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??

My kids private school is excellent at teaching respect for other pupils and respect for teachers. This is a big part of the difference we have seen between our experiences in state secondary and private secondary. Yes the nature of the cohort helps, but my child was regularly called a f*ing c**t by total strangers for doing nothing more than walking down the corridor. Totally unheard of in the private school he’s at. It’s a totally different attitude and atmosphere. I do think the lack of behavioural expectations in state is a key reason. If a pupil can start throwing chairs and is treated with kids gloves, what incentive does anyone have to behave? None.

I don't disagree. I can see the reason why zero tolerance is preferred by certain schools and some teachers.

I just think it's a crying shame that a supportive, nurturing learning environment is available to those children whose parents can pay for it, whereas for many other children who would benefit from this, they have to put up with an overly strict, punitive environment which raises their stress levels and puts them in a constant state of hyper-vigilance. This not only harms their education - they're spending so much mental energy complying that they have less capacity for learning - but it's also harmful to their health and wellbeing. Being in a constant state of stress and alert is not good for anyone.

I don't know what the answer is. It's just an inequality that makes me very uncomfortable - that schools attended by kids from well off backgrounds are focused on pupil happiness and wellbeing, while others seem to have regimes that inflict an additional level of traumatic stress on children who often have a high degree of this in their home lives already.

Exactly! And lots of ‘experts’ wonder why anxiety amongst kids is soaring and many children school refuse!! Try thinking about it!! It’s SO OBVIOUS!

I’m just not interested in inclusion for SEN children. Tolerance and compassion only goes so far.

When my child’s education is being compromised by the same cohort of aggressive boys who have no interest in education, start fights, vape and smoke, smash up bathrooms repeatedly for fun, intimidate female teachers, deal drugs outside the school gates - no, I have no tolerance for their behaviour.

I don’t care where they’re educated - it’s not my concern. Their parents can figure it out. I just want them out of my child’s classroom so those who want to learn in peace can get on with it.

This is because many, many parents are terrible parents (and you see plenty of examples of this in MN threads).

But what on earth do you expect the government to do about it?

In fact, people like you who don’t think people should take personal responsibility for anything, and that the government can and should solve all the problems in society are a major, major part of the problem.

Totally agree gave up teaching fed up with feral kids who learn from feral parents
No respect, manners, time parents looked at their own behaviour
As for SEN kids, private schools don't accept them. Lack of funding in state schools, we can't meet every child needs with no money or resources.

You’d likely feel differently if you had a SEN child @smallpinecone. I used to be one of those “experts” who thought ADHD was just crap parenting and poor diet, until I birthed a child with the attention span of a gnat who didn’t sleep for more than an hour at a time until he was in Y2.

Bear in mind that the SEN child’s parents likely want their child out of the MS classroom as well, but the only way to achieve that is to keep sending the child in to school to wreak havoc until the LA pulls its head out of its arse and offers a specialist place. It’s also not a problem that parents can or should solve: it’s the LA’s legal responsibility, and it cannot just be waived for children of whom you don’t approve.

I suspect you and their parents are on the same page in wanting them in another setting. But it's not for the parents to 'figure it out' - children with SEN are entitled to a suitable education so the LA should be providing this.

I think that the culprit may be pleased to be kicked out, it gives them status and they don't want to be in school anyway.
So much depends on the school. My GC's primaries have time out space and they're pretty tough on misbehaviour. Secondary school children are much harder to control though. My four DC went to a variety of schools, private and state, and I believe that if a child is prone to messing about they'll do it anywhere. I think that parents of children at private school may be more engaged and more likely to exert pressure if they know what their DC are doing.

Yes it is. I left teaching because of it. Your hands are tied, give a detention and instead of parents bollocking their child , they take their children's side and believe the teacher is wrong, or misunderstood or phones to complain about the "unfair" detention...

It's unsustainable unless parents back up the school it's impossible to maintain discipline

I agree, we've all know parents who believe little Johnnie is in the right, even if every other parent in the class knows that Johnnie is disrupting every lesson and being a pain in the playground.

I wouldn’t feel differently, no.

If my child was that disruptive at school, I’d remove them. My child is no more important than the thirty others in the class. What right have I to deprive others of an education in order that my child be included? Is my child’s (questionable) education to come at the expense of every other person there? It’s the height of selfishness and self-absorption.

Or the parents could provide it themselves, instead of compromising thirty other children’s education.

Absolutely agree.
It’s a national disgrace.

Unfortunately, by removing your child and home-educating, you move that child to the very bottom of the LA’s never-ending list of priorities. I’m not saying it’s right, or fair, but it is reality.

I am not immune to DS’ violent meltdowns and neither is DH. It may be selfish, but the idea of managing DS’ significant disabilities at home 24/7, without professional involvement, was not tolerable, even if we both did not need to work to pay the mortgage.

DS is perhaps unusual, but he has both a high IQ (gifted in maths) and a high level of social and communication needs. He may have SEN, but I still have hopes for how his life will turn out. His needs have been obvious since he was diagnosed with classical autism at age 3, and that’s when we started trying to convince the LA that MS was unsuitable. As I posted upthread, even when DS had to be taught 2:1 in a windowless cupboard, they still insisted MS could meet need. If there was a way to get DS what he desperately needed without impacting others’ education, then of course I and most decent humans would have done that. The fact that there isn’t needs to be laid at the door of the LA’s and education policy of successive governments, not of individual parents.

We you be happy if parents who home school get government money to do it?
Currently you don't. You get zero government help at all and you're left to your own devices.
Most parents can't afford to home school even when they know it would be some much better for their child.

When I became a teacher, the first thing I swore I’d do was never ever use a lovely, quiet well-behaved girl to regulate or act as a buffer to a disruptive boys behaviour. It’s cruel and unfair and utterly abhorrent practice. I try to be as intuitive and observant as possible and keep them well apart. I look really hard for if students feel uncomfortable sitting near each other or better still, try to preempt this before making any seating plan.

It’s not up to girls to shoulder the burden of helping to simmer down disruptive boys. I was used that way also in school sometimes and it makes me so angry. I hate it and inwardly feel rage whenever I hear a colleague (very few luckily though) say this is their intention with their seating plan.

We far to often let the few disrupt the many. There needs to be faster ways to remove problem children and educate them together in another setting. Your behaviour, your choice. There was someone yesterday posting about a child who was at college who was in trouble for fighting twice in the first week - they should be straight out. Teachers would be able to teach more effectively, students learn better the whole system would improve.

Nothing. They don’t care, their children aren’t there.

@Bumblebee72 college is a choice so I do agree that a college age (ie 16+) teen is pissing around then they should be told to leave. The same for 6th Form.
Don't want to be there ... don't be there.
(it's not compulsory despite what many seem to think)

I think those schools used to be called grammar schools. In Buckinghamshire (where we lived at one time), the grammar schools were brilliant for academic children who wanted to learn. However, our local secondary modern school was also really good. I seem to remember that if a child did well academically at the secondary school, they could transfer over to the grammar.

Come on. The parents are probably already on their knees caring for a child with significant needs and now you think they should become educators as well.

Just like you, they've paid their taxes, they're entitled to an education for their child.

Some parents do reluctantly home educate against their will. Complete failure of the system.

Another viewpoint is this - why should the mainstream school system be set up so that your child succeeds and other children fail? Why should it suit certain personalities and not others? Why should it favour compliant children with good academic ability over other children? What makes these children "special" so that society caters to them while ignoring the needs of other children?

While we might care most about our own children (and there's nothing wrong with that), we should all be committed to the idea that all children should have their needs met.

Disrupting child should be send out. They need to learn to behave when one talks all listen. It will be useful for later when they working and having a meeting they will be required to stay quite until they are asked to answer

I took early retirement from a state 6th form college, mostly happy years but behaviour was getting worse and managers would rarely suspend or eject students as resulted in loss of funding ! so they just kept them in class to disrupt etc.

I'm in Belgium and the commune schools offer either a "technical" or "professional" track from 14 alongside general education. So non-academic kids move to learning a trade, or office/hospitality skills some still with the option of getting their high school leaving certificate with an extra year (so Uni or higher education possible) Here you have to pass the year to move up (even in primary), so maybe it becomes clearer who might benefit or not. The system is not perfect maybe, but better than forcing GCSE's on those who are not interested or capable.