Super strict schools like the Swan in Oxford?

[Deisogn]

We went to see the swan school in Oxford and came away fairly horrified. The no talking in the corridors or halls seemed fairly extreme. The punishment for talking to a friend was isolation which seemed harsh and not in the best interest of the child? I do understand trying minimise disruption but at what cost? They don't stop emotionally developing at 11. Surely all those soft skills come from unstructured interactions. It seems like it would produce very brittle kids and SEN need not apply or they'd spent the entire time in isolation. I wondered what others thought of the super strict school model?

Disruptive kids aren't a minority. Particularly in the lower sets. My kids education is totally blighted by noise and poor classroom management. I would opt for a super strict school.

These strict school attract a certain type of parent who think other children are monsters. They are not. It’s really sad when all schools in an area are like this.

I don't think they are monsters. They are kids without boundaries. Who get away with it at home and at school. Wrecking both their education, and the education of thse around them. My kids have sent me recordings of the noise and disruption in their classes in utter frustration, because it too noisy to actually have a lesson.. Even during exams the noise is horrendous. It's so loud it's impossible to think. And the teacher doing nothing about it. They probably feel they can't, or don't know how to. But it's shit.

I would love for our local schools to be like this. Round here it’s the middle class kids who are disruptive, as mummy and daddy are crap parents who won’t enforce boundaries and instead claim their kid has ADHD or what have you, safe in the knowledge that mummy and daddy can sort out life problems and their kids don’t need that pesky school to give them a leg up and out. And who cares about whether the other 20 kids in the class have their education disrupted?

@DazzlePaintedBattlePants

I would love for our local schools to be like this. Round here it’s the middle class kids who are disruptive, as mummy and daddy are crap parents who won’t enforce boundaries and instead claim their kid has ADHD or what have you, safe in the knowledge that mummy and daddy can sort out life problems and their kids don’t need that pesky school to give them a leg up and out. And who cares about whether the other 20 kids in the class have their education disrupted?

That's pretty offensive and just perpetuates the notion that ADHD isn't actually a thing, just an excuse made for kids who are badly behaved. I hoped we'd moved on from that view by now but clearly not

Absolutely ADHD is a thing. Parents claiming their child has ADHD with no professional evidence as an excuse for poor behaviour is also a thing. It is possible for both to be true.

I completely understand and support the Michaela idea that children need quiet to learn and the reason you are quiet is to respect others and let them learn. It is socially responsible and that kind of reciprocal thinking should be taught everywhere (and I say that as a mother of neurodiverse children, including one who would struggle in that environment).

Why all the other petty rules? Why the focus on uniform and conforming? Why do these things go hand in hand?

I would like a school which is quiet and teaches children why this is important but also one which allows individuality.

But other schools are successful without this approach. Why is it reserved for poor children as implied above? Luckily my DC are older but the thought of these schools seems awful to me. I’m grad my very straightforward DC avoided them and they had more fun at school.

Are other schools successful? I guess it depends on what sets your child ends up in when looking at what success looks like. The lower sets seemed to be plagued with noise and disruption. The higher sets, not so much.

My child refused to even tour this school, the idea of enforced lunchtime discussion topics put them right off!

Local opinion seems very polarised. Some of their friend's families are applying for a place there, but also lots aren't even though they would almost certainly get in.

The community the school serves (catchment) isn't the poorest or most deprived in the city, although it has a good chunk of social housing.

@Beckert
I absolutely agree that some schools are not great. In fact some schools fail a lot of their children but these are not a huge number. There may well be a case for ensuring disruptive children in class are always removed but leadership in schools has to ensure this happens. In the best schools it does. So extra rules of silence and no free time chat are not necessary. Most schools are good and most children achieve in line with expectations. Obviously some don’t but whether this is wholly down to other children is debatable. I think it’s down to having a leadership team that expects and maintains high standards - not silence or a strict uniform.

@zimbolino

My child refused to even tour this school, the idea of enforced lunchtime discussion topics put them right off!

Local opinion seems very polarised. Some of their friend's families are applying for a place there, but also lots aren't even though they would almost certainly get in.

The community the school serves (catchment) isn't the poorest or most deprived in the city, although it has a good chunk of social housing.

It sounds horrendous. I can imagine how miserable DC would have been if they'd gone there. It might suit some naturally biddable children who welcome the studious atmosphere and plenty of structure but one size never fits all.

We've got friends whose child goes to Swan and they supposedly 'love it' but every time I see the child they are moaning about something or other to do with their school!

The parents are super strict though (no social media allowed for their 14 year old etc) so I think this kind of school ethos plays up to their ideals.

I know my DC would HATE it there (v chatty so would forever be in trouble) so we are sending them to the much more chilled school next door (no uniform etc).

Having said all that I agree it's a question of privilege and if it was a choice between Swan and a 'rough' school rather than the chilled middle class school, I would probably opt for Swan!

It’s a tough one.
On the one hand, I think the people running these schools really do have the best interests of their students in mind. They aren’t doing what they do for the sake of oppressing children, they do it because they think it’s the best way to secure an environment where learning is possible. Undoubtedly, there are schools where it is working and the results that their students are achieving will secure them choices and opportunities in life that t he y may not have had otherwise.
Having said that, I think they are wrong. Children can behave well without dozens of petty rules. We have a fairly flexible uniform policy, let kids wear their hair however they like and don’t restrict access to the toilet. We don’t do shouting and days in isolation are for very serious behaviour, not uniform infractions or forgotten equipment. Almost the first thing that visitors comment on is how well behaved, kind and studious the kids are. We are not a leafy school. We have above-average numbers of disadvantaged families. Results are top 1% for progress and have been for years.

In fact some schools fail a lot of their children but these are not a huge number.

What do you consider to be not a huge number?

Actually I think it's quite common for schools to fail those children in their lower sets which disproportionately suffer from disruption and disengagement.

@MadameMinimes
I totally agree with you. Children who are disadvantaged really don’t have to be sent to boot camp schools. It’s actually reinforcing that they are needy in some way and the parents are negligent in bringing them up. It’s nothing to do with privilege. It more to do with controlling young people who they believe need it. Some parents go along with it because it suits them. However, one suspects the DC that truly need help don’t show up at these schools! So of course they get decent results. Other schools would almost certainly be more tolerant of behaviour SEN. So these strict schools are not remotely inclusive. They are exclusive. I’d love to see how they tackle SEN that is clearly caused by complex behaviour and emotional issues. Exclusion I would assume.

Cherwell school is fantastic.

@TizerorFizz

You will have to prove that low level disruption is the norm in most state schools *@SockFluffInTheBath* You really don’t seem to like children.

I simply don’t believe it. Ofsted don’t report this as far as I can see.

Pretty sure that about 6 years ago Ofsted were so concerned about behaviour and low level disruption they commissioned a report into it. And it became a focus of inspections.

Behaviour is a well known issue in schools, however much some people try to deny it. And corridors are a well known flashpoint for behaviour problems, bullying and children getting injured. If your children move around school sensibly, with appropriately lowered voices for chatting and there are no issues with pupils still working being disrupted then you probably don’t need silent corridors or stricter corridor rules.

I’ve just looked on the map to see where this school is. To my amazement: Marston Ferry Road! Cherwell Boathouse nearby! Summertown and North Oxford! This is a really wealth area. It’s very close to The Dragon School. This is not a deprived area. Semi detached houses are £ millions! The idea that this school supports the children from poorer areas is a joke! How many come from Blackbird Leys I wonder??? Or the other estates. It’s a free school for people who can get their DC into it. The catchment is wealthy!

@InCahootswithOrwell
Yes. You are right, Ofsted did look at behaviour issues arising from reports conducted in 2013/14. It is fair to say there were awful reports on pupil behaviour. However there was also copious advice and descriptions of where schools were getting it right. I cannot see where it said silent corridors and very strict uniform was a way forward.

The stand out messages were strong leadership, high expectations of behaviour and consistency of applying behaviour policies plus dialogue with parents. I think since then many schools have improved but clearly some slip back. Very strict schools were not what Ofsted were requiring. I think it was fair to look at behaviour but some of the conclusions drawn by very strict schools don’t appear in the report as good practice. It’s way more nuanced than that.

@TizerorFizz

I’ve just looked on the map to see where this school is. To my amazement: Marston Ferry Road! Cherwell Boathouse nearby! Summertown and North Oxford! This is a really wealth area. It’s very close to The Dragon School. This is not a deprived area. Semi detached houses are £ millions! The idea that this school supports the children from poorer areas is a joke! How many come from Blackbird Leys I wonder??? Or the other estates. It’s a free school for people who can get their DC into it. The catchment is wealthy!

I'd argue that the area it really serves is Marston, who got caught in the middle of Cherwell and Cheney, both of whom are oversubscribed. Before the Swan opened, children in Marston were being given places at St Greg's or even outside the city, as the closest schools with places.

Yes, Marston has rich areas (esp Old Marston) but also a large chunk of social housing.

Well it’s not serving the recognised deprived areas.

Posted too soon: but I take the point it serves an area that couldn’t get places elsewhere. Did the parents know what they were getting though? I’d be furious if I couldn’t get Cherwell but ended up with this!

[quote TizerorFizz]@InCahootswithOrwell
Yes. You are right, Ofsted did look at behaviour issues arising from reports conducted in 2013/14. It is fair to say there were awful reports on pupil behaviour. However there was also copious advice and descriptions of where schools were getting it right. I cannot see where it said silent corridors and very strict uniform was a way forward.

The stand out messages were strong leadership, high expectations of behaviour and consistency of applying behaviour policies plus dialogue with parents. I think since then many schools have improved but clearly some slip back. Very strict schools were not what Ofsted were requiring. I think it was fair to look at behaviour but some of the conclusions drawn by very strict schools don’t appear in the report as good practice. It’s way more nuanced than that.[/quote]
I’m not suggesting that super strict schools are the answer in all cases. I was disputing the suggestion that low level disruption wasn’t a widespread issue or Ofsted would have reported on it.

I don't think that KSA and the Michaela school are draconian in their rules.. They have been able to establish a very focused and respectful environment as they set them up from scratch. They have obvious warmth and real care for the students