To think disruptive behaviour in schools is out of hand?

[Absentosaur]

‘Children at state schools are almost three times more likely to have their lessons disrupted by poor behaviour than their privately educated peers, a widespread survey of parents has found.’

https://archive.md/HMGtJ accessible link to article .

18% 16-18yr olds go to private school, probably for this reason a lot of the time.

Do we expect the government to do something about it, particularly given they have closed the private school doors to many? What could they be doing to improve the worst state schools??

You do realise every kid with a phone watched a man die in real time last night?

Things are not quite as they were.

🤣🤣🤣 Are you serious? You’re joking of course. I should think so because the article states that the survey was completed by ‘Parentkind, the UK’s largest parent charity. The survey is done in partnership with the times. The times don’t tell them what find in their research.

Im sorry the results don’t tell you what you want to know. Truth hurts huh?

Wikipedia for a link to a school for info, about school oh no call the police 🤣🙈

🤣🤣🤣😂 sure the worst behaviour is in private schools best behaviour in state deprived area, sure .. . You do admit to your comment being anecdotal. Which is something I suppose…

Stand down everyone, no need to worry about crap state schools. @dampsock says they’re fine. Not just fine but they demonstrate the best behaviour compared to other schools. It’s private schools that are the worst apparently. Ignore the data collected by a parenting charity.

Exactly. Sad but true.

And with that it becomes clear you don’t want a serious conversation about behaviour in schools and serious academic research and data, you either just want to promote Michaela, for reasons I don’t understand, or you want to rant and have everyone agree with you. Quite why research in the Guardian is biased nonsense but a parent survey in the Times is the last word in what happens in schools I don’t know.

This 100%!

I have two teenagers who attend/ed the same state secondary. The eldest is quiet and studious and absolutely had her learning disrupted by the 'feral' kids. The younger IS the feral kid. She has complex learning and behavioural needs. I have struggled for years to get her the right support from CAMHS but they have been completely useless. School does not have the capacity or resources to support her learning needs but have at least provided her with good pastoral care. She is now Y11 and doesn't really go to lessons - she is either in the loos or in pastoral. So she is being contained rather than educated. So I have thought about this issue long and hard.

The key problem is that you can't cleanly separate kids who just want to be bad from kids who really need help. It is entirely possible to turn around disruptive kids, but not if they are only ever in the company of other disruptive kids. That's also a problem with teaching kids in sets, but at least within a comprehensive school there is a pathway out of the bottom set, whereas within 'sin bins' it is much harder.

Teachers already know lots of ways of supporting the disruptive kids without harming the learning of other kids, but none of them are cheap and most people prefer to pay less tax in the short term, even if it cranks up social costs in the long term.

And of course it isn't just down to schools. Of course parents have a have role, as do our broken CAMHS services. And schools need freedom to develop more tailored learning rather than the current GCSEs or the highway approach. For my younger daughter, school couldn't agree any long-term variations to her schooling without LA approval, and LA could only grant approval where there is a CAMHS diagnosis, and CAMHS refused to even assess my daughter because she was (a) missing so much school, and (b) adopted. That's a pretty simplistic summary but essentially true.

It's a holy mess but won't be helped by the creation of twin stream schooling (didnt we used to call those secondary moderns?).

@Lucy5678

Because that’s exactly how many right leaners think! Dogmatic and either can’t see the hypocrisy in their arguments - or are being disingenuous.

Then the mockery starts…
Also see a lot of ‘free speech for me - but not for thee’ type sentiments…

I was prompted to comment on this thread as I had to deal with the worst behaviour and safety incident I’ve ever had to deal with yesterday, and it was in a private school. It left me completely shaken. But apparently that’s ridiculous, funny and should be completely dismissed as it doesn’t fit a rhetoric.

In the Netherlands, I was told that they have a more 3 tier system at secondary level. A more vocational option, a more academic option and third option which is a mixture of the two. And no real stigma about which option you go to.
I don’t know if - historically - our ethos is to be a very results and academic driven country, with the quality of a school determined by high grades or Oxbridge placements.

Which leads a large swathe of children feeling useless because their abilities are not academic - or not purely academic.
Academic achievement is not the only criteria for success?
I think schools need to focus on inclusion, value added and happiness, rather than being results driven.
Some schools have COIN units and I think this needs to become more widespread, so children don’t have to travel and have this option in their local community.

I agree with VAT hike for private, but I do think it’s a shame that some are closing or struggling financially - which is causing staffing issues (this was the root cause of my incident yesterday).

I’m wondering if the LA could financially support placements more into the private system to boost this issue - particularly where a lower class size, outdoor space could help support a child with an EHCP.

But my biggest bugbear is exclusion. We mustn’t exclude children or deprive them of their right to an education - or dehumanise them - or write them off. We must do all we can to support every child in our society - and I think some of the sentiments on this thread are shocking. It is that dismissive, stereotypical and negative attitude towards needy children that is causing our highest ever rates of exclusion.

Sorry, haven’t RTFT, but with this, posted in reference to Michaela, is hugely important:

They don't select other than parents who buy into the ethos

As a teacher in secondary school, I can tell you this is probably the most important factor in managing behaviour and the one thing I have noticed change hugely over my 30 years in the classroom. The vast majority of parents I come into contact with do not support the school and are openly ranging themselves against schools and teachers. It’s how society has changed, the ‘no-one can tell me what to do’ attitude we see all the time on MN, coupled with ‘I support my kids no matter what’ …even if that means ‘supporting’ your kid after they’ve hit a teacher in the face (‘Well, he feels that teacher picks on him, so…’).

It’s tremendously difficult to manage volatile teenage behaviour in these circumstances.

We don't have resources to look after disruptive kids. That's reality.

So yes, some people have a life that is an inspiration to others, and some people have a life that is a warning to others.

@Chiseltip

So with exclusion rates at an all time high, we should keep adding more children to that record high rate - or change the way we do things?

Spot on piggly. My father and sister teach or did dad long retired. The attitude of the parents has entirely switched. The parents used to be broadly on the side of the school. My father’s biggest stress in his career was other teachers which seems incredible now.

Now parents are immediately defensive / aggressive at the slightest criticism of the child. No “adults working together for sake of child” that has gone.

The thing is most private schools aren't super strict. Whilst the children still need boundaries they are fundamentally better behaved. This is some combo of wealth, parents and hence students valuing education, smaller classes and the ability to expel the persistently disruptive leading to a different school culture. Also perhaps most importantly the children are invested in the process. They believe that if they work hard they will follow the path of good grades, university, job.

Obviously chaotic state schools with poor behavior are very bad. But these super strict academys have huge downsides as well. They can be very oppressive environments for children. Only I think at the grammar schools does there seem to be good behaviour without this zero tolerance approach.

I don’t understand the comment about behaviour 16-18 though. Surely the disruptive ones have left by then? Dd2 in at an excellent state 6th form full of pupils from the private schools who go there for 6th form.

Ex-teacher here who saw the decline in behaviour.
You only have to read this forum on a daily basis to see we have a problem. Parents make excuses for their kids behaviour all the time- they don’t set boundaries, they struggle with punishments because “it won’t work with my child”, they blame SEN or ND, they question every act of discipline that schools and teachers use (how many of these have we seen on this forum in the last week since the kids went back!)
Added to this that kids are addicted to phones and social media, which has largely turned their brains into mush.

Everyone wants a good education for their child, but they don’t seem to grasp that that begins at home. Teachers can’t educate children when they are trying to manage large classes with poor behaviour.

There are a few big misunderstandings here. Private schools can refuse or remove pupils. They're not subject to the same rules around exclusion as state schools. Parents are considered customers and vendors can refuse to serve a customer. If you want state to be similar, then you have to give us the power to permanently exclude pupils.

Michaela looks good on paper, however, firstly it's selective so she makes sure she's not letting any 'troublemakers' in. Secondly, she actively recruits from ethnic communities with a really strong work ethic. In other words, it's not representative of the local area or the problems many of its children face. So sure, if you want segregated education that excludes people with low cultural capital (often the poorest white kids) knock yourself out.

Why are you constantly bringing Left Vs Right into this? It's like you have an agenda and FYI you were the one who started with the insults ie against people who are more to the right than you.
It's impossible to have a discussion with someone who constantly makes chippy remarks about "the right".

I don't see any great depth in your posts on the subject...

Without systemic change, all parents who can afford it will choose private schools.

Of course they will which will only widen the gap. This is why we said all along that VAT only makes independent schools MORE elitist and deepens the divide.

To many people miss-understand the rule that 16-18 years olds in England are meant to be in "Education or Training" and think the leaving age is now 18.
It isn't.
But many 16-18 get told they "have" to be at school so they are there even when they really don't want to be.

@twistyizzy

Er no. If someone quotes a Times article, it’s fair enough to point out the political leaning of that paper. If you look back at the thread, there was definite - and very strong - mockery of the Guardian. If someone starts getting jeery at my posts, then I will argue back - thanks very much!

It is a debate relating to politics because the right are in favour of private, and left not - hence the VAT hike.

I’m probably somewhere on the right politically myself. The inability to think critically about data and statistics or evaluate data sources isn’t a right or left wing issue.