As a parent, would you be happy with this? And teachers?

[ThrallsWife]

article

So some schools in South London are now encouraged to not exclude any students "unless they pose risk to another child". In my nearly 2 decades of teaching , I have had my family threatened, racist remarks made against me, chairs thrown at me, as well as books and various other bits.

Students have had to suffer through lessons dominated by the moods of one or two children, made to sit through countless lessons where learning was impossible because the same regular students would disrupt. Sometimes, not a single student was being threatened, but a whole class had to be evacuated to protect them from the rages of others.

Do we really hold the rights of the few above the rights of the many?

"Teachers will be encouraged to try to understand the reason for bad behaviour by using a "trauma-informed" response and are being told not to take misbehaviour at "face value"."

That is a weak response by any school I've ever worked in. Sometimes the answer is just bad parenting, not trauma. And those who have had severe trauma respond much better to talking to a professional with mental health training, which many teachers don't have enough of - nor the time to invest that would be necessary.

It would stop me from ever working in any of those schools, but I fear that this is the road we will all be forced down sooner or later...

This annoys me! I remember being in primary school and being paired with a boy who had some sort of emotionally unstable disorder & was tasked with calming him down when he was overwhelmed and helping him focus on his work.

That's what I got for being hardworking & getting on with my work - became responsible for someone else!

I have seen the impact a few children can have on an entire class. As a teacher of a large class it is impossible for me to meet their needs as well as teach a full class. I would love to be able to but funding is dire. You feel like you're failing every child every day.

Sort funding out for diagnosed and undiagnosed SEND.

Everyone needs to be taught in a place where they can thrive and for some children that isn't mainstream, or not mainstream as it is now. I wouldn't expect my 18 month old to cope in a Y4 class but that is essentially what we ask of some children - children with similar levels of understanding, emotion control and language. We are not doing the best by anyone to pretend a child who is causing, say, a Y1 class to be evacuated daily should continue to be educated in that setting. OF COURSE teachers will have looked at the behaviour they model, most will have been trying desperately to find a solution. But there is no silver bullet and at what point do the needs of one trump the needs of the remaining 29? (Some of whom will have their own SEND to contend with.)

Its not a case of ‘don’t want to’ but ‘can’t’ in some cases though.

I’m a TA with Y1 and 2. We don’t have enough support staff for every class in our school to have one TA each so I go and support another class once a week’ plus a number of other children who have specific needs. We had a child who had a very difficult home life and whose behaviour was extremely aggressive, particularly towards other children. However he didn’t qualify for one to one support (he behaved quite well the one morning we managed to get a professional in to assess him.) So when he was being particularly challenging I would be pulled across to be with him. That comes at a cost of the child who needed extra support with his SATS preparation not having the one to one time he needed to work something through. And the child I was supposed to do speech and language therapy with not getting it that day. And the child with suspected dyslexia not getting the in-school screening on the day she was supposed to. Not to mention all the children in class who could have done with me just sitting quietly with them to just ensure they could keep up with the work.

We invested a huge amount of time trying to work this all through, mostly with little
outside support as getting the relevant agencies involved was a nightmare. But all that time came at a massive cost to other kids who also desperately needed help
but weren’t violent so ended up sliding down our priority list because the priority had to be to stop the physical attacks.

We wanted to invest but at what point do you say “we can’t do everything. We don’t have the staff or money to employ new staff. And all these other kids pay the price because the one person we do have is always with the violent child.”

And in return for not supporting the children I was supposed to support I got headbutted, kicked and punched

👏👏👏

• A 2020 report by the council found Southwark to have a higher than average exclusion rate. It also found academies would exclude more children than other schools. A separate report, also from the council, found that black students in Southwark were 1.5 times more likely to be excluded than their white counterparts.*

You missed a (quite relevant) bit from the article.

As for the policy I disagree with it, just like I disagree with any other blanket policies.

Bloody hell.
really glad I work in a school where exclusions are used frequently. Sometimes internal ones but often not. If a child is very rude to teachers or violent to teachers or other children a strong message needs to be sent. That message is we do not want children who cannot behave in our school.

The system’s failings have been laid bare by a new report from Southwark Council’s education and business and scrutiny commission, published this month.

It reveals that children from black and ethnic minority backgrounds, those with special educational needs, and children who are eligible for free school meals, are most affected.

Nationally, permanent exclusions have risen by 71 per cent since 2012, with fixed-term exclusions also rising by nearly 54 per cent. In the 2017-18 academic year, 410,000 temporary exclusions were recorded across the country. In Southwark, exclusion rates have doubled in the same period.
Although only 0.2 per cent of children are permanently excluded in any given year, their number are disproportionately represented in the justice system, with 23 per cent of young offenders having been excluded.
And it is not just formal exclusions that are rising. Concern has also been highlighted over ‘off-rolling’ – where children are removed from the school roll and educated at home – often in the interests of the school rather than the child.
The number of children home educated in Southwark has more than doubled since 2017; from 96 to 216 aged between five to sixteen.
Advertisements
Their outcomes are particularly poor. In the 2017-18 academic year none who completed their alternative provision achieved a pass in English or maths – despite a full-time place in alternative provision costs around £24,000 per year, on average, in London.
The report outlines that Southwark Council commissions 100 places at two pupil referral unit sites – Porlock Hill and Davey Street. Shockingly, 91 per cent of children attending them receive special educational needs support.
Two academy chains are responsible for the overwhelming majority of exclusions in the borough: Ark and Harris. It has been suggested the ‘zero tolerance’ approach to behaviour is driving this trend.
The report explains Ark has been engaging with the council to analyse its exclusion rate and how this can be improved but, it notes: “Disappointingly, the Harris chain of schools did not engage with the commission’s investigation.
“Whilst we cannot identify what has driven the exceptionally high levels of exclusions in Harris Academy Peckham, we do hope that Harris schools will work closely with Southwark, and indeed with other schools to bring down rates of exclusions across all of its schools that are under-performing.”
Recommendations from the commission’s findings include a zero permanent exclusion target by 2020, a review into the disproportionate impact on ethnic minorities and children with special needs, improved alternative provision and earlier intervention at primary age, and stronger action against schools that off-roll pupils.

Basically two academy trusts have possibly racist and disablist cultures and policies, so the geniuses from the council decided to tackle it by imposing a blanket policy on everyone. Was further action and scrutiny necessary to solve the highlighted issues? Yes. Is the solution stupid,pointless,possibly detrimental to other schools and pupils? Yes. Is it the easy ,cheap option? Yes. Yes. Yes.

Not much has changed since I went to school in the 90s. Two or three kids just terrorising entire classes, day after day after day. I was a traumatised kid with a terrible home life and my response was to freeze, to pretend it wasn’t happening, because the teachers who were supposed to protect me were getting hit or trying to diffuse the situation. It reinforced the lesson I already had learned - that adults in my life do not protect me, and cannot be relied upon.

I still have significant trauma, and I still don’t trust adults. My trauma was ignored and continues to be irrelevant as MN considers that all violence is down to SEN and that SEN takes priority. Quiet children in the classroom can’t possibly be traumatised too. They can just get on with things, as they’re posing nobody any harm or difficulty. It doesn’t matter how they turn out as adults.

The kids I’m talking about ended up assaulting a female pupil. Still didn’t get expelled, as parents made a point about it being SEN. The girl had to change schools. Presumably her trauma was irrelevant too.

YANBU OP. The answer is more funding but in lieu of that the answer isn’t to throw 29 kids under a bus on the basis of being positive about diversity.

surely Exclusions to prevent violence are basic safeguarding?
Allowing a violent child in class is a danger to the other children. It is not about punishment or whether they can help it due to a condition.
It is about whether the teacher and students (including the violent student) can be kept safe. If this is not possible then the pupil should be educated in another setting.

agree with LadyVic, that NHS staff don’t have to put their own health at risk to treat a violent person. The violent patient would not be put on a ward with others (even if it was better for that patient). I think a no exclusion policy is anti-safeguarding.

The answer to more funding requests has been an announcement today that while teaching staff will be awarded a 5% rise, this will have to come from existing budgets, therefore further slashing schools' abilities to cope with issues resulting in poor behaviour...

This is hilarious 😂 thanks for making me laugh

Its very uncomfortable isnt it. To recognise school funding and funding of support services could make a difference, but knowing there will be less.

The only point I agree with here is your second one about funding. I don’t think you really, genuinely understand just how underfunded education is, always has been, and always will be. We are expected to do so much on a shoestring (my Dept had £500 to spend last year for all resources and developments. One CPD course cost £340 😢).

In my 33 year career, the ONLY time we ever came vaguely close to funding needs being met was the first few years of the Blair government, but that was short-lived.

It's funny that you say this whilst ignoring all of the other children with SEND, and various issues.

But think that its OK for them (teachers and support staff) to experience violence.

Yes the child has rights, but so do the other children and teachers.

What we need is better trained and much better paid LSA’s. It is a highly specialised role that can make or break a child’s early education and should be recognised as such, instead they get paid less than shelf stackers and treated worse.

The trauma informed approach works exceptionally well, but it requires staff and space that schools simply don’t have. There are hundreds (if not thousands) of children struggling in silence, they get no help because nobody has time to breathe, let alone look around. We need more teachers, smaller classes and an acknowledgement that unengaged children do not learn.

If we truly valued children and education we would be funding it.

Sorry but school is for teaching. Teaching. Not social work, not counselling, not therapy, not a detention centre, not a psychiatric hospital, not a charity, not a hospital. Teaching.

Sorry but school is for teaching. Teaching. Not social work, not counselling, not therapy, not a detention centre, not a psychiatric hospital, not a charity, not a hospital. Teaching.

That is a very short sighted view. Teaching doesn't happen in a vacuum. Learning doesn't happen in a vacuum. Kids don't leave their disability,trauma,hunger,fear etc at the door and enter the classroom all ready to learn.

It's not a terrible approach imo.

The problem comes from the fact that there is no funding for the interventions and staff needed to support these children.

That is not the school’s problem. Literally.

That is not the school’s problem. Literally.

Only if you want only well adjusted,happy,healthy children (or at least the ones that can hide their "deficiencies " well enough) to have an education. Short term ,or on an individual level it might seem great. Long term? You'll be complaining about the raise in crime,in social support,homelessness etc. on your doorstep.

Well no, because as most of the pps on this thread have said, in the current climate NO-ONE is getting a proper education, not just the disruptive children.

Teachers are teachers. Not psychologists, counsellors, doctors or prison officers or security guards.

Teachers.

It is the schools problem. Literally. Because the government puts a series of expectations on schools from Keeping Children Safe in Education, The SEND Code of Practice to the Equalities Act, the requirement for pupil premium strategies.
They cant just decide not to comply with any of it.

So the best possible outcome for the child experiencing bad parenting, is to punish the child even more by screwing up their education, too? Bad parents and bad quality education. What could go wrong...