Violent in schools

[Badlydrawnmum]

I look at this and am horrified, really horrified:

https://www.heraldscotland.com/business_hq/23874980.agenda-must-end-exclusions-care-experienced-children/

my child was physically assaulted on a daily basis by a child who happened to be in care. There was absolutely nothing the school could do apart from a temporary suspension every couple of weeks, which gave my daughter a few days of not getting beaten up, and now this! Violent kids have no place in mainstream schooling, regardless of their background. What does it take for the education department to see this????

how on earth are bullies supposed to learn to behave when there are zero consequences?

I agree too.

Imagine if a female being battered by her husband was told, he needs to stay in your home because he needs to be included in family life.

This is what we're doing to children and I wasn't aware if this before I became a teacher.

Not all schools are like this but , in my experience, most are and it's driven by HMI and the heads of education etc congratulating HTs on keeping children in school. The fact that a child hasn't been excluded for, say, five years, can be listed as a positive in inspection reports. It's by the by that children in the school are traumatised by being on the receiving end of violence by individuals.

Oh yes, sorry. I just found it so frustrating to see children forced to be in classrooms with someone who had assaulted them - sexually as well as physically in some very memorable cases - to see victims leave school because the aggressors stay, and then at the end of it all that young person walks out of school to the disaster waiting for them in the world beyond, and senior management are calling it a success because they didn't exclude.

Saying exclusion leads to poor outcomes is deliberately misleading. Unsupported SEN, poverty and chaotic upbringings lead to exclusions which lead to poor outcomes but it's easier and cheaper to see exclusion as the starting point for the pipeline.

Something badly needs to be done. Is it going to take a child to die in school before the government commits to properly funding special education?

Agree 100%. I only hope when the inevitable happens a coroner investigates he will ask what on earth the department of education were thinking forcing schools to keep repeatedly aggressive, violent pupils within the school.

I was discussing this with colleagues yesterday and unfortunately, yes, we all seemed to agree that it will take a death for action to happen. 😢

If a death ever were to happy I don't feel it would start action. The staff would get blamed for not meeting need.

Happen

Well obviously the staff would be the ones that the government would try to blame for their horrendous policies, but the staff at my child’s school did intervene in the assaults when they saw then and were assaulted too. They are as much the victims as the other school kids who are getting assaulted and and having their education disrupted.

I hope that light would be shone on what is going on here. If you don’t have kids in school or your kid is lucky not to be a victim you presumably have no idea how crazily defenceless teachers and senior leadership teams have been made when trying to tackle this issue.

The government has to listen to teachers and put their hand in their pockets to bring back pupil referral units and permanent exclusion. It’s policies like this that would actually make me think SNP-land is finally moving in the right direction, improving educational standards in a visible way. But they won’t because they just don’t get it at all.

In the last two days I've witnessed staff being punched in the stomach, stamped on their hand, bitten on their arm, screamed at, shoved, kicked, spat at.

This is what "inclusion " is. I put inverted commas because the government decided it's only expectations and buzz word/tick box and no responsibility or funding. It's a brilliant concept when done well, instead it's just failing and breaking everyone , including the kids it's supposed to help.

I can only agree with what everyone else is saying. My child attends a school in one of the areas that is recommended on almost daily basis and behaviour is shocking. Violence and disruption are par for the course. We've seen quite a number leaving to go private in the last year or so because the behaviour of the few is impacting so greatly on the good kids. Not something everyone can afford though but you are banging your head against a brick wall trying to get something done, so I don't blame them. At the end of the day you have to protect your own child.

Schools need PRUs and investment to work with these distruptive and violent kids. Why should my DC suffer because we have to be inclusive of those who are violent? The SNP have truly fucked the Scottish education system.

It’s the same in Wales. I teach in a primary school and witness shockingly violent behaviour daily. Rest of the class literally terrified. How is that fair? Yes every child has a right to an education. But as it stands none of them are getting one.

My child’s school was also extremely high up the league tables, one where there is a real house price premium to live in catchment. There’s no escaping it.

Just been told that police were called last week to arrest a boy who'd brought a knife to school - he'd obviously told others that he was going to hurt another kid who'd, presumably, upset him. You wonder what the consequences will be though? Back in school in a week's time?

When my child was assaulted but 2 pupils at school, absolutely nothing happened to them. When I said that I wanted them excluded, I was told they were vulnerable (not care experienced)and that vulnerable children needed to be looked after. So basically my child was allowed to be bullied and made miserable because he had a nice home life.

I understand exclusions are associated with poor outcomes later in life

Correlation is not causation.

Permanently excluding and washing your hands of them just creates problems further down the line.

Who suggests ‘washing your hands of them’? Permanently excluding them from a mainstream school does not mean they must be abandoned on a bit of waste ground with a box of matches. ‘Mainstreaming’ is failing too many of these kids. Not just ones who are violent now, also those with ASN. There are now very few resources or specialist schools to support these children and it requires specialist support to engage them back into education, for them to see something in it for them, or to provide an environment they can learn in. This is expensive but in the long term worth it.

The law recognises that some children are harmful to others (physically and psychologically) and in those cases prioritises the safety of children over the wellbeing of the attackers. This doesn't seem to be carried through in practice in schools. There seems to be a tolerance for exposing children to risks of violence without thinking about the long term impact on them too. None of it makes sense to me. No matter how 'beneficial' inclusion might be, how have we reached a point where people are OK with children being battered in schools. I really want to hear policy makers defend that; namely, that they don't have an issue with young children being harmed by others in school.

I am a foster carer (in England, not Scotland) and I sit in training sessions listening to experts talk about how behaviour is communication and you need to relate to the child not punish them etc and I always think, that's all very well while they're children, but in the adult world if they act out they will end up locked up. So actually perhaps it would be better to be a bit stricter with them while they're young.

I sent my two foster sons to the 'strict' secondary school in our town. At the open evening for prospective parents they talked about the rules the kids have to follow from day one. Some people don't like the idea of that and think it's very restrictive but that school is number one in the local league tables for GCSE results, Progress 8 scores etc. The kids know what's expected of them and what will happen if they don't tow the line. My foster kids have thrived there.

I did find that when they were younger they got away with things with certain teachers because they were in care. At 6 one of them was totally out of control at school, learning nothing, hurting others, wrecking the classroom etc yet at the same time the teacher was rewarding him by letting him win prizes and making crafts for him that he refused to do himself! It did him no favours at all and he was very unhappy that year as he didn't have secure boundaries. I was able to change his primary after that and he got a strict teacher, who he loved, and he's never had a major problem with school since.

I appreciate that my foster kids came to me in early primary and so I was able to set boundaries while they were young. So they don't roam the streets at night or go out wherever and whenever they want. But if they'd come to me as teenagers it might have been much more difficult to put those boundaries in place and they could be in a different position regarding school.

I do think that at mainstream all children should have to follow the rules and if they can't do that they should be excluded. No matter their background. Because it is not fair if one child's behaviour affects the rest of the class. But then there should be somewhere for them to go once that happens. And not somewhere where they can do what they like. I know my boys' second primary were not very happy with the primary PRU that occasionally they sent children to, as they had 8-12 weeks of doing whatever they wanted and often came back to mainstream worse behaved than when they left!

@AmyandPhilipfan

But then there should be somewhere for them to go once that happens.

This is the sensible solution but the one that costs money. Much cheaper to make teachers become teachers AND psychologists, and to let other children absorb the punches.

The most life changingly
good thing that happened to one of my family was being sent to a PRU. The education system though requires even committed parents to fight for years for adequate support in ms or special places and nowhere in it is any support for parents or carers to educate part or all of the time at home to reduce the stress that schools cause some children.

Fife now declares bullies ought not suffer consequences:

https://www.dunfermlinepress.com/news/23892192.fife-council-punishing-school-bullies-counterproductive/#comments-anchor

the comments provide interesting feedback for the council.

@Badlydrawnmum that's been the policy in fife for years it's why the school did nothing to the boy who tried to kill my ds (we're in fife) it's only just becoming public knowledge now

No but secure units away from mainstream help. The violence in primary schools is out of control. There needs to be behaviour segregation like there used to be. Police need to be in playgrounds patrolling and thats no joke. Or councils need to pay for security. When kids and parents are living a life of fear day in day out because of school there is something seriously wrong.

Whilst I truly do feel for children with SEN or chaotic home lives and want them to get the support and help they need, it really should not be at the expense of other childrens safety.

I have seen it within my own children's school. The only thing I believe you can do is teach your own child to protect themselves. All my children do kick boxing. They are taught that you don't hit first but you certainly hit back. If the school refuse to protect them, I will give them the means to protect themselves.

Saw a report once about the percentage of people in jail that had learning and speech difficulties and or little or no education. It was mind blowing. A huge percentage. I don’t think labelling a child as problematic then washing hands of them helps anyone but saying that I don’t know what the alternative is, all more resources and help but that’s not available anywhere is it