AIBU to be shocked by language used by head teacher?

[LargeGlassofRed]

Dd2 came home today and said the head had lost it and ranted at them calling them 'antisocial low life scum' ! Am I overreacting to think this is totally unexceptable?

CancellyMcChequeface

I also don't see the problem with believing what children say until you have evidence to the contrary. Investigate the situation to make sure it's not a misunderstanding or exaggeration, yes, but distrust by default seems very unfair if the child in question isn't known to be a habitual liar.

I really hope that you are never called to do jury service.

School children lie, here are some (anecdotal examples)
I wasn't speaking (after they were calling out across the classroom)
I am not eating (said whilst spitting out half chewed crisps)
Its not my litter (after being seen to drop it on the floor)
I wasn't drumming (whilst still drumming)
I didn't hit the locker (whilst still hitting the locker with a bottle of ice)
I didn't hit X (after been shown on camera hitting X)
I didn't take X, Y or Z. (after they were seen doing it in person om and on camera.)

I could go on.

these don't include the misinformation that child can spread by not listening.

the examples given up thread include
Teacher said I was stupid. Teacher said that they were acting in a stupid manner.
the couch potato one etc.

the way to respond to all of these is to have a full investigation with an open mind and not go in believing in absolutes.

BoneyBackJefferson

I never said that children were all little innocents incapable of lying. I used to work in a primary school and some of your scenarios are very familiar. What I said was that the presumption that all children lie, and about everything involving school/teachers, is wrong.

If I see a child dropping litter and they say they haven't done it, they're lying - very poorly. If I just see litter near a child and they say it isn't theirs, it's wrong for me to assume they're lying and it is, because other children have been known to both lie and drop litter. That particular child may have done neither.

What I said was that the presumption that all children lie, and about everything involving school/teachers, is wrong.

But no one has said that all children lie, what people have repeatedly said is go and find out what happened.

And believing that the child is always telling the truth is as bad as believing that they lie.

The behaviour, in setting off the alarm, or messing around in the emergency evacuation was reprehensible. However, no teacher should be using the phrase 'low-life scum'. Scum is on a similar level to calling someone a pig or a cow - not swearing as such but downright rude. Plus it is a very 'classist' thing to say.
A good rule of thumb is that if you would find something an unacceptable thing for a pupil to say to a teacher then it is equally unacceptable the other way round.

I'm so glad and find it refreshing to see so many on here on hearing that their child had either set of false alarm or had been messing around during the evacuation - and got called scum - wouldn't be thinking it's the HT who needs a word in their ear.

Teens do bloody stupid things at times - they need to learn those stupid actions can have life threatening consequences.

A good rule of thumb is that if you would find something an unacceptable thing for a pupil to say to a teacher then it is equally unacceptable the other way round.

That's really not a good rule of thumb. For example, a child telling a teacher to attend to their personal appearance is unacceptable, but it isn't the other way around.

Personally, I think the teacher was correct and moderate, frankly, and if my child is ever spoken to in school for being even near such behaviour she'll be thinking about not coming near me because that would be mild to what she'd get at home. What a display. Shocking.

The idea that the teacher should have the time or inclination to patiently explain why this is disgraceful behaviour to teenagers is ludicrous. Surely anyone over the age of six can reason this one out.

People who would do something like this are scumbags and maybe it's no harm for them to hear it.

I'm not sure that I agree 'scum' is classist.

'low-life scum' is though.
There are plenty of other ways that the ht could have expressed exactly the same level of anger without using such words.

Mrs DustyBusty, to clarify, I'm talking about the language used to express things, not the subject matter.

I just don't think those words are disproportionately harsh or inappropriate. And I don't think teenagers should always be shielded from the genuine effects of actions such as these. There is a point where you need to say that if you do these things, other people will react and it will be the natural, foreseeable consequence.

If it were up to me, setting a fire alarm like that would be an arrestable offense and some off the cuff remarks would be the least of their worries.

If you think that the response to actions such as these must be measured and polite to people who have no excuse not to know better, you're minimising such actions and I wonder why?

The response should of course be proportionate: I totally agree about it being an arrestable offence. But using language like that is unprofessional and diminishes respect.

They knew it was wrong when they did it. It wasn't a mistake.

The headteacher has much more to worry about than parents who would rather avoid the issue of the actions of idiotic teens, than admit they have acted in a way that could potentially endanger life in more than one way.

He was clearly shocked by their disregard for all that is decent and decided to tell it like it is.

Good on him.

My DDs head of sixth form used to call them scumbags fairly regularly as a term of affection. They loved him.
Maybe I should have got him fired

Get a grip OP
Probably not his finest hour but as many posters are saying - schools are absolutely in their knees

On their knees

Of course "low-life scum" isn't "classist"

Your interpretation of "classist" is a bit basic.

It's main usage is generally with the word Tory inserted.

If my children had told me the Ht had called them that I would have told them that setting off fire alarms is really stupid. And that's that. I don't blame her for saying it. Sounds like she's just had enough.

It probably disrupted a GCSE and/or A level exam. That's a nightmare for everyone.

I'm really interested to know how OP's daughter reported this. Because it doesn't even sound like the daughter was upset or anything, just reporting some school drama to mum!

Erm OP I think you're really overreacting. It's not a big deal.

Stop blaming teachers and HTs for reacting to ridiculous, rude and yes, anti-social behaviour! If my kids did anything like this I would come down on them like a ton of bricks - not have a go at the teachers!! Beyond ridiculous. Its attitudes like that that are gradually taking away authority from the schools to deal with such issues.

You do realize that the schools are charged a fee for the fire brigade attending school? Around £500 here - which is charged to the parent of the child setting the alarm off.

I work I need a school. I was idly wondering a few weeks ago if another fire drill was due. Last year we had three at least, this year only one.

This thread has just given me a eureka moment. We can't afford it.

Cheery thought, eh?

in a school, obviously...

I'm with the head, taking away the fact that it's a criminal offence to mess with any fire fighting equipment and taking into account that their actions potentially resulted in fire brigade attendance the individual who set off the alarm is low life scum

1hamwich, you do know that for fire drills the fire brigade does not need to attend?

1hamwich4

The Firebrigade is told of the times of the drills so are aware of the situation.

1hamwich, you do know that for fire drills the fire brigade does not need to attend?

Well goodness me the great big red truck and blokes in yellow hats must have been playing dress up then.

But thanks for the patronising head-tilt. Not.