Guardian story - teacher has resigned :-(

[auntyspan]

I'm so furious. Someone who used to teach me has had to resign due to a scuffle involving a year eleven lad. The pupil apparently called him something racist and shoved him and when the teacher pushed him back he fell over, and consequently it's classed as an assault.

I'm appalled that a teacher of his calibre, experience and principals has had to resign. This kid has been in stacks of trouble, is a known trouble-maker and a bully, and is laughing about the fact he got a teacher 'sacked'.

This teacher is exactly the decent type of teacher I want teaching my kids - good disciplinarion and someone who genuinely cares about the kids. A rash moment has ruined his career.

very cross at the moment.

As would I, TM! I'm also sure that this teacher felt that way too otherwise he would have followed advice and claimed self defense.

Greensleeves, is there no level of violence the infliction of which upon a teacher would make it acceptable for the teacher to lash out without endangering their career? (Apologies for my tortured sentence construction.)

Not in my view, no. Self-defence is defensive (restraining, pushing, holding off, that sort of thing) and is IMO instinctive and all creatures are entitled to use it if they need to. Hitting out/slapping/blows to the head, however, are aggressive. Nothing to do with self-defence.

I do acknowledge though that I am a bit of an obsessive when it comes to violence against children from people in loco parentis. I do apply the same rules to myself!

I do think in these cases a 'them and us' divide between teachers (particularly those who teach in secondary) and people who don't is inevitable.

My dp taught for several years in secondary and is now in a PRU for the sort of pupils excluded from mainstream because of their behaviour.

The casual incidences of violence he has reported from students over the years needs to be heard to be believed. Sadly a lot of them are not shoves to the chest and abuse but full blown physical assaults on members of staff by children who are both bigger and heavier than the adult involved. Ideally you would restrain, but the reality of attempting to do so when you the sole adult in a classroom and are being attacked - it's not always possible to do it in a calm and controlled manner - and the child may well get hurt.

I think we will have to agree to disagree on this. Perhaps consider one of your children is a young teacher. A good teacher who has worked hard for years to get where he is. Now imagine a 14yr old tries to set him on fire and in a split second your son slapped this 'almost adult'. Is it fair for an entire career to be ended for this? I can't agree it is.

I'm a primary teacher and i've been pushed, shoved and had things thrown at me even when heavily pregnant yet I never came close to retaliating because they were children (9-11yr olds) Dh on the other hand wanted to wallop the 11yr old who deliberately pushed me over in the playground when I was pg.

However, a 14yr old showing active, dangerous aggression is an entirely diferent matter.

Have been reading through and though I do admire Greensleeves stance, I think that to expect people in any job to act 'professionally' every minute of every day in every, even dangerous circumstance, is just unreal. People are human not programmed robots.

We must offer people in circumstances such as these, some protection.

I agree Huw.
I think Greensleeves is being principled and consistent here.
However, I think realistically, if we were to confine membership of the teaching profession to people who would be quite sure they would not lash out under extreme provocation, we would lose a lot of good teachers.
Which is not to say that corporal punishment has a place in the classroom or that low level violence is an excuse for retaliation.
When I look back at violence that went on when I was at primary school, I particularly remember one of the best teachers (when he died there were many many very moving messages on Friends Reunited about how much people owed to him) losing it with one of the boys and slapping him repeatedly. I'm glad he didn't lose his job over it, as he might have done today, but it was certainly not his finest hour.

Oh thank heavens, for a moment there I thought I was a complete arsehole

LOL!!!!

Nope, def not!

I can't agree that hitting out can never be classed as self-defence, and although I'm no legal eagle, I suspect that hitting out would be reasonable self-defence depending on the circumstances of the case.

I work with homeless young people, who present with very challenging behaviour and complex histories and needs. It is stressful, complicated work. There are few incidents of violence against staff or clients because:

There are clear sanctions for behaviour
Staff are working in VERY supportive environment.

To my mind the supportive environment prevents violence and enables us to do actual WORK with the young people in our care.

I feel for teachers - the culture sounds hideous.

I think we can agree to disagree on what constitutes self-defence.

I do feel for teachers though, and anyone else who encounters stress and intimidation in the course of their work. I just don't think being more permissive about adult-child violence is the way to reduce poor/aggressive pupil behaviour.

Teachers are legally allowed to use "Reasonable force" to restrain a student who is being violent or causing a threat to the health and safety of others.

How you interpret that one is up for discussion. I could argue that some students, by their mere presence in class, threaten the health and safety for the poor sods, teachers and students, who have to put up with their endless disruption. If you count stress as a health and safety issue, then it could be argued that some students should be permanantly excluded on these grounds alone. It's not only the staff who suffer from these ungovernable students, it's their classmates too.

I actualy agree with that, greensleeves. I don't think on that issue you are polarised from any teacher on this thread.

It's the old,'a time to kill?' debate isn't it. In 99.9% of cases, taking a life is abhorant and rightfully punished in law. Very rarely, a case comes to light which needs special consideration due to circumstances such as,
a) A single horrific act was being commited against the person responsible (or another person close)
b) The person responsible had suffered repeated violence and aggression over a long period resulting in a psychological 'snap'.

At 14 I was certainly aware of the difference between right and wrong from an adults point of view. I think by this age loco parentis is still in place to cover things relating to common sense on things such as school trips. I don't think a 14yr old needs someone 'in place of a parent' to help them determine whether it's ok to set someone on fire. My 2yr old knows that!

Legally hitting out and similar are considered acceptable means of self defense depending on the circumstances. Causeing real injury to someone can be reasonable force for self defence also.