To think this is outdated and needs to be removed?

[ballybean]

My son's school has an all glass isolation room in the hall with three desks, children are put there as punishment? Teachers and students walking passed

I'm with you op

Might as well get 3 dunce hats and stand them in a corner. I think it's wrong. Humiliating and does nothing to gain trust.

Reinstate Sure Start, early years interventions, family support, Children's Centres and adequately fund children services so they can support children and families.

It's no coincidence that funding for all these initiatives were massively reduced, then stopped, circa 2010/11. Now, 14 years later - the lack of family and early childhood support has created this monster - or lots of little one's, depending on your viewpoint.

Slow hand clap to the Tories who dreamt up these genius money saving ideas.
Thanks guys.

@ZebraDanios I was kind of being facetious with the meeting room!

@Begsthequestion as a kid, I would rather have died than misbehaved enough for a detention. And thus far, three boys, oldest in Y10, and none of them have had detention either.

But as I'm clearly thick as shit - can you explain to me how a dunce's cap is the same? These kids aren't being put in a room alone because they are unable to write legibly or can't master times tables. They're being put in there because their behaviour is so bad they are impacting the rest of the class. As a parent of children in lower sets, where poor behaviour is more common, I'd actually welcome a harder line for those kids that are stopping my children from learning. If said kids find it embarrassing to be in a glass room away from their peers, maybe it'll prompt them to change their behaviour. It's all well and good saying that X is needed and Y costs money - but until those things are resolved, how do you actually suggest all children in schools are getting decent learning when there are some who are constantly disruptive? I mean, it kind of feels like you're doing a disservice to all the teachers out there who have tried all the other methods but are basically at the end of the line.

The hyperbole is ridiculous on this thread. Disruptive children are being sent to sit in a room away from the children who want to learn. That's it. But this is being called barbaric and abusive. Really?

I suspect, as others have said, that the room is surrounded by glass so that the children can easily be supervised, as well as for safeguarding purposes which protect children and staff (either from abuse or allegations of abuse.) The humiliation aspect is a side effect, not the intended purpose.

Anyway OP, you have contradicted yourself several times on this thread. You said that your child wasn't sent there, then said he was a couple of times for tardiness. You said it was humiliating, then said that your son didn't feel humiliated. You said that it doesn't work, then explained how you helped your son to overcome his tardiness and he hasn't had to go back in there again. You suggested detention as an alternative, then said that you don't think detention works.

I personally agree with a PP that it's stupid to give punishments for things like a pin in the wrong place, or being pushed into another student, but that's a completely different conversation about how strict the rules should be, not what the consequences should be for breaking the rules.

My opinion is that fewer rules that are strictly enforced is a good balance, but again, different conversation.

There are plenty of 1st world countries that can control/remove disruptive children without using humiliation which is proven not to work. I guess the UK really is sick of experts though.

If you want to reread my comments, you will see that's incorrect. I said my son got DETENTION twice, he didn't feel humiliated because it wasn't in a glass room, the detention didn't work, what worked was us using positive reinforcement (plus a telling off) and consequence at home) by letting him earn his pocket money, he only got it for days he was on time. I don't think detention works at all. Especially the detentions our school give which is lunchtime detention.

I think my anger comes a lot from the schools rules as well as the fact they are using humiliation to punish. Like a previous poster said, schools vary so much on school rules and what they consider an offence.

My secondary school was considered strict at the time. But suspension was kept for very serious rule breaking, fighting, bullying, abuse towards teachers, mitching, smoking in school etc.

My sons school give detention/suspension out so much that it loses its power. Appearance, hair too short, hair too long, facial hair, wrong shoes, wearing wrong jacket. A neighbour of mines son was suspended for writing his name under a table. Obviously they get suspended for fighting, bullying etc but mainly menial offences. Another friends son was suspended because he got punched/bullied and attempted to defend himself by pushing the other boy back.

A few years ago, the vice principal had a class and accidentally said a sexual inuendo, the class all laughed and they were all suspended and made write an apology for sexually harnessing the teacher. A few of the parents refused the apology but were still suspended.

So while people are talking about social issues and raising future offenders, I'm talking about normal teenage misbehaviour.

Of course a child should be put out for disrupting a class. I'm not saying they shouldn't have consequences for their actions. But I don't agree with humiliation, it doesn't work. It's not so teachers can observe the children. It's to humiliate.

Another poster said it's the same as having a glassed office for meeting. It's not the same. It would be like if a worker was cheeky and was put a glass room on display so everyone passing knew they had fucked up.

Apologies OP, you're quite right, I did misread your posts and incorrectly assumed when you said "he got them..." that you were referring to times in the isolation room as I'd missed the previous post about lunch time detentions.

You did still suggest detention as an alternative though, whilst then going on to say that detention doesn't work.

Like I said, I agree that punitive measures for minor infractions seem to be unnecessarily "nitpicky" and unhelpful, but I still think the pearl clutching about kids being seen publicly after misbehaving is ridiculous. They're not being abused, and if they feel uncomfortable, maybe that will be a deterrent in future.

Out of interest, how do you know that the purpose of this room is humiliation? Have the school explicitly stated this?

Very true.

I don't think m detention works for my
Kids and it seems that all the same kids are in detention over and over again. Possibly because they mainly do lunchtime detention in our school and they aren't allowed out for lunch anyway so doesn't really hit them hard. Actually my other son has gotten morning detention and it works better because it's more effort, they have to come into school 45 mins early which is crap so they actually avoid it more.

No sure they don't mention the isolation room, you don't see it at open night. I only know about it because my sons told me.

They do nitpick though.

My biggest regret is sending them there. My own brother went there and had awful trouble. He was suspended for walking on the grass one time. It's a very academic/sporty school and your kids fall into that category, they are fine but if not it seems they just don't want you there. I should have listened to my mother when she said not to send them there but I thought the ethos had changed with new principal. She is lovely but it's only when in the school that you realise you never actually see the principal and the vice is awful.

I don't think the glass room thing is necessary, but I think people may be overthinking the humiliation aspect. You surely don't think it would otherwise be a secret who was excluded from class? All the other kids always know anyway. Exclusion room doors aren't usually closed, and it's pretty common to have excluded students sitting at a desk outside a member of SLT's office. Other students know who's in detention etc.

I am not defending schools that exclude for trivial reasons, but exclusion is a necessary option for behaviour management. Many of the students in exclusion rooms in secondary schools are many-times repeat offenders and school has little other option than to exclude them repeatedly. Some even consider it a badge of honour to be removed from lessons. Many don't care.

They are minimising the staffing required. They still need supervision. Seems sensible to me

ballybean

Your most recent posts reinforce my first impression that you are incredibly ignorant about the reality of schools and also seek to minimise poor behaviour at every turn.
the examples you give of unfair suspensions were
‘Writing his name under a table’ - so you don’t think vandalism should be severely punished even though actually illegal in the real world. Would you really be happy with a school covered in graffiti?
fighting is almost always suspension, it’s very unfortunate for a bullied child you fights back but you can’t just let kids punch other kids with no consequence.
And lastly the sexual harassment one.
I can imagine it as it has happened to less robust colleagues than myself.
the teacher says 69 by accident and the next minute is being met by a barrage of questions such as ‘do you like 69s?’ - ‘what’s a 69 miss?’. The probability that that they were suspended for a polite giggle is highly unlikely.

Ok maybe the graffitti it's extreme and I get that that needs to be punished but surely the other examples are worthy of suspension? It's thrown around so easily that it's lost its power.

It's thrown around so easily that it's lost its power.

What do you actually mean by that? Do you mean that lots of kids are being suspended? What else do you propose the school should do with them? I doubt those kids went straight from model students to suspensions. The school uses detentions, right? I expect those kids have had them. Did that stop them misbehaving? No. Are you under the impression that there is some other, nicer sanction that will miraculously make them behave?

You talk about power. Schools have no real power to do much about the increasingly appalling behaviour in school. They use the only options they have, and it's still not enough. What do you think they should do, OP? What do you think would actually work? Or do you think they should just do nothing?

There are plenty of 1st world countries that can control/remove disruptive children without using humiliation which is proven not to work. I guess the UK really is sick of experts though

They probably have higher standards of patenting though

They do, their ‘badly behaved child’ doesn’t come close to ours.

This. Why not lay the blame where it should go? With the parents. Scapegoats aren’t accepted in any other discussion, only teachers/schools when discussing badly behaved kids.

ballybean

Do you mean ‘aren’t worthy of suspension?’

I wasn’t there and neither were you. Obviously giggling at an innuendo isn’t worthy of suspension but as I said it’s more likely that a groups of kids repeatedly asked the teacher about her sexual preferences while the rest cheered and shouted.

There do seem to be a few schools with OTT punishments for minor infractions but in the majority you are fighting for kids to get suspended for verbal abuse, throwing things at students and staff and racism/sexual harassment.

My 1st thought was about safeguarding for child and staff. Constantly under observation keeps both of them safer from many types of potential abuse.

I’m not entirely sure. It wasn’t something the school explained or advertised to the pupils. I found out about it after they’d gone. I suspect the thought process was that badly behaved kids are often from troubled homes and this act of kindness might be a way to get them on your side?? That’s just my guess but it obviously didn’t change anything. This was early 00s so not sure if the school still does it.

What is your alternative?
If you have 2 or 3 students who are constantly disruptive or even aggressive to others how would you deal with them?

Why should the 27 others be denied an education?
It is especially hard for those who need more help or are in lower sets as they needs to concentrate so much more over the distribution.

Why should they be made to feel anxious or frightened in school?

Why should they have to put up with constant noise or foul language ?

Why should they have constant changes of seating plans to try and space out the disruptive pupils?

Why should they have to sit beside the disruptive kid who pokes them, makes comments, scribbles on their work,makes threats?

Why should they have to miss cooking, experiments, practical lessons because the 3 or even 1 makes it unsafe to do so?

Why should they go home and have to catch up on their own because Jayden or Mia had an off day?
Not all able to catch up at home due to lack of Internet, space or family circumstances.

@MrsSunshine2b how would you sort it out and make school a place of learning?
How would you reduce disruption and aggressive behaviour?
How would you let the 27 thrive?
How would you help the 3 without disadvantaging the others?

OP, honestly, you have suggested alternatives to the "glass box" (in school exclusion) but then pointed out (correctly) that they don't always work. I can't get worked up about children being excluded in a place where they will be seen by others.

It sounds as though you are generally very dissatisfied with this school and maybe that's flavouring your attitude towards this particular form of consequence. (I'd love to know if the school has actually spelt out that this is specifically meant to be a shaming tactic, rather than a safeguarding/supervision tool.)

Is there any chance of moving your kids to a different school?

I was about to ask, OP, whether your feelings about the glass room were coloured by your impression of the school being overly strict in general. Lots of posters talk about the problems caused by parents not supporting punishments imposed by the school: I wouldn’t support a punishment imposed for a haircut either. Equally posters talk about teachers getting on with teaching rather than wasting time dealing with unruly kids - lots of teachers are wasting time dealing with tiny inconsequential uniform infractions too, but I don’t see any complaints about that. A punishment that might seem reasonable in a reasonable school might come across as more objectionable in a school that was draconian in general.

I tend to agree with posters who have said that for the sort of child who would find the glass box humiliating, a simple telling-off would be enough of a punishment for them so it feels unnecessary - and for the sort of child who
won’t find it humiliating, it won’t act as any kind of deterrent anyway. But when we talk about whether isolation “works” for disruptive kids - if it doesn’t reform them completely or even deter them from doing it again, it does at least have the effect of benefiting the rest of the class, if only temporarily.

I can’t get past the school that enables theft by taking kids’ jackets off them and hanging them on a fence to be stolen though…

I think the difficulty lies in balancing the resources which are necessary for the school to function.

Disruptive children, whose behaviour require a disproportionate amount of adult attention do not enable a teacher to interact with a group of children, all of whom have their own needs.

The school still obviously has a duty of care towards these children, but possibly does not have a member of staff who can be with them at all times.
The transparent glass room is one solution, along with many others, none of which adequate because they still are without adult staff to supervise these children. The other options may have been to keep them in class, or move to a different class, but the disruption continues.

The question is this. Should an extra member of staff become available, where would they be of more use?
Making the room non transparent and therefore removing the humiliation aspect, and putting a member of staff there is now a possibility. But would schools choose this or would they prefer for that extra member of staff to be used in a different way, more support in the classroom, for instance?