"Isolation booths" - normal?!

[freegazelle]

Read this report about isolation booth use in an academy. Are these really normal in secondary schools now?! How are they legal? I don't know what I'd do if this happened to my DS.

www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/children-isolated-for-7-hours-a-day-in-consequence-booths-at-academies-mp_uk_5b33a1a5e4b0b5e692f35b59

www.bournemouthecho.co.uk/news/15360437.School_where_pupils_are__named_and_shamed__in_the_hallway_wants_to_hire_director_of_isolations_and_detentions/

The advert states: "If you believe in a strong, ‘tough love’ approach to discipline, no excuses and that children should be respectful and obedient at all times then this may be the role for you.

@teen

Oh God

free Note this made the news because it is so unusual.

The advert states: "If you believe in a strong, ‘tough love’ approach to discipline, no excuses and that children should be respectful and obedient at all times then this may be the role for you.

Right. Exactly my point. That does NOT say if you are kind, this isn't the right role for you. Does it?

The role is not suitable for someone who wants to be every student’s best friend, who may be willing to accept excuses for poor or disrespectful behaviour, potentially damaging the future life chances of children from any type of background, however challenging."

It also states this. Whether or not you agree with their approach, they are not asking for an unkind person. They are asking for someone who believes the kindest thing is to be firm, not to be nice, in order to allow learning to take place in a culture of respect. Not unkind at all.

and basically said that if you were a kind nice person or disnt believe in putting a child in isolation for not having a pen it wasnt the job for you!!
Not quite the same as what's actually in the ad.

Ok you guys might be happy for your kids to go to a zero tolerance policy school but I'm not. It looks like my nearest secondary - incredibly diverse in a deprived area - takes a different approach (certainly has a different vibe) so thank God for that.

I find that advert really awful.

There is increasing stuff in the news about zero policy, increasing expulsion rates, and use of isolation. These aren't completely isolated cases.

I know some of the types who set up academies and work in the trusts who often come up with these ideas. They are fundamentally insecure about their position in life, and arrogantly fancy themselves as radical uncompromising reformers. They have an ideal of making state schools more like private schools, but have an idea of the latter that comes from media portrayals of boarding schools in the early 60s. Rather than respecting pupils as young adults, they see them as potential problems and stats to be managed. Its not just a change in the organisation of comprehensives and their administration but also a change in the ideology - its extremely ideological.

But doesn't seem like many people have a problem so there we go.

Pengg I agree, advert is a firm to be kind, not 'you can't be kind'.
However a zero tolerance, no excuses approach doesn't seem to leave much room for professional judgement.

TeenTimesTwo

I agree, but sometimes (for example in situations where there is endemic poor behaviour) professional judgement needs to be 're-set', with a period of senior intervention in a problem area. Teachers are only human like everyone else and can be beaten down so that they expect poor behaviour and stop challenging it as they should. In those situations, a behaviour lead really needs to set the tone of students being expected to do as they are asked to do, every time.

Ok you guys might be happy for your kids to go to a zero tolerance policy school but I'm not.

Okay, but if by 'you guys' you are including me, I didn't say anything in support of zero tolerance. As I said before, I don't think anybody has said students should be isolated for forgetting their pen.

The idea behind strict behaviour policies is not to be a bastard to kids because you are an insecure person. It's to expect the same high standard of behaviour from all students, regardless of their background, because being able to behave and present yourself well is a life skill - one that some students do not get taught at home. High expectations of every student, and belief that they can live up to those expectations, not just writing them off because "he's a boy" or "he's from a bad family". From what I have read, these schools usually have very strong pastoral support for students who need it - they're not just shouted at and left to get on with it.

As I've said further up, I would not choose to send my child to a school like this. But I can see some merit in what they're doing.

Tom Bennett, the government's behaviour advisor, is worth reading on this, even if you don't always agree with him.

strict behaviour policy, universally upheld, including isolation of disruptive pupils= learning possible in lessons.

weak, unsupported behaviour policy, no isolation, no same day detentions = learning not always possible in lessons.

I thank God my children were in a zero tolerance school.

If you want your children made to behave, send them to a zero tolerance school.

If you don't, don't bother, don't waste our time, we can do without the parents who don't support the idea of strictly upheld good behaviour. Of course, they are the ones who's children would benefit the most, and who's children are most likely to underachieve, and sabotage other people's life chance too.

These are not new. We had these when I was at school. Work was certainly not provided and kids would just end up silent reading. 🙄

I really do doubt though it's for things like forgetting a pen unless it's a shambles of a school and behaviour is a mess so a head has been appointed to go in and sort it out. I work at a school that has a zero tolerance policy and honestly I find the staff tend to be fair because the kids behave well so are happy to not log in a detention for a forgotten pen because they know it's genuine.

honestly I find the staff tend to be fair because the kids behave well so are happy to not log in a detention for a forgotten pen because they know it's genuine.

Exactly. A strong behaviour policy allows more kindness from staff to students: "Okay, Elsa, I know this is the second time you have forgotten your pen. Here is a pen. Please give it back to me at the end of the lesson. Next time it's a detention."

Fair play? I think so.

@cheese, read the thread

Its not just me whose sceptical about zero tolerance policy stuff. The NUT also - as far as I know that involves teachers.

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/03/31/teachers-warn-zero-tolerance-discipline-schools-feeding-mental/

I'm not in favour of zero tolerance behaviour policies. But 10+ kids not having a pen at the start of a lesson is disruptive. Low level disruption is what stops learning. Not big violent outbursts, swearing at staff. Those are rare in most schools.

They aren't just "annoying" they are disruptive. It stops kids from learning, kids that nearly always bring a pen, nearly always do their homework, nearly always do as they are told. In any lesson they spend at least a quarter to a third waiting for the disruption to stop.

@Clairetree1 are you at the

Whoops. Fat fingers.

Are you at the Michaela school?
What do you think should be done with children who have additional needs?

Our isolation unit is used for one day internal exclusion.

So in lessons they have a system involving warning, then demerits and detention. The idea is at each stage the pupil is given chance to reflect and change behaviour. Most do. They get demerits for forgetting equipment, nothing more. Those are separated from behaviour ones.

So by the time we get past giving a detention, SLT are called to then remove as pupil is consistently not following instructions etc.

We have to provide written report on each removal as 'evidence'.

Dangerous/reckless behaviour would be immediate removal but I've never had to do that. Occasionally it's happened but not that often.

Obviously we are all aware of SEND pupils, and treat them accordingly eg. I have a pupil with ASD prone to outbursts but I wouldn't punish them I the same way.

Kids with SEN are far more likely to be excluded that kids without.
The majority of kids who are in isolation will most likely have SEN.

drnectarine

I don't disagree with this, because the inability to access the curriculum is certainly going to be a factor in exacerbating poor behaviour. BUT that poor behaviour is, more often than not, still a choice. When teachers have exhausted strategies to support a child with SEND who still has control over his or actual behaviour, at some point you have to stop making it an excuse.

And I say that whilst fully supporting the idea that some children aren't able to control certain behaviours, and where that is the case, shouldn't be punished for them.

And also one has to question how effective inclusion is where a pupil cannot access the curriculum, and whose needs lead to poor behaviour. They deserve an environment better suited to their needs than most schools can provide on the budgets they have.

MissMarplesKnitting

I agree. I am not a supporter of inclusion, as, when it comes down to it, I see too many kids let down by it.

It's fantastic for some kids. But for others it's a nightmare, and for them it's just so unfair. I teach some ASD pupils who should get so much more of my time but me in a room of 32 pupils makes it hard to give everyone the attention they need, never mind someone who needs me for more of that. I do my best, but I can't help but feel I let some of them down.

MissMarplesKnitting

But that is the insidious thing about the inclusion agenda, MissMarple. It implies - nay, insists - that it is possible for a person to extend their time, reach and efficacy indefinitely. And it isn't. You are only one person. There are limits to what you can do.