Advice needed pls - Do you think this teacher is BU, and what do I say to her?

So, predicted an E but almost got a C. Shouldn't son be encouraged to thank his teacher for the role she played in that, rather than cheer at her leaving?
How sad that these days we are so happy to berate and apportion blame but rarely the opposite. That's one of the reasons many good teachers leave, it is seen as a thankless and unsupported job where people are quick to point fingers rather than take responsibilty themselves.

scaryteacher I know that if people had dealt with me by zero tolerance I would have ended up a problem child. I was full of spirit and not prepared to back down. Challenging me did not work, surprisingly what worked for me was when a teacher asked to see me after a class, where I expected to be told off, and she said "thanks for making an effort to improve your behaviour I really appreciate that" when I had not changed my behaviour at all. I was shamed and now wanted to live up to her perception of me.

I am going to quit posting on this thread now because I have lost the argument and with no experience in teaching and so many teachers disagreeing with me, I have to think that I am wrong.

I can see that you are a very committed and enthusiastic teacher from the thought and detail of your posts. I apologize for having a go at you earlier on in the thread, but would like to explain that it was only the comment about bollocks that set me off.

I have gained a greater insight into teaching from your posts and have enjoyed it.
Good luck to you, the OP and her son

Teaching is not about 'management presentations' Clait; it is about getting students through school and hopefully at the end having managed to educate them, and get them their all important exam certificates, without which they are going nowhere fast.

I would have passed the note from the OP up to my HoD or the HoY as they would need this as evidence of consistent disruption, and they would be contacting the parent and thrashing out a way forward for both teacher and student. That is why they get paid management points.

'But I am guessing that the teacher in question doubted her own justification and therefore did not want to face the parents, which is why she didn't reply to the mother. I am also guessing that she probably tried to avoid replying to other parents, and this was creating a bigger growing problem for her as her superiors would have to start getting involved.' Key word here - guessing. You have no direct knowledge of how this was dealt with by the school; the student could have been about to be put on monitoring or report, which means that there are a set of standards that have to be met each lesson and failure to do so means an interview without coffee with either the HoY or SMT for the student.

'Surely if a teacher was ratcheting many pupils up through discipline levels over relatively minor incidents, a superior would have to start asking whether all this was really necessary.' This is precisely what discipline levels are for in assertive discipline policies, leading from a warning up to a detention with the Principal and internal exclusion. Level 3 and above are referred to the form tutor who keeps a running total (level 3 is break time detention) and level 4s are referred to the HoD and are a lunchtime detention with the HoD. HoY keep a track of the Level 4s. Level 5 and above involve HoY and SMT and perhaps internal exclusion.

Some students walked into my classroom on a permanent Level 3, and could avoid a detention by working and behaving. Failure to do so meant that they reached level 4 and 5 more quickly. If they consistently behaved and attained then they came off the permanent 3 and we started again once I felt they had earned my trust.

'Also the fact that he said that other teachers "ignored it" when he put his head on the table leads to me believe that he behaved similarly in other lessons and was not removed and caused no other major problems.' Perhaps, unlike the maths teacher, they had just given up on him.

' "The teacher does not have a problem with the class as a whole, but with one particular student". I am guessing that this was not about one student, but was more likely to be a pattern involving many students, the yawner being another.' I doubt it. As I said earlier, there are always one or two pains in the arse in a class, and all the teachers will moan about them and have the same problems with them.

I am not at all surprised that many teachers thought the OP's son was being rude and should have been sanctioned. We also do not 'fall hook, line and sinker' for a policy. We do this every day so we know what works and what doesn't. I am astounded that you consider rebellious and disruptive behaviour to be the norm and acceptable in school. I certainly don't. Part of what school is about is preparation for the world outside the school gates and learning that one's behaviour has to be moderated to the set of circumstances one is in. If the student still can't moderate or control their behaviour post GCSE or A level, what chance have they of getting or holding down a job? It'll be no use running home to Mummy and complain that their boss isn't being fair when he puts them on a warning for putting their head down on the table when they should be working.

If behaviour is unacceptable the student is warned, and if it reoccurs is sanctioned until the behaviour stops or the student is removed. This allows the other students to exercise their right to learn, and the teacher to exercise their right to teach, which in the final analysis, is the whole point of a school.

I agree that children are more difficult to manage, because they are still learning and exploring how far they can push boundaries, whereas adults will usually have gained the knowledge of what acceptable boundaries are.

But that is also why children are more likely to make mistakes in their behaviour and therefore need to be shown a degree of leniency and understanding.

Really management of employees is NOTHING like behaviour management of children/students, they are completely different skill sets. That is one of the reasons many members of SMT are often rubbish at managing staff, great with kids, rubbish with staff!

Rainbowinthesky point taken, I agree I am not a teacher, and I accept I may be wrong

Claig - not read teh rest of the thread just your last post. I speak as a senior very experienced teacher and you really have no idea of what it means to teach, really you don't.

I have no agenda. I am in management and am therefore interested in management issues and do have experience with behaviour management in so far as I have dealt with many difficult situations with employees. The reason that I first replied to this thread was that I was frankly amazed that nearly every poster could not sympathize at all with the OP.

I think shouting is OK for certain situations, I have been shouted at by teachers in the past and it worked.

Claig - given that you think shouting is a good way to reprimand someone it is eveident that you do not have the faintest clue about how behaviour management works. You have never taught, being taught is not the same as teaching. I would not presume to know better than a surgeon how to operate on the basis that I have had surgery. Your ignorance shines through in your posts and I wonder exactly what your agenda is.

scaryteacher, you are right I don't get it and I am afraid I am unlikely to ever get it, I think zero tolerance is a dangerous mistake that looks good in management presentations, but has no place in human relations.

I agree that I am reading between the lines and making assumptions which could be wrong. I don't think it is the OP's son that caused her to leave per se. I think the way that she has dealt with the OP's son and the yawner are probably minor incidents in a long line line of similar minor incidents with other pupils, who were also probably removed for similar behaviour.

As the mother said, other parents have complained about this teacher, presumably over similar incidents. The teacher did not reply to the mother's note, and probably also didn't reply to other parents' notes, because I think she knew that she would have found it difficult to explain why she removed them for minor incidents. You would have replied because you would have felt confident and justified in your actions because you believe that zero tolerance is a good way to deal with these issues. But I am guessing that the teacher in question doubted her own justification and therefore did not want to face the parents, which is why she didn't reply to the mother. I am also guessing that she probably tried to avoid replying to other parents, and this was creating a bigger growing problem for her as her superiors would have to start getting involved.

I think you would be right to tell a pupil off for discourteous behaviour, raising your voice, shouting to demonstrate the seriousness of the issue, admonishing etc. are perfectly normal and proportionate methods. If someone had sent me out of the class when I was at school, it wouldn't have bothered me at all since I probably would not have liked that teacher or that class. I would have probably seen it as a break and looked forward to my next removal. But I know that it would also have increased my animosity towards that teacher which would have been bad news for both me and the teacher in the future. What I am questioning is, is it worth escalating matters to such an extent over minor incidents? Isn't there a better way to deal with this for both teacher and student?

Surely if a teacher was ratcheting many pupils up through discipline levels over relatively minor incidents, a superior would have to start asking whether all this was really necessary. The mother in the OP did give a damn and asked for an explanation and other parents also complained. Even parents who didn't give a damn about education would probably still complain after their children told them their one-sided take of events.

"Rubbish - how do you know the same children were not behaving badly in other lessons". I ttake the mother's word for it when she says that her son was doing well in other classes, and the fact that he hadn't complained to her about other teachers. Also the fact that he said that other teachers "ignored it" when he put his head on the table leads to me believe that he behaved similarly in other lessons and was not removed and caused no other major problems.

"The teacher does not have a problem with the class as a whole, but with one particular student". I am guessing that this was not about one student, but was more likely to be a pattern involving many students, the yawner being another.

"Eventually she would have to leave for the
sake of her own health.' Again, methinks that you are creating imaginary scenarios to support your argument, rather than knowing anything about the reality of the classroom."
I agree that I am guessing that this is what may have happened. I do not have experience of teaching a classroom, but I do have experience of being taught in a classroom and have seen both good and bad teachers and have drawn conclusions about what works from how successful these teachers were in managing a class. I also had rebellious and disruptive phases when I was at school, so I have a good idea how the pupil would see the situation. At our school a geography teacher had a nervous breakdown and never returned to the school. She was incapable of controlling the class and was in fact the only teacher who removed people from the class over minor issues. We saw this as a sign of weakness in that she was incapable of even controlling minor issues without using this sanction. We also guessed that if she had to remove half the class, then it wouldn't be us who suffered, because the school would inevitably blame her since this was happening in no other class.

"you have to have a set of rules for behaviour in class which apply to everyone, and are consistently and firmly enforced. The students hate inconsistency more than anything else."
I am slightly amazed that so many teachers on the forum couldn't see the OP's point of view and think that a zero tolerance polcy is a good way of dealing with children, because I think that it will do harm to the children and also the teachers and will eventually destroy the ethos of a school. I was glad that there are teachers such as abitchilly who do not fall hook line and sinker for this policy. In my opinion in 10 or 20 years time the experiment, like so many others, will probably be abandoned as a mistake, but in the meantime it will have harmed many children and created a self-fullfing prophecy where the normal noisterous rebellious disruptive behaviour of many children will be escalated so that they are eventually removed and placed on the scrapheap.

I am all for discipline, but where the treatment is fair and proportionate rather than zero tolerance which is a consistent tick the box style of management without discrimination, understanding, empathy or justice. The best way of dealing with people is still the old "do unto others" approach, otherwise if you treat them overly harshly you will get the same in return, which leads to a vicious cycle and ends up helping nobody.

Claig, you still don't seem to get it. Zero tolerance is NOT a quick fix - it is a policy that takes time and effort to become ingrained for both staff and students. It takes huge amounts of effort and support by SMT. The benefits are huge.

I taught in a private school where there were badly behaved kids (I'd taught some of them in the state sector, only to then find them in the private school I had landed a job in), and have seen the reverse as well, and they were, to a boy, better behaved in the private sector, where the rules were spelt out and adhered to, and disruption of any kind was not tolerated.

When one of the boys I'd taught in the private school, then appeared at the comp I'd moved to, his behaviour deteriorated hugely, as the same level of discipline was not enforced. The lad in question did not fulfil his undoubted academic potential because all the teachers were not singing from the same hymn sheet.

You do not know why the teacher is leaving. She could be going on sabbatical for 6 months; she could be going for medical treatment; she could be moving away for family reasons; she could be going to be a Head of Department at another school - you are in no position to make an assumption that she is leaving due to the behaviour of the OP's son. Assumptions are the mother of all f**k ups (as they say in the military).

'the perceived injustice of the sanction which was out of proportion to the original offence.' I honestly don't think that 16 year olds trying to disrupt a maths lesson think like that.

'This would create far greater problems for her in the future as students would seek to undermine her at every opportunity.' Nope - they wouldn't, as she would ratchet them quickly up through the discipline levels/procedures, as I explained earlier.

'Eventually more and more parents would write to the school asking what was going on, and the teacher would be reluctant to
explain herself to the angry parents.' I was always delighted to explain to any parent exactly how their child behaved/misbehaved in my class. I invited some of them to come and watch how their little darlings were in class. You also assume that parents give a damn. An awful lot don't.

'The teacher's head of department would then have to become involved and would draw the
conclusion that it must be something to do with the teacher's interaction with the class that is causing the problem, since the
same children were not having similar problems in other classes, where putting one's head on the table was ignored and did
not lead to escalating bad behaviour. The school would eventually blame it on the teacher and her inability to control the class effectively.' Rubbish - how do you know the same children were not behaving badly in other lessons? Putting one's head on the table IS discourteous and bad manners and therefore IS bad behaviour. If a child felt ill and was allowed to rest their head on the table prior to calling the Nurse that is one thing; but if the OP's son had done that in my lesson, he would have been told off, and if the behaviour continued he would have been invited to explain himself to my HoD and his HoY at break after he had been sent to work for the rest of the lesson in my HoD's classroom, or I had had them removed by SMT. The teacher does not have a problem with the class as a whole, but with one particular student, so you are creating mountains out of molehills. There is always one pain in the arse in each class; however, it does not follow that the class is out of control at all.

'The teacher would then feel abandoned by the school and besieged in the classroom. Eventually she would have to leave for the
sake of her own health.' Again, methinks that you are creating imaginary scenarios to support your argument, rather than knowing anything about the reality of the classroom.

It is no good saying that different students respond to different treatment; you have to have a set of rules for behaviour in class which apply to everyone, and are consistently and firmly enforced. The students hate inconsistency more than anything else.

As for those students who don't want to be in school - internal exclusion can be an answer if they are constantly disruptive and interfere with the learning of those students who want to achieve.

Ah OK echt - sorry, I completely missed your point there!

I think the thing with zero tolerance is that it only works if students would rather be in your lesson than not.

It doesn't work if you're a failing teacher with no respect from the class, & it doesn't work with those students who've already decided that school has nothing to offer them.

mmrred I agree that it can work for the essentially good natured children who will respond to it and adapt their behaviour, but in other cases it can also exacerbate the problem and the consequences of this will boomerang on the teacher.

Different pupils respond to different treatment, the danger of a zero tolerance policy is that it will be used inappropriately and excessively for minor issues in a one size fits all approach

I have found zero tolerance very effective, actually - with certain pupils who don't have effective boundaries at home. Some genuinely don't know that 'no' means 'no' - they have learned that making a bigger and bigger fuss means the authority figure will back down - and they soon stop the behaviour when they realise they won't be allowed to be part of the class if they don't, and that they don't get masses of attention for it, either.

But it is one strategy that has to be carefully thought about.

I think echt makes a good point about lack of support for teachers from the schools.
I think the lack of support is near enough inevitable because if a disciplinary policy is not working,
the school is likely to abandon the teacher rather than follow through with the ultimate sanction of expulsion.
This is because horrific expulsion figures would cause focus to be turned on the school, and the school would be asked to explain
why this course of action was necessary.

It seems to me that schools who encourage the quick fix of a zero tolerance policy are also very likely to abandon the
teacher if it goes wrong. Going back to the OP, the teacher involved is now leaving. I think this could have been near enough predicted
to happen based on the way she was managing the class. The zero tolerance policy gave her a quick fix for her immediate problem
but would inevitably create great resentment towards her, due to the perceived injustice of the sanction which was out of proportion to the original offence.
This would create far greater problems for her in the future as students would seek to undermine her at every opportunity.
The sanction of removing people from the class would become a paper tiger as it would have to be used more and more frequently.
Eventually more and more parents would write to the school asking what was going on, and the teacher would be reluctant to
explain herself to the angry parents. The teacher's head of department would then have to become involved and would draw the
conclusion that it must be something to do with the teacher's interaction with the class that is causing the problem, since the
same children were not having similar problems in other classes, where putting one's head on the table was ignored and did
not lead to escalating bad behaviour. The school would eventually blame it on the teacher and her inability to control the class effectively.
The teacher would then feel abandoned by the school and besieged in the classroom. Eventually she would have to leave for the
sake of her own health.

Zero tolerance is unlikely to work for the most disruptive pupils who don't give a damn, have little to lose, and enjoy the challenge.
If the school embarks on this tactic and is not prepared to follow it through by eventually expelling the pupil, then the school
will be left with a number of disaffected disruptive pupils who are no longer scared of the ineffective failing sanctions that are
used to try and control them.

Even murderers and lifers in prison are not dealt with by zero tolerance, because the prison service knows that they would
then become unmanageable and create a threat to the staff and the security of the prison. Even the police are reluctant
to impose fines on the public for minor offences such as littering because they know that this will alienate the public
and cut the police off from the community they serve.

The policy wonks who dream up these strategies will be the first ones to abandon the teachers when these policies blow up in their faces.
The path that this zero tolerance policy for children leads to can be seen in the following article www.usatoday.com/educate/ednews3.htm

ravenAK -why would you challenge points 1 and 2? I said "without support" - that's the point. It's not the students themselves who are a problem, but the cheapskate government saving money while claiming to be doing the right thing by them.

I'd challenge your points 1 & 2 - students with SEN can be, & are, supported very effectively in mainstream schools, as can students with complex behavioural needs - depends on the student & the situation.

I'd agree with points 3-6.

The rising tide of indiscipline is down to:

1. Inclusion of those with special needs without support.
2. Closing down the PRUs (Pupil Referral Units) and putting the hapless children back in schools without support.
3. Tying the hands of schools by making it very difficult to suspend/expel, but not supporting them in helping the students.
4. Punishing schools financially if they expel (schools end up swopping shite students so as not incur penalties).
5. Arsey parents with an overdeveloped sense of entitlement which does not extend to ensuring their children are prepared to learn.
6. Senior managers in schools who do not back up their staff because of 3, 4 and 5.

None of the above applies to independent schools, who can do what they like, including palming off the behaviour issues they refuse to deal with; and are then held up as models by the government, of how state schools could be if only they could be arsed.

In addition, there's a shift in the general culture which values the individual at the expense of the mass; hence the importance of "self-esteem" divorced from actual achievement on which to base it.

claig Fri 11-Dec-09 10:37:09
"cory there are many successful people who are ruthless cunning arrogant"

absolutely, ruthless cunning and arrogant with charm on tap - that's precisely what I'm saying! not slumping with their head on the table

a boss will go a long way to tolerate a person who gets things done

but that is not what this teacher is asked to tolerate

aaaaand the teacher or a member of the department should have contacted you. I think that's poor.

finished now

abitchilly I agree with you, both methods can work. There is no one size fits all solution. What works will depend on the nature and character of the teacher as well as the nature and character of the pupil.

Different techniques will work for different pupils, and the teacher needs to be able to read the situation and make the correct judgment, which is why it is so difficult.

Oh and a zero tolerance system has to be just that, a system that pervades the school. Support for the teacher must be strong.

Otherwise it simply will not work for all but the most dynamic teachers.

cory there are many successful people who are ruthless cunning arrogant etc. but are still very effective. Just think of the many cases of investment bankers on millions being sued by their employees for the arrogant and bullying treatment that they are subjected to.

Many successful salespeople can turn on the charm when needed, but can be hell to work with for their peers. It takes all sorts and inappropriate behaviour is often excused if somebody is successful or talented.

Success often leads to hubris.

If you read biographies of successful people, you will find many examples where people skills were not their forte, but rather a self-centred drive that is prepared to ride roughshod over other people.

I am a teacher and think claig actually makes very good points.

Scaryteacher sounds like a superb teacher. You don't find people like this all that often. I know a few and am always in awe.

In my early days of teaching I tried to emulate them, but soon discovered I just don't have their sheer force of character.

So I had to develop my own style and it sounds more similar to claig's ethos. However, I think both can work depending on the skills of the teacher.

Realistically, the teacher in the OP sounds like she was managing to fit into neither approach. A lot of the bits of information do sound like a loss of control - trying to be like the first type of teacher I talked about, but failing and not realising the failure.

I know we don't know the ins and outs of this case, but wanted to post because I think both scaryteacher and claig have valid viewpoints that are actually not necessarily in opposition - they can co-exist.

claig Fri 11-Dec-09 07:46:09
"scaryteacher, I agree it is a very hard and often thankless job that you do.

I am intrigued to know, if these techniques and sanctions work, why do we have a rising problem of indiscipline in classrooms, to the extent that many competent people are even put off from entering the profession."

If the Rising Tide of indiscipline was due to over-heavy sanctions, then you would have to show that sanctions were less heavy in schools before indiscipline started rising. Which was probably not the case?