To ask how any non-violent child in Scotland manages to function at this point

[CurdinHenry]

The law now essentially prevents any intervention when an under 18 commits an offence

So we've got violent crime going completely unchecked (indeed it's rewarded with extra visits and promises of "resources" for the perpetrator). It's scary for adults but at least we can try to keep our distance in a (thankfully) ageing population.

How the fuck do kids who have to sit shut in a room with unchecked psychos handle it? Never mind the threat, which must be terrifying, but how do they process how unfair it is? How did we as adults let this total bullshit happen? Obviously blame Nicola sturgeon for yet another woke fuck up.

Funnily enough I asked my sons rectory if he would expect one of his staff to sit in a room with a man who tried to kill them and 1 "facilitator" to discuss how almost being murdered made them feel and then go back to working with that attempted murderer. He became visibly uncomfortable, wouldn't answer my questions but did drop the requirement for restorative justice and after the threat of legal action agreed to move the thug in question out of my sons class. They however did nothing to protect my ds in any other way at school even when he was coming home black and blue and was still turning up in areas he wasn't supposed to be hence I had to get a non mol order which the education department tried to prevent us getting.

He was expelled in 2017/2018, but it isn't listed as an expulsion, oddly enough!

I asked my ds what happened as he was friend of a friend of the expelled child.

He was approached by the school board after multiple exclusions and essentially told not to return or there would be police involvement. He continued to show up at lunchtimes and was escorted off the premises by a teacher every time. He then stopped coming in.

So officially exclusions cannot take place, but in practice I believe they still were/are being used.

It feels like there's quite a bit of middle ground between the extremes of lock them all up, and remove any negative consequences for bad behaviour though. Perhaps policy makers could have a look there. It feels that currently policy is being dictated by people with a very particular viewpoint (and biases), rather than a realistic approach to teenage behaviour.

Jeez this is awful, I'm so sorry for your son and for you, that you had to deal with this. 💐

My little one has just started P1 and I'm honestly in a state of worry and fear about this as our secondary school catchment isn't great. The primary so far seems lovely but it's awful thinking of my happy wee boy being a victim of violence in the future when just trying to get an education.

Yes and there also seems to be very little on the dc impacted by the violence.

Oh come on, you're being incredibly disingenuous. Not a single person thinks that poor children should be excluded from school because of their disadvantage, they think that violent children should be prevented- as far as possible - from damaging the welfare and education of other (non violent) children.

If this results in more children from poor backgrounds being excluded, the rational response is not to say- this is clear discrimination, we must tackle this by insisting on violent children being included. The rational response is to look honestly at why children from poor homes are currently statistically more likely to be violent in school, and how this can be addressed to try to break that link.

I’m not scape goating anyone. Kids from poorer backgrounds are more likely to be violent, hence I’d expect to see more poorer kids reprimanded for violence. It’s a pretty piss poor example of journalism if it doesn’t admit that. You’d expect that sort of thing from The National fgs.

It’s totally like the decision by hand-wringing lefties not to lock up violent schizophrenic Valdo Colacane when he was suffering from paranoid delusions because too many black people are locked up. Dangerous idiots.

I know it astounds me

It is beyond disgusting to compare a disabled child to a murderer who killed three people.

The attitude towards poor and disadvantaged kids some people have is really chilling, and I'm very glad it isn't policy in Scotland to exclude if it disproportionately affects the underprivileged.

If a wealthy, advantaged child is excluded they will not be losing their breakfast at breakfast club, they have food at home. They won't miss a free school lunch either, nor being warm, having a place to do homework, or a safe adult to talk to.

So exclusion is already disproportionately harsh on children who have less, and yet it has increased massively without a consequent improvement in behaviour in England. All this will get is fewer children benefiting from education, so more NEETS as adults.

And the poor and disadvantaged children who have to sit in a classroom with their violent classmate? What about them?

Every child exposed to a disruptive learning environment is equally disadvantaged.

Exclusions do not seem to help. The child I mentioned who was effectively expelled went on to offend so it does not deter really violent kids. it's just being unfairly applied in England to poor and disabled children, and I would not like to see this happen here.

SNP civil servant 'came to work dressed as a cat'

So it's unfairly applied in England so Scottish schools should not be allowed to exclude? And by exclusions not helping, presumably you mean for the excluded child, which suggests a couple of questions - has there been consideration given to whether it helps the other children in the class? And are there longitudinal studies into whether a non exclusion approach actually helps the violent child? Because a short term study saying criminal justice involvement is reduced is meaningless if there's a similar approach (ie ignoring problems and insisting that addressing them would be discriminatory) there.

The violent child is not the only vulnerable child involved - all the children are vulnerable. Have you considered how terrifying it would be to be faced with going to school every day, knowing that you could be a victim of violence, and that if you are nothing will be done to protect you, because your safety is not seen as the priority?

Well the thug who attacked my ds and wasn't expelled and had all the "support" offered to him that criminal kids/adolescents/adults get is currently in jail for a string of offences including wounding with intent (he knife a stranger on the street) so the soft touch doesn't work either.
Id like to see expulsion become the norm for all violent children

Scottish teacher here (primary). In our staff room, we regularly talk about the lack of real consequences for violence and aggression. We have SLT tiptoeing around certain pupils, basically acting as human shields to keep violent kids away from the younger ones. We're expected to create a peaceful, inclusive spaces while in some classes the rest of the class face daily aggression.
If a child were witnessing this level of violence at home, we'd be contacting social services immediately. Why is it acceptable just because it happens inside a school gate?

Get this straight, every time the thug who was attacking my child day after day got a temporary exclusion, my child would come alive again. They would stand up straight for a few days. They would lighten up for a few days. They wouldn’t self harm as badly for a few days. Then the fear set in because the attacks would be worse than ever when the thug returned as the thug knew full well the school couldn’t give out back to back temporary exclusions so they had at least a week or so to beat up whoever they liked as often as they liked.

I never said disabled kids are violent. Just poor kids are more likely to be violent. I couldn’t give flying fuck about the thug who attacked my child missing breakfast. At least that would be a consequence. These kids aren’t stupid.

None of the handwringing lefties give them a seconds thought. They couldn’t care less. So up their own arses they’ve become totally separated from the most basic of reality.

Are poor kids more likely to be violent? My DCs school has a disadvantaged catchment and MN has been known to advise not buying in my area because of the school. I have never heard stories like this from anyone at the school and it’s been nearly 10 years.

Nimmec, that is horrific. I hope your DC is safe
now.

The school having a disadvantaged catchment and low to middling in the league tables that is.

Same! I don't recognise what's being described here and I have two boys in secondary school in a mixed/deprived area. There's the odd fight, but I wouldn't say any more than when I was at school in the early 00s.

On the whole teenagers seem to be far more sensible than they did when I was growing up, boys spend their time in the gym, whereas we were doing cheap cider in the park listening to happy hardcore.

Things are all roses and butterflies I haven't seen this lawless culture they describe.

The thing is you don’t hear about it until it affects your child, and it’s just staggering how little power either the school or the police have to protect your child. One of my children has breezed through with no issues whatsoever. Vile racism yes, but that’s nothing compared to what his brother faced.

I don't think anyone is suggesting that every classroom is a violent hellhole. The issue is that when there is a violent child in the classroom who is affecting the safety of other children - what happens? The feeling that the emphasis on outcomes for the violent child ignores any effects on outcomes for the children being expected to learn with them.

The title of thread suggests exactly that, it's asking how any non-violent child manages to function.

Fair enough, the thread has evolved quite a bit but if you're just responding to the title then that's up to you.