prison because he seriously hurts someone I think the school will be partly responsible as he is growing up with the idea that it is OK for him to behave like this. Excluding him might not be the answer, I don't know, but he needs help and the other kids need protecting.

Agree with Eolian and Peng and Peach

Definitely. I feel the same about serious disruption to lessons though. The other children have a right not to have hours of learning time wasted every week.

I think there should be zero tolerance for violence. Picked GS up from school last week, he was upset but wouldn't tell me what happened until we got in the car. A boy in his class, who has attacked several other children during the term, had smacked him hard round the face, you could still see the red mark Nothing happened to him as "he is unhappy and has anger management issues." I'm sorry the child is unhappy and I hope he gets help with his anger management but the other children have a right to feel safe.

a policy to exclude those students and parents who are remotely difficult to deal with.

But with the exception of SEN, why should teachers and other students have to put up with 'difficult' (read rude, defiant, disobedient, argumentative) kids? And that's before we consider why we should have to deal with 'difficult' parents! Manners and reasonable compliance with reasonable rules / why the heck not?

It depends what you mean by difficult or non-conformist tbh. And what you mean by 'exclude'. Permanently excluding or refusing to engage with the difficulties of a child with SEN or parents with issues at home - unacceptable. Systematically excluding pupils temporarily from lessons because they are (for whatever reason) disrupting the lesson or being rude, aggressive or abusive towards students or staff - totally acceptable imo.