Harsh Times at Yarmouth High. New Head introduces new rules including sick buckets in classrooms.

[HelenaDove]

Posted this on another thread but i think it deserves a thread of its own.

HelenaDove Mon 11-Sep-17 21:06:41
www.edp24.co.uk/news/education/phones-confiscated-for-weeks-and-sick-buckets-in-the-classroom-tough-new-rules-at-norfolk-school-1-5188326
Add message | Report | Message poster HelenaDove Mon 11-Sep-17 21:08:44
“You never lie and make excuses like, ‘I just wanted to put something in the bin’. We all know children say things like that to get out of work. You never pretend to be ill to get out of work because we expect you to work through it. If you feel sick we will give you a bucket. If you vomit - no problem! You’ve got your bucket. That’s probably all your body wanted - to vomit. If you are really ill we will make sure you get all the attention you need."

JESUS WEPT.

They do seem to be taking the 'there was a misunderstanding' line. What's the problem with just appologising and saying we got it wrong? It's not like it looks like anything other than they've backtracked so nobody is fooled.

At the moment I suspect he's in massive danger of alienating the supportive parents, who've already been blamed for the school having let their children down. And those really aren't the parents you want to remove their child from the school because you've rubbed them up the wrong way.

I simply don't get the outrage.

Yes, some pupils might have SEN. The document is not directed at them. Yes, some pupils might really have a stomach bug. The document is not directed at them either.

Yet do-gooders start beating their breasts and talking about discrimination and bullying and who suffers in the end? Yep, those kids who are actually trying to learn and those kids who might stand a chance if they were in a less chaotic environment.

Lady, the document was directly directed at all pupils, whether they had SEN or not. In fact, had you bothered to read the document, you would have seen that. You might also have been capable of understanding that the rules would make life extremely difficult for a wide range of pupils, even those who want to learn but have difficult home lives or live in poverty.

Calling people who have experience with both children with SEN, children living in poverty and with the arbitrariness of academy rulebooks "do gooders" and suggesting that raising legitimate concerns is "beating their breasts" is over egging a cake you've been baking all by yourself. The inference in your last paragraph is that children with SEN and those with difficult home lives are not trying to learn and are creating a chaotic environment, although, I would hope that isn't what you meant!

The new rules are much clearer and, while they still discriminate against children in poverty and those with SEN can probably be worked around, the original rulebook was utterly ridiculous.

Lady - did you not see - a child with autism whose care plan clearly states he is unable to make eye contact, was disciplined for not being able to make eye contact.

I think perhaps the problem is that posters are assuming that the Michaela way involves having high expectations and punishing children for disruptive behaviour. And that those objecting to the system don't agree that rules should be upheld with consequences for misbehaviour which is backed up by SLT.

I wonder how many of those parents would agree if their child ended up in detentions for what most people would think was perfectly normal behaviour.

I wonder how many of those parents would agree if their child ended up in detentions for what most people would think was perfectly normal behaviour.

I admit that some of the stuff about sitting up straight, tracking the teacher, smiling politely etc makes me uncomfortable. But then I am a privileged middle class person whose children would never have been in the slightest danger of ending up at a chaotic, dangerous, failing school, precisely because of my privilege.

As social animals, a lot of our behaviour and attitudes are influenced by the norms of the culture we're moving in, even though we like to think it isn't. This is even more true of teenagers than of adults.

In a school or classroom culture, there are two main possible influences on that culture: the adults/teachers, and the peer group.

I think there's a lot of validity to the argument that if the adults don't take responsibility for setting the norms of 'normal' behaviour in a school, the peer group will become the primary influence. And in some schools that will mean that 'normal behaviour' becomes bullying, aggression, hostility to authority, and a refusal to behave in ways that will facilitate learning.

So, in a school like Great Yarmouth, how far should should the adults in charge go to counter the influence of that peer-group led culture on behaviour? Because that's what the whole SLANT and politeness thing is about, I think - to displace poor behaviour habits by creating new ones, and to turn the power of the peer group away from being a negative influence on behaviour and learning, and try to make it positive.

Are they going too far? I don't know. I do know that I'm uncomfortable making that judgment from my position of privilege.

People don't seem to appreciate that even if the rules in the original document were reasonable (and some weren't) the tone and manner in which they were delivered was totally unacceptable. Teachers as 'unquestioned authority'? I'm not saying that teachers shouldn't be obeyed when they give instructions, but as someone who grew up in the Catholic Church, the words 'unquestioned authority' make me feel very uncomfortable, and rightly so. Thankfully they've removed those words and sense has prevailed.

The original document was not supportive, it demonised children and, tbh, there was an unpleasant impression left about the person who wrote it.

And it has left me wondering what the rule book at Michaela is like.

Yes, some pupils might have SEN. The document is not directed at them

You're only assuming that, because that would be crazy. Unfortunately as shown by yesterday's posts, you'd be incorrect.

Now are you outraged with the rest of us?

"Yes, some pupils might have SEN. The document is not directed at them. Yes, some pupils might really have a stomach bug. The document is not directed at them either."

The whole tenor of the document was to assume that any given pupil is lying until they have proved differently.

So in the case of the stomach bug, you first have to prove you have a stomach bug- now how are you going to do that? By throwing up, evidently. In the front of 29 of your classmates. That will be a pleasant experience and I am sure nobody will show any revulsion or ever mention it again...

In the case of SEN, are you aware how many years it tales to get a diagnosis for many types of SEN or SN? Before that, the assumption will be that you are lying. And even after, in the case of pain or other invisible symptoms, how are you going to prove that you are in pain on any individual occasion?

The latter was the situation of my dd. It took several years to get a diagnosis and though the consultant was kind then enough to come into school to explain her condition (which causes severe chronic pain, amongst other things), the one question asked by the staff at this meeting was "how will we know she is in pain?" The consultant looked completely bemused and replied "she will tell you" (dd was 10 at the time so hardly a baby). But their assumption, you see, was that unless you could prove that you were in pain at that specific time, you were lying. They repeatedly told dd that they did not believe she was in pain.

Eventually this attitude of suspicion and the fear of not being believed got to dd to the point where she was terrified of going to school in case she had a flare-up in class. Her secondary were kind and supportive, but she was still obsessed by the idea that people would think she was lying. One day I was at the dentist for emergency treatment when her taxi came. She couldn't handle the fear and took an overdose.

From his pov, dd's first HT did have a point: there was an attendance problem in the school. Maybe quite a few pupils were lying. But the a priori attitude that they all were nearly killed one child who certainly wasn't.

But I am sure they would have said "oh, but it's not aimed at SEN children". It was just that in any one actual case, they assumed that the SEN wasn't really there or wasn't really serious enough to need any accommodation.

Still think some of it is bomkers , not sure I'd enjoy saying 321 Slant every lesson!

Cory - you have explained so well why this approach is so, so wrong.

I hope your Dd is in a better place now.

Posted too soon I meant to say a better place mentally.

Blimey cory that's dreadful, I'm so sorry your family went through that.

You are right, the automatic assumption that a child will be taking the piss can have unpleasant consequences.

I have in the past (and will in the future) gestured to the bin if an obvious piss-taker says they're going to be sick (e.g. they've already tried to get out of class 5 different ways), but it's not the default.

Sigh. Of course there will be outliers. And I hope they will be treated sympathetically.

But if 20 kids say they feel sick, should the "sick bucket" thing be abandoned because one pupil, one day, might truly be on the point of vomiting? I think a teacher can tell the difference between someone looking distinctly green and a jack the lad theatrically doing a sick impression.

For the zillionth time you are not helping children by expecting nothing. It reminds me of when I was a governor and I tentatively raised the issue of music in school. The children (primary) were played 90s and early 2Ks pop music (clearly teachers' choice) coming into assembly and at lunchtime. I suggested a wider range of music - bit of tuney classical, folk, jazz - anything really. The Head gave me a death stare and replied that "The children cannot access classical music." Keep the proles down and all that.

For the zillionth time you are not helping children by expecting nothing

Who is expecting nothing? No one is saying you shouldn't have rules. No one. Stop arguing against a straw man.

The sick bucket thing isn't the important thing here.

The eye contact, tracking & punishment for essentially being shy/unconfident is a major, major issue.

As a former drama teacher that's not the way to increase oracy & communication skills.

Also tracking the teacher thing as a teacher would drive me mad. I often speak from the back or side of the room, while asking students to look at the board at the front.
I can see more how this worked at Michaela as they built it from y7, but they are going to have so much trouble on their hands with the older pupils here.

I went through my whole secondary school life struggling. I got help for being deaf but that was it - I had zero confidence and was found 'odd'.

Considering I've only just been diagnosed with autism at the age of 38 no I wasn't odd.

Obviously provision wasn't made for my social communication needs - and I still bear those scars mentally. Which is why what is happening here bothers me so badly.

My eldest is at an academy who are amazing at providing support but then they have a specialist autism base on site. Unfortunately he cannot access this as the local authority persistently refuse to issue an ehcp but the pastoral ethos is amazing for it - far better than the local 'outstanding' schools which are not academies.

So my issue isn't academies per se. It's the complete disregard for making adjustments for disability.

The eye contact, tracking & punishment for essentially being shy/unconfident is a major, major issue
Yes i hate that

Crikey, the story about the autistic child who was sanctioned for lack of eye contact gets worse. The parents were called in for a meeting, the HT says he won't implement the EHCP as it's not fair on the other children, 'tested' the child's eye contact and sent them home again when they cried and punched a wall.
The meeting was apparently recorded by the parents who are seeking legal advice.

What is the aim here? Does he think that autistic people can just stop being autistic?

Or does he just want the parents to remove the kid?

He must WANT to be prosecuted under the Equality Act.

cory im sorry you and DD went through that

That poor poor child. I hope the authorities come down on the ht like a ton of bricks and make an example of him to show other schools that echps are to be taken seriously. DS has autism and struggles even with a supportive school. This kind of school would make him suicidal and I don't say that lightly.

I think I remember bits of your DDs issues with the school from years ago, cory I hadn't realised it had got that bad. to you both.

WTAF, noble. Actually that's not that surprising. That's the reason my line manager gave me for removing my reasonable adjustments at work. I hope he gets hit with the full force of the law.

I'm convinced that he has to have been the one who wrote that induction booklet. There can't be that many complete twats in the school, surely?