New isolation policy - want some views

[Changedmynamebeforeiblow]

My school (secondary) has an isolation area were pupils go for uniform and behaviour issues. Often it's a bit of a lark though. It will now be reformed into an absolutely silent area that pupils cannot leave at all during the day, where all visual stimulus has been removed. I feel quite uncomfortable with this, as I believe enforced silence in a bare room could potentially be damaging to pupils, especially as the ones who end up there tend to have less than ideal home lives. I don't want to voice my concerns with too many colleagues, as word always gets out. I guess I'm looking for input from other teachers: does your school do similar? What is your initial reaction to this? Am I being precious or should I raise this? If so, how?

All visual stimulus has been removed? Or all visual stimulus bar some work they’re meant to be cracking on with?

DD2's school has just introduced this. Tbh, there was uproar at first and quite a lot of kids were 'Hubbed', but it seems to have calmed down now and she's only mentioned one or two children sent to the 'hub' in the last couple of weeks.

@noblegiraffe sorry, they are obviously meant to be doing work. Was too busy editing to make it less identifying and overlooked that! It does mean no ICT, no posters of any type and they can't look out of the window.

@Lougle How do you feel about it? Are you a teacher as well? Did the school inform parents of the changes?

Sounds awful. You will have no real idea of which children have experienced trauma and this could be retraumatising. Ffs what is wrong with some head teachers. Do they actually like children?

Sounds fine to me. As you said, at the moment it is a bit of a lark. The new one is designed to be non-fun. They don't need to look at pretty pictures or stare out the window. They will have work to do; the absence of other things to look at may marginally increase the chances of them doing it. Silent working is not damaging!

There's a lot to be said for bare walls. Busy walls actually distract from learning and also who's going to stop whatever is on the walls becoming mindless wallpaper? I think you're being a bit silly on that.

A room where disruptive or defiant students can work in silence out of general circulation is a totally reasonable facility to have. It shouldn't be a lark and having desk dividers helps students focus on their work and removes the pressure for them to further disrupt, which might result in an exclusion.
For example, I've worked with many a student with challenging behaviour. Most do actually want to do well, but they find social pressure hard to manage, especially if they feel they have to save face and keep their reputation. It's easier for them to get on in isolation and do what they need to if there's the 'excuse' of 'but that's isolation isn't it'. I've had students thank me for their results and then when I pointed out it was their effort and their work, they've said 'but you made me do it'. I always remind them I don't make them do anything. They chose to make good choices and I did what I could to help them make the choice they knew was right.

The second issue is how does isolation fit into your whole school behaviour policy. Here I think you've got more grounds to raise concerns that are reasonable and would contribute to the discussion (rather than the hysterical behaviour consultant style 'silence and plain walls is awful'). Are we looking at a school that has had repeated issues with uniform that borders on defiance so have been using isolation to send a message, or a school that's overreacting to minor things? Ive seen both. What are the consequences below isolation? How are they ran? Do SLT back staff when behaviour needs intervention above teacher level? Could a centralised lunch detention, for example, ran by SLT be an option for minor uniform issues rather than isolation so that a sense of proportion is maintained? Would SLT be willing to consider this as a way to reduce workload and sort uniform out, or are they the type of SLT who wouldn't consider that because it's too much like hard work and they'd rather under pay a member of support staff to house students for a few hours?

In terms of ongoing needs, what is the protocol for repeat offenders? How do they monitor SEND representation in isolation? If SEND students are unduely overrepresented in isolation, what will they do to evaluate existing SEND provision? For long term offenders who are persistently defiant, how does isolation fit into a support package to reintegrate? What will school be doing to aim to reduce repeat stays in isolation?

I think on some things you are being way too precious to the point of soft, but in some respects you're under-considering more pressing issues when considering an isolation policy.

But I'm prepared for the almost inevitable MN 'isolation breaks human rights and should never happen and no child can be expected to follow a simple rule... let me take a SEND case and overapply it to a student population it doesn't apply to'.

To a dyslexic child who already struggles to concentrate this would be cruel

To a child with dyspraxia or ADHD the lack of movement would also be cruel

These children are more likely to end up in isolation as teachers don’t understand the impact these conditions have and what they need to do to make adjustments for that child

It’s a vicious circle and needs to be stopped

Main reason? It doesn’t work, it’s never worked, it won’t start working now

By “uniform issues”, do you mean if a child shows up with the wrong shoes or having forgotten his tie?

doesn’t work, it’s never worked

Schools that introduce this seem to report a sharp drop-off in the number of kids being sent there, and an improvement in behaviour around the school. Clearly it works for some.

Lost whole post, so in short:

@RolyWatts I did wonder that about liking children

@Greentulips I don't know enough about the background of the pupils currently in there to comment.

@Seniorschoolmum any uniform issues worse than a forgotten tie, so wrong shoes/ trousers = isolation.

@LolaSmiles Behaviour is generally good and the behaviour management system is solid. SLT are very supportive and there are already centralised detentions for certain things.

I'll just assume you weren't referring to me when you said it was hysterical - and I get to be soft, I'm not in pastoral

The idea is that repeat offenders will be moved through different stages in isolation, potentially culminating in exclusion.

Good point about SEND

any uniform issues worse than a forgotten tie, so wrong shoes/ trousers = isolation.
To me the difference there is:

1. Students pushing uniform a bit (e.g. tie in the latest trend knot / rolling skirt/ shirt untucked) - reminder or minor sanction
2. Students turning up to school purposefully not wearing the correct uniform (e.g. hoodies not jumpers / trainers not shoes without good reason / leggings not school trousers)

The latter is defiance because it's students and sometimes parents saying 'we don't see why the rules apply to us' . They know the rules and are choosing to arrive at school seeking a confrontation or argument or some exemption made because they are somehow more entitled to ignore rules than the other kids.

All staff address point 1. Pupils under point 2 would go to isolation currently. Often the same applies to pupils who haven't got correct uniform by necessity (i.e. item has broken and no money to replace). It's awkward AF to call a parent about incorrect uniform and know that it is due to a lack of money. Those kids often do end up in isolation.

Changedmynamebeforeiblow
Oh no, I totally didn't mean you were being hysterical. More that some responses are hysterical any time isolation gets mentioned and it seems to either be:

1. My opinion is they are terrible across the board and therefore my opinion is totally right in every school in every context. Allow me to get hysterical and exaggerate and cry human rights because silence is mean.
2. I'm a behaviour consultant who stands to make a LOT of money by criticising schools that don't do it my way. So I'll do all of #1, but then target schools directly, take individual valid criticism of some schools and use it to support my ideological campaign because I want to make money.

The reality is that isolation is a reasonable part of a behaviour policy, just like a detention or a warning or a restorative conversation or an exclusion. The success or lack of success for any given strategy depends on how it's used, how it fits into the behaviour policy as a whole, the attitude and work-ethic of SLT, how it fits with other strategies and support. Then school contextual factors need to be considered.

In reality it's a bit more complicated and the whole thing would be a lot better if more people did what you've done which is pause, reflect, consider different views, think about things from multiple angles instead of just fuming away because 'my opinion is...'

Changedmynamebeforeiblow
Totally cross posted again.
That approach sounds ok to me, except the lack of money one. That's bad practice.

All schools I've been in have loaned blazers/shoes etc out to students during the day & have also used PP funding to support the costs of uniform for some families (in schools with a good PTA they've also donated uniform for this purpose too). It's worth raising with your SLT because any sensible leader would be open to ways to improve behaviour and implementation.

Thanks for clarifying @LolaSmiles!

The school does help out with uniform, but depending on the issue the child might still end up being isolated for the day.

My old school had a small room like this. Some students in student support eg SEND but internal exclusion used for serious defiance, refusal to follow instructions and more serious disruption.

Each had a study "cubicle" like you see in uni libraries. Lots of work set. Computer in each to complete work and email back to staff.

Students in there had separate lunch and break to others too.

It was actually pretty zen tbh most of the time.

The SSC was more for students suffering anxiety, repeated minor infringement etc.

Students were assessed before deciding which was most appropriate place for them.

..."It will now be reformed into an absolutely silent area that pupils cannot leave at all during the day,"

Because as you say, it was a lark so wasn't working as a deterrent. Something had to change. Nothing wrong in silence for work, and nothing wrong with blank walls. I would however expect those in isolation to have breaks so they can move and talk. Sitting and getting on with work though is what many of us do, day-in, day-out in the working world!

If there are children who would find this set-up hard to work with due to emotional/mental heath issues, then I would expect student support to step in and help those children address those issues.That doesn't however mean they go to a different kind of isolation where it's "a bit of a lark". They're not supposed to like it, that's the point!

My child wouldn’t go to any school that put him in isolation for wearing the wrong shoes once - because they had got soaked the day before for example.

I agree repeated intentional defiance is unacceptable but once! That’s not in the best interests of the child, the parent-teacher relationship or the school.

Working in silence is really what they might be doing anyway, isn’t it?