"Isolation booths" - normal?!

honestly I find the staff tend to be fair because the kids behave well so are happy to not log in a detention for a forgotten pen because they know it's genuine.

Exactly. A strong behaviour policy allows more kindness from staff to students: "Okay, Elsa, I know this is the second time you have forgotten your pen. Here is a pen. Please give it back to me at the end of the lesson. Next time it's a detention."

Fair play? I think so.

These are not new. We had these when I was at school. Work was certainly not provided and kids would just end up silent reading. 🙄

I really do doubt though it's for things like forgetting a pen unless it's a shambles of a school and behaviour is a mess so a head has been appointed to go in and sort it out. I work at a school that has a zero tolerance policy and honestly I find the staff tend to be fair because the kids behave well so are happy to not log in a detention for a forgotten pen because they know it's genuine.

strict behaviour policy, universally upheld, including isolation of disruptive pupils= learning possible in lessons.

weak, unsupported behaviour policy, no isolation, no same day detentions = learning not always possible in lessons.

I thank God my children were in a zero tolerance school.

If you want your children made to behave, send them to a zero tolerance school.

If you don't, don't bother, don't waste our time, we can do without the parents who don't support the idea of strictly upheld good behaviour. Of course, they are the ones who's children would benefit the most, and who's children are most likely to underachieve, and sabotage other people's life chance too.

The idea behind strict behaviour policies is not to be a bastard to kids because you are an insecure person. It's to expect the same high standard of behaviour from all students, regardless of their background, because being able to behave and present yourself well is a life skill - one that some students do not get taught at home. High expectations of every student, and belief that they can live up to those expectations, not just writing them off because "he's a boy" or "he's from a bad family". From what I have read, these schools usually have very strong pastoral support for students who need it - they're not just shouted at and left to get on with it.

As I've said further up, I would not choose to send my child to a school like this. But I can see some merit in what they're doing.

Tom Bennett, the government's behaviour advisor, is worth reading on this, even if you don't always agree with him.

Ok you guys might be happy for your kids to go to a zero tolerance policy school but I'm not.

Okay, but if by 'you guys' you are including me, I didn't say anything in support of zero tolerance. As I said before, I don't think anybody has said students should be isolated for forgetting their pen.

TeenTimesTwo

I agree, but sometimes (for example in situations where there is endemic poor behaviour) professional judgement needs to be 're-set', with a period of senior intervention in a problem area. Teachers are only human like everyone else and can be beaten down so that they expect poor behaviour and stop challenging it as they should. In those situations, a behaviour lead really needs to set the tone of students being expected to do as they are asked to do, every time.

Pengg I agree, advert is a firm to be kind, not 'you can't be kind'.
However a zero tolerance, no excuses approach doesn't seem to leave much room for professional judgement.

and basically said that if you were a kind nice person or disnt believe in putting a child in isolation for not having a pen it wasnt the job for you!!
Not quite the same as what's actually in the ad.

The role is not suitable for someone who wants to be every student’s best friend, who may be willing to accept excuses for poor or disrespectful behaviour, potentially damaging the future life chances of children from any type of background, however challenging."

It also states this. Whether or not you agree with their approach, they are not asking for an unkind person. They are asking for someone who believes the kindest thing is to be firm, not to be nice, in order to allow learning to take place in a culture of respect. Not unkind at all.

The advert states: "If you believe in a strong, ‘tough love’ approach to discipline, no excuses and that children should be respectful and obedient at all times then this may be the role for you.

Right. Exactly my point. That does NOT say if you are kind, this isn't the right role for you. Does it?

free Note this made the news because it is so unusual.

www.bournemouthecho.co.uk/news/15360437.School_where_pupils_are__named_and_shamed__in_the_hallway_wants_to_hire_director_of_isolations_and_detentions/

The advert states: "If you believe in a strong, ‘tough love’ approach to discipline, no excuses and that children should be respectful and obedient at all times then this may be the role for you.

Pengg I remember that school, it was discussed on the Secondary board. The summary is pretty much as I remember it in terms of gist.

But - as much as I understand that people might not remember - I didn't ask for the gist. Often, when someone gives me the gist of what was said, then I look at what was actually said, I don't agree that the gist was accurate. That's why I asked.

Our school has a positive system, the pupils get stamps for every lesson but if there is minor disruptive behaviour they don't get a stamp but get a letter e.g. 'E' for missing Equipment or 'L' for late. Missing more than X stamps in a week results in detention.
Rewards for getting 1000 stamps in the year, y11s have to get a certain number to attend prom.
Seems to work well, and tutors & parents can also see issues starting as we have to sign planners weekly.

Pengg I remember that school, it was discussed on the Secondary board. The summary is pretty much as I remember it in terms of gist.

But they should not be used as a routine punishment for trivial things - I'm kind of disturbed by the teachers on this thread defending that as its really annoying when people forget pens.

But nobody - nobody I can see anyway - has suggested that a child should be bunged into isolation for raising their hand and saying, "Excuse me, can I borrow a pen? I have forgotten mine."

Have they?

freegazelle

And I struggle to see how forgetting a pen or uniform breaches is disrupting the class. Thats beyond petty.

I love the pen one its a classic.
If a child has forgotten a pen they normally find a way of gettint one that doesn't disrupt.

However, you have the 'forgot my pen every lesson' children, these are the pupils that have been given pens yet lose them between classes.

It starts quite simply
Teacher is starting the lesson. Talking to the class
Pupil is making noise going through bag
Teachers stops. asks if they have a problem
Pupil response 'no.'
Teacher goes back to teaching
Pupil talks to mate,
Teacher stops and asks for silence
Pupil continues to talk to mate
Teacher pulls up pupil
Pupil, I was asking for a pen,
Teacher 'you should have one, it will wait till I finish'
Pupil is now out of seat "asking others"
Rinse and repeat as the pupil escalates until the teacher removes them form the room.

there are different variations of this but the pupil always claims its for the same thing
'I was just getting a pen'

Then there is the parent/teacher aftermath but lets not go there.

ScaredPAD

'Basically said'? Or said? What did it actually say?

Local one is zero tolerence - they advertised for a "head of isolation " and basically said that if you were a kind nice person or disnt believe in putting a child in isolation for not having a pen it wasnt the job for you!!

So if a student was patting about: first warning, second warning, time out THEN collected by on call behaviour manager & removed to the sin bin...

If you were still being disruptive having been dispatched to top set y7 or whatever, then the teacher in that room would message the office & you would be removed to the isolation room.

How much lesson time is wasted following this policy, not in one class, but in two?

With a couple of exceptions, it seems that the "this isn't what I pay my taxes for" posters on this thread are basing their opinions on what they've seen on TV or read somewhere rather than on experience.

Schools will have a behaviour policy as described by a PP. Non-persistent low level disruption is dealt with by the teachers, in the classroom, day in, day out. Then there is a clear path of escalating sanctions with internal exclusion near the top. Internal exclusion removes the student from the classroom where they are disrupting the learning of the other 29 students ( as well as their own). They work quietly on the work provided by their teachers, under the eye of a member of SLT.

It's actually a massive faff to staff internal exclusion rooms and provide and mark the work provided; it's not done just to save teachers the bother of dealing with lost pens in the classroom.

The above applies to your average state secondary. I know there are a new wave of zero tolerance behaviour policy schools and, while I can see pros and cons in their approach, I wouldn't choose to send my own child to a school with those policies in place.

I think teachers should deal with it, not just put a pupil in a booth all day. Its part of a teacher's job surely.

It is definitely part of my job to issue a consequence for poor behaviour. BUT if the student chooses to ignore that consequence, what should I do?

Let's say I give a student a 15 minute detention for persistently talking when I am talking. Student refuses to attend that detention, so I escalate it to a 30 minute after school detention. Student refuses to attend that detention, so I escalate it to an hour SLT detention. Etc. At some point they will end up in isolation, ostensibly for talking in class, but actually for their utter disregard for my authority and that of the school. And that is absolutely fair enough.