Controversial Behaviour Policy changes

A little tangent. I don't know why...

I remember last year there was a TV programme called Indian summer school, I think. It was about 6 white UK boys, 17-18 years old, poised to fail their GCSEs for a second time. They were taken to the most prestigious private boarding school in India, the equivalent of Eton, to study for 6 months. It was based on research that white working class boys do better in a peer group with asian boys. The idea was that the school environment, the systems and the attitude of the peer group together with good teaching would enable them to improve. To participate, the boys had to be motivated and the parents had to be supportive of the project, which they were.

The project failed because the gap was too wide to catch up in 6 months, but mostly because they boys' behaviour and attitude didn't allow them to take advantage of the opportunity.

For 4 out of 6 months the boys channeled their efforts to sabotaging themselves and each-other. Instead of letting the system to take and carry them, like a current, they fought hard the system and the people that were there to help them succeed. Two boys in particular were relentless in undermining the others' good effort. They defended their right to lie and drink alcohol on campus, to ignore basic sensible health and safety, to not show up for lessons, to be disruptive, to be rude and disrespectful to each-other and to the headmaster, who was passionate about enabling the boys to succeed.

Obviously there wasn't anything draconian or unreasonable in the rules, they were consistent with good work ethic. But they felt they were in goulag of some sort.

Only one out of 6 got 1 good GCSE pass. One boy had to be sent home because the headmaster couldn't guarantee his safety as he would persistently climb over the wall to escape to the indian town for a beer.

At the end I suppose they proven the point that nobody could tell them what to do, to force them to hike up the mountain as a matter of personal achievement, to show up for lessons , to not 'challenge authority'. At a cost to no one else but themselves.

While the fee paying Indian boys purposefully got on with their work of getting into Harward etc.

This 'forcing' DC to stay seated at lunch is a red herring for me. There's no reason whatsoever for DC to move from their seat at lunch, except perhaps to visit the toilet with permission.

In fact, it's a good thing for DC to be taught proper table manners and behaviour rather than running about like animals like some on here seem to want.

MilkyTea20
It's all within reason.

Some parents don't give a shiny shit about uniform and then will go out of their way to pass the chip on their shoulder to their kids and back them being defiant. In those situations Yes, it's hardly surprising you get badly behaved disruptive kids.
Most people (Staff included) will have their own feelings about uniform but acvept it's a totally ordinary part of being in school so follow the damn rules.

Others the rules are excessive, bordering on unreasonable and not needed.
E.g. at one place I worked staff were given a script to use for giving out warnings. It was cringeworthy. I followed it because rules etc only work consistently across the school and had few issues in thay area but other staff had issues of students messing on and then other students parroting the script. In all honesty, the school would have been better having centralised detentions to support staff actually managing behaviour than trying it have robot staff on a script.
Limited free time at lunch is excessive to me. If there's issues at lunch, shorten lunch to half an hour or provide some enrichment to get involved in. Don't kettle kids in a lunch hall and then wonder why they're a bit unsettled after lunch

If even parents don't support school policies, what chance have they got?

Perhaps the school might then have the chance to develop more reasonable policies.

I'm all in favour of sensible rules, sensibly applied, milky

For the rest of it, I'm with Captain Picard.

milky, there's a balance though! I'm all for no-nonsense behaviour policies but this school seems insane. Enforced sitting throughout the lunch break and no hands to even ask a question are utterly ridiculous rules. What do they do if they get stuck?! If they put a hand up they get in to trouble, if they sit doing no work they get in to trouble - barmy.

It's not hard to see why many schools struggle when you see many of the attitudes on this thread. If even parents don't support school policies, what chance have they got?

DS's head doesn't have any of this nonsense. He'd reply with transfer papers and a list of other schools if someone complained about the rules at his place.

Hmm. Nevertheless, if the board receives several formal complaints, and able students like your DS start looking to leave, SLT may have to rethink.

Are you in touch with other parents? A joint letter from a group of you to the governors might be a useful next step.

I would not like this environment for my child.

One of mine goes to a comp which is fairly strict, compared with say my own experiences, it also has a lot of quite petty rules about uniform, speaking and so on and a very elaborate discipline system of points and detentions which has just been made more strict.

On the positive side, though, and much better than the one described here, they do have social time during lunch and break, a lot of sports and other clubs run by teachers who are very open and enthusiastic. My dd feels safe there and the children are well behaved even coming into school as there are teachers outside the route near the school.

My own school had fewer restrictions but the lunch and breaks were fairly lawless and quite scary for well behaved girls (and boys), so it's better than that.

Here I would think about changing schools- have you explored any of those options, I think railing against the system won't work, they are just implementing with a lack of evidence and will probably reverse it in a year or two but that won't help your son.

dootball
I don't think it's as simple as that, but a school with terrible whole school behaviour, where staff were called fucking cunts daily and I was blamed for being assaulted by a student (my fault he assaulted me) was in a more deprived area with low levels of educational attainment over the years, the culture in the catchment was 'anyone says anything to you then you smack them / I didn't do no GCSEs and do alright'.
The school had been like that easily for 10+ years (others locally had been like that for 20).
It was taken over by a chain with a more strict and rigid behaviour policy. Not as excessive as some on here but still pretty strict and clear and followed militarily.
Results have improved since. Staff aren't getting assaulted. Children can learn.

I don't like the really extreme policies but some strict and rigid behaviour approaches are exactly what is needed in some schools. (Anyone who's spent 5 hours trying to teach when you've got 11 year olds effing and blinding about who called so and who's boyfriend and how their mam's going to fucking smack child's boyfriend if he breaks up with her whilst getting told from leadership you just need to engage them will know the chaos lack of discipline creates in a school, namely children don't learn anything).

Central London state schools tend to have a real mix of pupil backgrounds, as there are still lots of families living in council accommodation or on housing benefit (and the rich send their kids private).

This is no excuse for these ridiculous policies, though. Is the school part of a big academy chain? Or did it have weak summer results and SLT are panicking?

I still have a real problem with the way good, normal kids are being punished preemptively for the behaviour of the others. I can't see that as acceptable no matter what. Our school has a very mixed catchment - some areas in out town sit in the bottom quartile for social deprivation, i.e. they are very deprived indeed, but they manage without resorting to these methods. It's lazy behaviour management. Same as hitting children is lazy parenting.

The news from the US horrifies me. My native Netherlands abolished corporal punishment in schools in 1920 - and as a society they seem to be coping quite well.

They spring up, or take over schools in deprived areas - and for me there seems to be a very uncomfortable undercurrent of drilling absolute total obedience into the working classes ready for a lifetime of working without any question or need for a break as they're so attuned to staying in place, eyes forward, do not speak, no arguing back - feels like churning out a generation of robots.
Maybe the reason for this isn't a sinister plot but simply that these schools tend to be in poorer areas, and such measures simply aren't needed in more affluent schools.

Will have to wait and see how successful these schools end of being , because if it works , then other schools will start copying very quickly.

Well, this is bonkers... But I'm sure someone will be along to defend it in a little while.

Meanwhile for the poster upthread who suggested adults in the workplace weren't allowed to do anything other than sit in the canteen during break...

Honestly, what is this country coming to?