Zero Tolerance, No Excuses...what should happen to pupils who can’t behave?

[noblegiraffe]

There are an increasing number of schools across the country adopting ‘No Excuses’ behaviour policies where the slightest misdemeanour is cracked down on and punished. Children are removed from the classroom and isolated if they break the rules. The level of expulsions is creeping up.

A tribunal has just criticised a school for putting its zero tolerance behaviour policy above the education of a child with special needs.
The student has ADHD and epilepsy, the behaviour policy was applied rigidly and the school now has to issue a letter of apology to the student for its failure to make reasonable adjustments.

www.tes.com/news/school-news/breaking-news/academy-put-zero-tolerance-policy-above-pupils-education-tribunal

Do you think that schools should be allowed to have zero tolerance?

Interesting discussion here.

My tuppence worth is this:
I currently can't help the pupils with diagnoses because of the challenging behaviour of 4/5 pupils in a certain class. One is a definite follower and jumps in when it looks like the rest are having fun.

Those 4/5 boys undoubtedly have difficult home lives, in different ways, but the disruption they cause by shouting across the classroom, verbally abusing their peers and their teachers, frequently erupting into violence etc is having a huge impact on the rest of their class.

I find it is very, very rare for a child with ASD or (diagnosed and managed) ADHD to be that disruptive.

How do you know the 4/5 don’t have un dx sen?

In all probability they have 'attachment issues', if you care to class that as SEN.

It doesn't make their behaviour acceptable, does it?

I think all violent children have special needs. It’s just that it doesn’t have a convenient middle class label. They almost certainly need a great deal of intervention to succeed at anything: be that medical or educational. They should be a worry to us all and should probably be in a special school for behaviour and emotional difficulties. Mainstream isn’t appropriate for these children and they need a far higher staff/pupil ratio plus access to psychologists.

There isn’t enough ss band width in the system for all pupils needing even quite a lot of help.

Looked after children frequently need a lot of extra help due to attachment issues and in that sense those looked after children absolutely do have sen

I wouldn't send my DCs to a school with zero tolerance policy. My older DCs were lucky enough to go to a superb old school London comprehensive in a difficult catchment area. Uniform was minimal, relations between staff and students were relaxed and was pretty much unheard of for anyone to be expelled. The school had the opposite of a zero tolerance policy. It understood and worked with its students. There was a huge 6th form and large numbers (many of whom would be the first in their family to do so) going to university. It is now an academy

Sorry, coming back to this as I have been thinking about it quite a bit.

One of the issues with zero tolerance is that my cynical mind says that it is used as a policy to exclude those students and parents who are remotely difficult to deal with. They arent about forcing conformity but excluding non-conformity.

It depends what you mean by difficult or non-conformist tbh. And what you mean by 'exclude'. Permanently excluding or refusing to engage with the difficulties of a child with SEN or parents with issues at home - unacceptable. Systematically excluding pupils temporarily from lessons because they are (for whatever reason) disrupting the lesson or being rude, aggressive or abusive towards students or staff - totally acceptable imo.

a policy to exclude those students and parents who are remotely difficult to deal with.

But with the exception of SEN, why should teachers and other students have to put up with 'difficult' (read rude, defiant, disobedient, argumentative) kids? And that's before we consider why we should have to deal with 'difficult' parents! Manners and reasonable compliance with reasonable rules / why the heck not?

I think there should be zero tolerance for violence. Picked GS up from school last week, he was upset but wouldn't tell me what happened until we got in the car. A boy in his class, who has attacked several other children during the term, had smacked him hard round the face, you could still see the red mark Nothing happened to him as "he is unhappy and has anger management issues." I'm sorry the child is unhappy and I hope he gets help with his anger management but the other children have a right to feel safe.

Definitely. I feel the same about serious disruption to lessons though. The other children have a right not to have hours of learning time wasted every week.

Agree with Eolian and Peng and Peach

Eolian, sorry I didn't mean that losing learning time didn't matter, just baffled by the schools attitude to this boy's behaviour. He is 11 and has no idea about consequences because there aren't any. If he ends up in prison because he seriously hurts someone I think the school will be partly responsible as he is growing up with the idea that it is OK for him to behave like this. Excluding him might not be the answer, I don't know, but he needs help and the other kids need protecting.

You're quite right, and I didn't think you meant learning didn't matter too! It is very difficult to deal with aggressive and disruptive kids. Even when you are very sympathetic about the reasons for their behaviour, it is hard to balance the needs of the individual and the many. In some cases the reason for poor behaviour is simply poor parental role models.

Eolian, I think you are right. This child's father is well known to local police, who knows what he sees and hears. (Husband is retired Police Officer so knows many local criminals by name/sight.) I am sympathetic to him but also the other 29 kids in the class, particularly the group of boys he targets.

But 'difficult' parents aren't always difficult. They are perceived that way because they are questioning the school.

The school I mentioned above that's 'driven out 7 Sen pupils on 18 months has done so by creating situations where the parents have to fight and they can say they are difficult and relationship has broken down.

2 examples i can give.

1. pupil was having 1hr intervention. Had been having it for 5 months. It was going fine and not once was it mentioned they couldn't manage it. That intervention had been 1hr at previous school too. When child needed 2 other interventions and parent got it agreed after fight they decided to declare they couldn't manage the hour intervention - so they put all 3 within that hour slot. Parent questioned it and was accused of being difficult and trying to falsify D.C. Sen. (Eg make out it was worse than it is)

2. pupil has FT 1:1 named on EHCP. They were struggling with having 4 members of staff over the week. In meeting agreed that he particularly responded well to the Male and they'd try only 3 different lsa to reduce transition. La were present at this meeting as AR. Half hour after meeting parent sent new lsa timetable - with 5 different staff members and the one he responded to well was removed. Parent contacted la and school via email to say "this was agreed, x timetable not acceptable." La also contacted school. School sent parent letter from their solicitor saying they were on initial warning for being aggressive and making staff lives difficult.

I'm am parent 1. My ds now at different school on EHCP and I don't have to have that much contact with school or 'be difficult' because they do what's right and best.

Actively trying to exclude difficult pupils is happening all over. 99% of the time - support and some tlc would solve the issues.

youarenotkiddingme, I don't understand why it varies so much. I sometimes wonder if the school are frightened of the father of the child who assaulted my grandson.

I'm not talking about parents with genuine concerns (although some parents appear not to know how to communicate genuine concerns in a reasonable manner). I am talking about arseholes.

The problem is that 'rude', 'difficult', 'disruptive' etc are all subjective. As are 'reasonable' and 'unreasonable' behaviours from parents. Context can be very important.

It is easy to say that shouting or swearing are unacceptable at any time but for a student or parent who feels they arent being listened to and may not be as articulate as the teacher this can feel like the only way of being heard.

But often 'Feels like they are not being listened to' actually means 'Can't get their own way, because what they are demanding is completely unreasonable'. And parents shouting and swearing at staff is unacceptable and should not be tolerated under any circumstances, regardless of how articulate someone is or isn't and regardless of context. Lord knows there are enough things driving teachers out of the profession, without being expected to take abuse from parents as well as kids.

GnomeDePlume

But still unacceptable. I'm not there to be shouted at and sworn at, full stop.

GnomeDePlume

Try swearing at the doctors receptionist or the Dr.

On a help line to a call center.

At the police, why should teachers have to put up with it?

Would you recognise that there is a difference between swearing at and in the presence of?

Take this situation:

Student has forgotten homework. Teacher says '1 hour detention'. Parent phones school to say the student cant go into detention for a reason (eg no bus to get home or student needed at home to look after sibling). Teacher says 'no exceptions allowed'. Parent cries 'oh ffs' and slams down the phone.

Has the parent shouted/sworn at the teacher, the situation or the problem created by their offspring?

Yes there is a difference between being sworn at and in the presence of.

but being sworn at or threatened is not acceptable, yet some parents do so knowing that teachers cannot respond in the same way.

Absolutely being sworn at or threatened is unacceptable but in some situations it can be down to interpretation.

This is the problem with zero tolerance. A situation may be far more nuanced than the bare facts portray. Not allowing the context to be considered can escalate what was a misdemeanor up to a serious offence with long term consequences.