Michaela School and behaviour - AIBU

[herculepoirot2]

AIBU to think that you might read this behaviour policy and think it is authoritarian and unnecessary, but to also think that, with results four times better than the national average, these people might have a point about the benefits to young people of being expected to work hard and behave well?

mcsbrent.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/Behaviour-Policy-11.02.19.pdf

Given the tone of some posters comments on the lines of 'what about SEN, autistic children, dyspraxic children, etc' one would think that they are the majority!

Nonsense. No-one has suggested these children are the majority.

They are not, and a school cannot be run on the assumption that they are.

No-one has said it should be.

However, about 15% of children have SEN of some sort, and what we are saying is that their needs should be met - which is, after all, what the law says. I accept that for some children with SEN a very disciplined environment will be helpful, but that will be a very small proportion. For, say, a child with organisational problems caused by disability, being in a school with a zero tolerance policy for not having the right pens or the right uniform can be an utter nightmare. The law requires that reasonable adjustments be made for children with disabilities; what is so unreasonable about expecting schools to comply with the law?

The law requires that reasonable adjustments be made for children with disabilities; what is so unreasonable about expecting schools to comply with the law?

Honestly? When a law puts the rights of children with disabilities that mean they struggle with structure into direct conflict with the rights of children who need structure, there is something wrong, either with the law, or with the application of the law.

I know I read something by a man who'd visited it and the only thing that jumped out as being overly authoritarian is that at lunchtimes the children were given topics to discuss as opposed to being able to talk freely. I hated the idea of that.

However, I think that the general strict environment of the school is very beneficial for students in the long term.

Nutjobby

I agree with that. The school’s literature says that lunchtime with your teacher is “the perfect time to recap the journey of Odysseus”...

Erm, no. Lunchtime is the perfect time to call your teacher a cock behind their back.

Yes, I haven’t seen evidence that they off roll or undertake illegal exclusions. Unlike St Olaves, which has a rather less challenging demographic...

In fact, most of the schools I am aware of that use underhand or illegal tactics to exclude “undesirable” children are all in naice middle class areas, doing their damndest to remain the school of choice for the local chattering classes through reputation rather than superior provision.

The school’s literature says that lunchtime with your teacher is “the perfect time to recap the journey of Odysseus”

I feel for the teachers. I doubt even they want to recap the journey of Odysseus, let alone try to convince children to do so whilst they tuck into their dinner.

I feel for the teachers. I doubt even they want to recap the journey of Odysseus, let alone try to convince children to do so whilst they tuck into their dinner. grin

Indeed! The sitting together is a price I would pay for the excellent behaviour, but not Odysseus!

You’d definitely have to be a certain kind of teacher to work there 😂 if it’s anything like the local Micheala-ish school that I went for an interview at that means under 30, likely under 25 and willing to put up with staff dress codes dictating hair length and having to wear a blazer at all times. Not for me.

That is a fair point. But if it’s self-selecting, and a group of parents whose children can and will thrive in a calm and purposeful environment want to send their children somewhere to be educated apart from “spirited” children, I don’t see why not

It doesn't quite work like that, though. They have to have a fair selection process, they can't just take the conformist kids. It would be incredibly optimistic to assume that only the children who suit this regime end up there: there will be parents who put the school down just because it's nearby, or because they don't think the child will get into the further school that they actually pay, or because they mistakenly think their kid will be OK.

So those children end up being selected out by other means - they get excluded, or their lives are made such a misery that their parents take them out anyway. But that will be after a period of constantly getting into trouble and a massively interrupted education. I can see a lot wrong with that.

For, say, a child with organisational problems caused by disability, being in a school with a zero tolerance policy for not having the right pens or the right uniform can be an utter nightmare.
Michaela requires parents to be on board with their policies, it is down to them to make sure their child is properly equipped and dressed. If a child is unable to dress himself/herself correctly or put a pen in a pencil case then something has gone badly wrong, or, as I previously said, they should be in a school adapted to their needs.

Tonnerre

They’ll have to use fair selection criteria. I can’t see how they would get round that.

@Tonnerre - would a more efficient way be to provide a variety of different schools so kids can learn in the way that suits them? I guess the difficulty will come in places with low population density which can only support 1 school in the area.

Honestly? When a law puts the rights of children with disabilities that mean they struggle with structure into direct conflict with the rights of children who need structure, there is something wrong, either with the law, or with the application of the law.

The law doesn't do that. It says that the needs of children with disabilities should be met. If that happens, there is no reason why their rights should conflict with those of others, although some compromises may have to be made. It's reasonable to say that you won't punish a child with dyspraxia for untidy writing, or a child with sensory problems for not wearing the school shoes, in just the same way as you wouldn't contemplate punishing a paraplegic child for not standing up when told to do so.

Michaela requires parents to be on board with their policies, it is down to them to make sure their child is properly equipped and dressed. If a child is unable to dress himself/herself correctly or put a pen in a pencil case then something has gone badly wrong, or, as I previously said, they should be in a school adapted to their needs.

So you shunt children away into special schools just because they've got developmental co-ordination disorder and don't always manage to do buttons up properly? Or because they've got sensory sensitivity and can't tolerate standard school shoes? That's massively disablist.

I’m not the only parent of children with additional needs that think a school with clear rules, mob and pack behaviour prohibited, no banter and yahoo-filled classrooms, silent corridors and respecting personal space sounds like a great place to learn.
Imagine no one ramming you into walls, sniggering and yelling insults at you, nicking your belongings...
Imagine when you take learning seriously, have good manners and ask sensible questions and it not making you a target for ridicule.
Oh, and both of mine love The Odyssey and would enjoy having set topics to discuss rather than the incomprehensible minefield that is the usual teen conversation.

1. it is terribly written with unitive and judgemental language and open to huge levels of subjectivity. Positively framed aspirational goals enable people.to perform better and if consistency is expected it should start in the behavior policy with clear examples and expectations.

2. sounds like everyone is running on fear as a controlling variable, at least at first.

3. I couldn't give a stuff about the "results" my kids wouldn't go there to be indoctrinated into some Victorian sense of discipline and order.

he law doesn't do that. It says that the needs of children with disabilities should be met. If that happens, there is no reason why their rights should conflict with those of others, although some compromises may have to be made.

I wish this were true, but according to people here (and I do not agree in all cases but it is true in some) children with learning disabilities can’t stop turning round, can’t keep still, can’t be “obedient”. In other words, to comply with the law we have to let them disrupt the education of others.

Surely not. I don’t think most children with SN “can’t” do things, although I think they often find it harder. But regardless of this, if they cannot follow instructions and let others learn, then yes, the rights of different children stand in conflict. Unfortunately.

Yes, I haven’t seen evidence that they off roll or undertake illegal exclusions

It's right there in their behaviour policy: it says they will exclude children for their parents' actions. That is certainly illegal.

NovemberWitch

That’s my view, too. It sounds much better for the children I have taught with SN.

*It's right there in their behaviour policy: it says they will exclude children for their parents' actions. That is certainly illegal.

Good point. Not sure how they’re getting away with that.

Adolescent are supposed to challenge the status quo. It's their development task. Human development is a marathon not a sprint to deferentially obtained control. Not very future focused education. More a vanity project by the founders.

They’ll have to use fair selection criteria. I can’t see how they would get round that.

Yes, that's precisely my point. It's been suggested in the thread that its rigid policies are not problematic because only children who benefit from them will go there. I've pointed out that, because they have to have fair selection criteria, they can't select only conformist kids. So when non-conforming kids end up there, they are likely to have a very miserable time and may well end up being moved out.

Adolescent are supposed to challenge the status quo. It's their development task. Human development is a marathon not a sprint to deferentially obtained control. Not very future focused education. More a vanity project by the founders.

You will excuse me for saying this but... bollocks.

Adolescent are supposed to challenge the status quo.

What about the vast majority of students who don't? Those who want to learn, want to get on with their work and feel safe in the school environment. Should they have to put up with the minority who disrupt their learning, fight in the corridors and make the school experience miserable. Just because that's what teenagers are supposed to do.

It sounds excellent