Is it right that children should be punished becasue of the reaction of another child to their actions?

[lisbey]

DS1 (yr4) has will miss his morning and lunch breaks tomorrow as a punishment for his behaviour today. He's generally well behaved and has never had any kind of formal punishment at school before.

They had wet play today and were confined to the classroom. Apparently "B" was being annoying, insisting that the shop DS1 and 2 other boys wanted to play with was closed. DS1 and friends then spent breaktime annoying him back, apparently by following him around the classroom.

It sounds like this either wasn't spotted or wasn't dealt with by the lunch time staff, but as a result, B, who according to the teacher has special needs that the other children are usually very sensitive to, "trashed" the classroom this afternoon.

B has been excluded until Friday. DS1 and friends will miss their breaks tomorrow, but the way the teacher explained it to me, she felt obliged to take action because of the reaction of B, rather than the actual actions of the other 3 boys.

I have supported the school and talked to DS1 about not being led by others, standing up for the vulnerable and never being deliberately unkind to anyone, which TBH (and teacher agrees) is how he usually behaves. Teacher also said he was the honest one and owned up to what had happened, whilst refusing to name names of the others, but there's something making me a little uneasy. What do you think?

Sounds like the school has dealt with it fairly to me. The gang of boys were picking on/bullying the SN boys so they do need to be punished. The SN boys is also being punished. Let your DS learn a lesson here and move on.

I think the school did the right thing tbh. Whether or not B 'trashed' the classroom, they were deliberately annoying him and ganging up on him - even if he 'started' it, it wasn't fair and they are old enough to know it's wrong.

I think the school reacted appropriately. Your son was one of a group of boys who decided to victimise a child with special needs because he was annoying them.

I'm not saying this isn't fairly NORMAL 8/9 year old behavior, but it's not acceptable.

I've always used the fact thst DS has Asperger's as an explanation, not an excuse.
So if he breaks the rules, there's a sanction. But the staff are lovely, understand what happened and work towards the circumstances not repeating. Mine used to hit those that wound him up, so it rarely happened twice with the same child. Almost three years since he's done that.

BITCAT, I don't think boy 'B' was really being mean. He probably felt a bit left out as the other 3 were playing with the shop and was trying to be funny and join in by saying that the shop was closed. The other 3 then made him feel even more excluded by ganging up on him and following him around. They were insensitive and a bit nasty towards him and that set him off to do what he did. In feel more sorry for boy 'B' that it ended up the way it did.

the SN don't matter at all I don't think. It's not relevant

• your child and his friends purposefully wound another child up - that's ganging up and possibly bullying so school's reaction is right

I think 'victimise' is a bit harsh though, they were working on provoking an entertaining reaction rather than bullying from the sound of it. Light the blue touchpaper and watch the fireworks.

Oh dear, I obviously didn't explain myself very well.

DS1 has absolutely let it go. He's taken his punishment and has even said he thinks it's a fair one. He genuinely seems contrite and upset that he was part of a gang which upset someone so much.

I absolutely support the punishment. My unease was that the teacher seemed embarassed that she felt she had to punish the boys because of B's reaction, rather than just because what they did was wrong. In other words, if B had managed to control his emotions, the boys wouldn't have been punished for the same behaviour. Surely B would have been equally justified to expect that they should have been?

Oh yes, provoking a child until he's upset enough to explode is hilarious.

yep yep and yep..im such a blonde it is unreal!! lol. I really must learn to read things properly even if the kids making a lota a noise and distracting me. Yep banged to rights..of course i agree with everyone else..should know better at that age.and punishment fair and just! sorry everyone for my lack of attention on this one

Sometimes it needs a series of full-scale meltdowns for the school to realise that it's better to pre-empt trouble than react to the fallout.
If an adult had spotted the signs before B cracked, they could have managed the situation better, given him a way out or redirected the other boys. As B gets older, he may develop that understanding and take himself out of a deteriorating situation.
Sadly those with sn that aren't explosive when stressed often have their needs neglected. Because someone in a flappy weeping puddle in the corner is less bother than someone hulking out and destroying a classroom.
A proactive attitude is more effective and efficient all round really.

I see what you mean OP, if B hadn't reacted the Teacher would have been none the wiser and everyone involved would have forgotten about it by tomorrow. However, your ds has learnt a valuable lesson in my opinion as they should have been a bit more understanding of the situation. (Easy from the out outside!)

'Oh yes, provoking a child until he's upset enough to explode is hilarious.'

Not at all coldtits, but unless the instigators are picking themselves up off the floor or punished by an adult with an explanation added, at that age they often don't get it. And they grow up into adults that don't understand either.

Anything that upsets a child should of course always be dealt with regardless of the child reactions to it.

coldtits, well not to us. we're adults. But trust me on this one, a group of 7 and 8 year olds boys found it sufficiently entertaining to do it to my ds for a whole year...
And the teacher admitted the boys did it to provoke the reaction.

GC that is true, and I'm oversensitive on this subject, and therefore not much use to this discussion.

Apologies and goodbye

As a teacher I'd be frustrated that inadequate supervision during wet play had resulted in my classroom being trashed. I'd have given the taunting boys a similar sanction for their deliberately mean behaviour and read the riot act to them on responsible behaviour. In many ways the fact that B has SN is neither here nor there; the other boys were being unkind and it may be because of B's reaction that their unkindness has been picked up and that this incident will help them to think twice about the impact their behaviour has upon others.

I've had a similar situation in a Y4 class when a usually very well-behaved child made a big thing of saying that X wanted to marry Y. X is a child who struggles to manage his temper and on hearing what was being said, flew across the room to attack the person saying it. Meanwhile Y burst into tears. I called for the Head and had both the child making the announcement and X removed, making it very clear that the trigger had been deliberate, unkind comments designed to provoke a reaction. Both children were given the same sanction by the Head and as nothing similar has occurred with this child I would guess that she learnt a useful lesson that day about being unkind and the danger of winding people up.

Missing break seems a remarkably mild punishment to me: that's what ds (similar age) would get for just not completing his homework.

I agree, I think the punishment is fine, too.

He knows he did something wrong and he would eexpect some kind of punishment.

His usual good behaviour has also been acknowledged.

Totally agree with how stillcrazy has put it.