What exactly is the strictness in English schools actually achieving?

[WaitAMinutePlease]

I’ve been on Mumsnet for years and one thing that genuinely puzzles me is how strict many English schools seem to be.

The thread today about the little boy with severe leg pain, and his mum asked if he could temporarily leave school at 1.30pm instead of 3.30pm because he’s struggling physically. The school apparently refused and said they wouldn’t “release” him. (Sorry? You won’t ‘release’ MY child??? WTAF!)

I see similar threads all the time. Parents being threatened with fines over attendance, children not being allowed time off for family holidays, requests for flexibility being refused, schools insisting on attendance despite medical issues that are still being investigated, and so on.

I’m Irish, and honestly this feels ridiculous to me. Irish schools are generally much more pragmatic. If a child was struggling with a health issue, even one that hadn’t yet been formally diagnosed, most schools would work with the parents. Reduced hours, work sent home, flexibility around attendance, none of that would seem remotely controversial. Equally, while schools don’t encourage term-time holidays, taking children out of school for a family holiday isn’t generally treated as some major disciplinary issue.

What I don’t understand is what the strictness is actually achieving. Ireland has a higher proportion of students progressing to third-level education than England by a mile (approx 76% vs 46%), so it’s not obvious to me that a highly punitive attendance culture produces better educational outcomes.

So my question is: why are English schools like this?

Is it government pressure? Ofsted? League tables? Funding linked to attendance? Or is it actually genuinely believed that this level of strictness benefits children?

If they’re in school but not actually learning much that’s not a great success, and ‘we’ve reduced the number of exclusions’ doesn’t mean ‘kids aren’t kicking off to the point of exclusion’, it can and often does mean ‘we’ve just stopped excluding kids for poor behaviour’. (See Scotland for example).

the school developed what it calls an “enhanced consequences” system — a restorative approach focused on identifying the root causes of behaviour rather than responding to incidents in isolation.

Enhanced consequences system doesn't mean no punishment or strictness. Identifying the root cause can help but if the root cause is "bob likes being a twat" there's not much school can do.

There's a lot of waffley words in that paper report and not much detail on concrete actions. I'd be interested to hear from someone on the inside.

From the article the "quality of teaching is poor in a minority of cases with a minority of pupils making limited progress".

So saying that the "quality of teaching is not where it should be" is a bit of an overstatement and just blaming the teachers.

It also says that ths SLT are not doing enough and their are still issues with attendance.

The report also says that attendance is still an issue. Possibly because the disruptive kids are stopping the ones that want to work and it makes a atmosphere in whcih the kids with a SEND cant work and stay home/refuse to come in.

I think in general schools are as strict as they need to be. Some schools have an easier cohort due to selection, upbringing etc. They won't need to be that strict.

Schools that do need to be more rigid often have a much more challenging cohort. Eg due to unsupportive parents seeing teachers as the enemy and passing that on to kids. Or kids who've had a very difficult home life and it's come out in their behaviour

Sorry, I was just paraphrasing really. The report identifies ways that teaching could be better - that’s all I’ve got to go on. It also explicitly states that the behaviour approach is starting to show a positive impact and that targeted attendance interventions seem to be helping. Overall the issues facing the school appear to be many and varied - I’d be interested to see the next report.

It's difficult though, because the overall effect of this is that those kids who are in greatest need of a nurturing therapeutic education don't get it, and are instead treated badly and sometimes even retraumatized, while those kids who are already privileged have their privilege entrenched by being treated like rational human beings during their secondary education and being given a greater degree of leeway. So during a period of life in which children's nervous systems are developing, some children are being deliberately subjected to quite a high degree of stress and conflict which may have long-term consequences for not only their mental but their physical health. If schools are toxic environments for some children where their cortisol levels are constantly raised, this can have significant health consequences for them for the rest of their lives.

I don't know what should be done about it, because schools have very little in the cupboard to address behavioural issues as it is anyway. And the counter-argument is of course that children won't feel safe in schools where behaviour is out-of-control. But it makes me feel uncomfortable.