scaryteacher, you are right I don't get it and I am afraid I am unlikely to ever get it, I think zero tolerance is a dangerous mistake that looks good in management presentations, but has no place in human relations.
I agree that I am reading between the lines and making assumptions which could be wrong. I don't think it is the OP's son that caused her to leave per se. I think the way that she has dealt with the OP's son and the yawner are probably minor incidents in a long line line of similar minor incidents with other pupils, who were also probably removed for similar behaviour.
As the mother said, other parents have complained about this teacher, presumably over similar incidents. The teacher did not reply to the mother's note, and probably also didn't reply to other parents' notes, because I think she knew that she would have found it difficult to explain why she removed them for minor incidents. You would have replied because you would have felt confident and justified in your actions because you believe that zero tolerance is a good way to deal with these issues. But I am guessing that the teacher in question doubted her own justification and therefore did not want to face the parents, which is why she didn't reply to the mother. I am also guessing that she probably tried to avoid replying to other parents, and this was creating a bigger growing problem for her as her superiors would have to start getting involved.
I think you would be right to tell a pupil off for discourteous behaviour, raising your voice, shouting to demonstrate the seriousness of the issue, admonishing etc. are perfectly normal and proportionate methods. If someone had sent me out of the class when I was at school, it wouldn't have bothered me at all since I probably would not have liked that teacher or that class. I would have probably seen it as a break and looked forward to my next removal. But I know that it would also have increased my animosity towards that teacher which would have been bad news for both me and the teacher in the future. What I am questioning is, is it worth escalating matters to such an extent over minor incidents? Isn't there a better way to deal with this for both teacher and student?
Surely if a teacher was ratcheting many pupils up through discipline levels over relatively minor incidents, a superior would have to start asking whether all this was really necessary. The mother in the OP did give a damn and asked for an explanation and other parents also complained. Even parents who didn't give a damn about education would probably still complain after their children told them their one-sided take of events.
"Rubbish - how do you know the same children were not behaving badly in other lessons". I ttake the mother's word for it when she says that her son was doing well in other classes, and the fact that he hadn't complained to her about other teachers. Also the fact that he said that other teachers "ignored it" when he put his head on the table leads to me believe that he behaved similarly in other lessons and was not removed and caused no other major problems.
"The teacher does not have a problem with the class as a whole, but with one particular student". I am guessing that this was not about one student, but was more likely to be a pattern involving many students, the yawner being another.
"Eventually she would have to leave for the
sake of her own health.' Again, methinks that you are creating imaginary scenarios to support your argument, rather than knowing anything about the reality of the classroom."
I agree that I am guessing that this is what may have happened. I do not have experience of teaching a classroom, but I do have experience of being taught in a classroom and have seen both good and bad teachers and have drawn conclusions about what works from how successful these teachers were in managing a class. I also had rebellious and disruptive phases when I was at school, so I have a good idea how the pupil would see the situation. At our school a geography teacher had a nervous breakdown and never returned to the school. She was incapable of controlling the class and was in fact the only teacher who removed people from the class over minor issues. We saw this as a sign of weakness in that she was incapable of even controlling minor issues without using this sanction. We also guessed that if she had to remove half the class, then it wouldn't be us who suffered, because the school would inevitably blame her since this was happening in no other class.
"you have to have a set of rules for behaviour in class which apply to everyone, and are consistently and firmly enforced. The students hate inconsistency more than anything else."
I am slightly amazed that so many teachers on the forum couldn't see the OP's point of view and think that a zero tolerance polcy is a good way of dealing with children, because I think that it will do harm to the children and also the teachers and will eventually destroy the ethos of a school. I was glad that there are teachers such as abitchilly who do not fall hook line and sinker for this policy. In my opinion in 10 or 20 years time the experiment, like so many others, will probably be abandoned as a mistake, but in the meantime it will have harmed many children and created a self-fullfing prophecy where the normal noisterous rebellious disruptive behaviour of many children will be escalated so that they are eventually removed and placed on the scrapheap.
I am all for discipline, but where the treatment is fair and proportionate rather than zero tolerance which is a consistent tick the box style of management without discrimination, understanding, empathy or justice. The best way of dealing with people is still the old "do unto others" approach, otherwise if you treat them overly harshly you will get the same in return, which leads to a vicious cycle and ends up helping nobody.