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??

I hate it. I have a well behaved, respectful, academic child who’d last twenty minutes there. DC is autistic, anxious and would never cope there in a million years. I also hate this bizarre need to treat every 11-16 year old as some sort of wannabe delinquent who can only be controlled in a tightly controlled and prison like environment no adult would ever be expected to tolerate.

If it works for other people then good for them. My own DC will go to Michaela or equivalent over my dead body.

So you are saying your DCs school has failed lots of children? I'm not sure that would be my definition of a good school.

Great for the lucky DC that manage to get through life without any major life events or struggles. But you can bet that if your DC goes through any kind of trauma the way your school deals with your DC may well ruin the rest of their life.

Yes I know you said ‘BP hates Michaela because Michaela doesnt accept excuses for poor behaviour or poor performance. They don't select other than parents who buy into the ethos. They have an intake from a largely deprived area and turn out amazing GCSE results.
They demand accountability from pupils over their own learning. That's what BP hates, plus she's only bothered about breakfast clubs and blazers’

I suppose my question was, why is this the case? Who does the gvt / Bridget Phillipson hate the ethos so much?

One thing is underachieving (due to learning difficulties, or simply not being academic) and another is dicking about in the classroom, making the teacher's life a misery and stopping others from learning.

My dc is also in private schools and we don’t have much of this. The slightest bullying or bad behaviour is taken very seriously. It’s also a common feeling amongst the parents that you don’t want to be a parent of a problem child so everyone takes good responsibility for ensuring their child behaves, none of this ‘my child wouldn’t do that’ attitude.

Ok. At the same time can you understand that this approach works for many? Seems to work a lot better than many (most?) other non selective coed non religious secondary state schools.

If they have a job they won't be a NEET.

There has been a monumental shift over the last 5 or so years in parents attitudes from supporting the school to adopting what is often a combative stance of how dare you treat my child in that way. It is an almost impossible battle for teachers because the continuity isn't there. There is a culture of seeking to apportion blame for poor behaviour anywhere except with the perpetrator of it. None of this is helping anybody.

Parents of children at private schools want to receive a quality service for the money they pay, so are generally more engaged with education generally and demand a higher standard from the school which drives quick and efficient action.

So you deem a good school one that lets down the teacher and 95% of the class to pander to 5% of kids who want to be free to mess around?

I beg to differ.

No, I deem a good school one that recognises struggling DC, gets them the support they need so that they thrive.

Your alternative, a DC that goes through trauma must learn to bury it or fail. Because their wellbeing is not of interest to the school.

That would be the part where I said if it works for other people then good for them.

My DS is one of the disruptive kids (autistic, ADHD, sensory processing disorder, etc). He was thrown out of two schools by age 7 (one independent, one state) for his violent meltdowns, and his behaviour included urinating on a TA and throwing a chair at another pupil. DH and I were at a loss: we both have professional careers, postgrad education and were swots at school, never having so much as a lunchtime detention between us. DS now attends a specialist setting, where he is thriving.

I had to keep sending DS to state school while the LA insisted he was fine in mainstream, despite the above. It took almost 3 academic years before he was offered a suitable place and I fully appreciate that is a lot of lessons disrupted. Parents are between a rock and a hard place, and most of the decent ones feel awful for their own kids and others'. If we take our disruptive child out of school, the LA washes its hands of them and one of the parents has to quit work (plus, in my case, additional caring responsibilities). If we leave them in situ, we are slated for causing disruption to other pupils and making teachers' lives hell. In the vast majority of cases, all we want is for the LA to offer a suitable school place, but we are made to feel like we are asking for the moon on a stick.

Anyone who wants to see less serious disruption in mainstream classes must accept that some (but not all) of that disruption is caused by the unmet needs of SEN children. Meeting those needs is expensive, but essential if all children are to get the education they deserve.

It’s not the schools role to create good behaviour - it’s the responsibility of the parents.

State schools massively pander to the disruptive kids at the cost of the decent ones who want to learn. It's a disgrace.

Well obviously. But with the steep increase in NEETs recently, I'm not hopefully they will all magically find jobs.

Why is it a mainstream school’s job to ‘deal with trauma’ fgs? They are there to educate children. There needs to be alternative provision for those that cannot cope with education. They should not be allowed to take their trauma out on other kids.

It’s a difficult issue but ultimately it does come down to how society has changed and many parents don’t instil any rules at home and no respect for “authority” figures. Schools like Michaela are not really the solution because they are not really able to address the issue but instead need to work around it - by having almost prison like rules.

My dd went to a local primary - a school regarded as being very good - and the behaviour was pretty good until year 6, when some children started being disruptive. We were fortunate that we were able to send her to a private secondary that had no disruption, and no draconian rules. Just kids behaving well in quite a relaxed environment. She would have had a nervous breakdown in a really disruptive environment, and perhaps even more so in an environment with rigid rules as her anxiety would have been off the scale because of her fear of inadvertently breaking rules.

i don’t know what the solution is. I think some sort of a societal shift in attitudes and parenting.

Other ideas....
More vocational schools from the age of 11 (the few that exist mostly start from 14. That's too late).
At vocational schools a high proportion of the lessons should be physical "doing" lessons and have lots of outdoor lessons.

🙂. Do you understand why it works for them?

Part of the issue is that schools and class sizes are just too big for teachers to be able to manage behaviour effectively

Because the government says that all children are entitled to an education and I believe that is in the best interests of society. Lots of children need support be it due to disability, abuse, parental loss, childhood illness. You think that children that have gone through those major life events should be shipped off as damaged goods?

Well farmers regularly say since Brexit they can't get vegetable pickers.
A 14 year old could do that.
Also get rid if a lot of the red tape that currently means employers struggle to employ under 18s.

They're given chances. They get put in smaller classes. They're given support at home. But if they don't turn it around and they continue behaving badly then yes they're asked to leave completely.

The school used to have an awful reputation. Its now a brilliant school with results climbing year on year.

What else do you expect the schools to do?

@Absentosaur I teach a subject (science) that involves setting. It makes a world of difference! Whilst you get some chatting and cheekiness in top sets, it's nothing like the bottom sets where very little learning takes place. Fights, assaults, swearing, internal truancy and vandalism are commonplace. Most students have challenging behaviour, poor executive and cognitive function, poor impulse control, low literacy and numeracy skills and are also hellbent on destroying the education of others. I even have to cut down science practicals because it is so unsafe to do with my bottom sets. I really feel for the lovely kids in these lower sets who though low ability, are earnest, hardworking and respectful and really want to learn some basic maths, English and science.

I have a very high opinion of the Michaela school and if I had children, I would have no problem sending them there if I was in the catchment. They achieve their great success through the deadly combination of a) having cultivated a reputation meaning only parents who have strong agreement/buy-in to the schools ethos around behaviour, expectations, discipline and attainment will send their children there, b) a high second and third generation immigrant intake whose culture/community usually have very pro-education values and stigma around having a child who misbehaves or underachieves, and c) good systems and policies in place with a strong emphasis on traditional teaching methods.

Demographic and intake by far has the biggest effect on the outcomes of a school. The teachers and teaching itself at private schools, grammar schools and state schools are all very similar. That's not the biggest variable. You either select the demographic based on ability and/or financial means or you cultivate such a reputation and ethos that those that don't align with how you want to run your school don't apply there in the first instance.

Their brilliant reputation is built on failing children. I expect them to support the children, if my child's financially struggling mainstream school can do it I'm sure a privately funded school can.