Warm-strict

[noblegiraffe]

Does anyone else want to vomit when they hear this? I’m hearing it increasingly often and it seems to be a propaganda replacement for ‘zero tolerance’.

It’s ‘yeah, I’m super-strict and don’t let the kids breathe out of turn but I’ll hug them on results day’, isn’t it?

I like warm-strict as a phrase. I think it sums up my approach well.

I have clear routines and expectations, and don't waste my days making excuses for why rules apply to one child and not another (excluding reasonable adjustments obviously). I think some of what's gone wrong in schools is that adults, in a bid to be cool and pat themselves on their back, start lowering standards, being inconsistent, say one thing but don't follow through. Some leaders spend their time telling staff they'll get good behaviour if they pander to trends, spend less time teaching and more time "getting them on side" and generally prioritising the minority over the majority.
I think relationships are hugely important, but have spent years rallying against the silly idea that disruptive behaviour is caused by teachers not being entertainers or that staff earn respect and decent behaviour. I think there's a basic level of respect and conduct that is a given.

There's no need to be an arse or unpleasant, but I think students do crave boundaries and adults who care enough about them to be unpopular because they want to help the children achieve.

The phrase made me boak a bit when I first read it in the OP.

But people’s explanation of how it works for them rings true as the approach I find most successful irl.

Super hardline is almost always a mistake and super friendly is almost always worse.

Scottish there apple ??

I think noble's point has been missed. The people using the phrase are not warm-strict : they are authoritarian, zero tolerance controllers.

I think we are on the way to Michaela style discipline becoming a government policy. They seem to have appointed some new behaviour tsars.

must be the holiday wine but I’ve no idea what you mean.

The people bandying about ‘warm-strict’ are using it to describe behaviour policies at schools that would previously have been called ‘zero tolerance’.

Where most teachers would hear ‘warm-strict’ and think ‘oh that’s reasonable, that’s me!’

Hmm yeah I'm not sure. The school I know using it definitely is "warm strict" and not zero tolerance. It shouted warmth and respect and had a lovely atmosphere.

It was the boak!

We’re old fashioned so we still call our behaviour policy “zero tolerance”. In reality it’s not zero tolerance. Warm-strict is probably a much better descriptor for what it is like. We aren’t remotely trendy so can’t imagine us changing our terminology any time soon but why does it matter if it’s just a rebranding of something that’s been around for a while.
If you try and do “zero tolerance” without a warm, respectful and friendly environment then I think it’s unlikely to work, as it’s a recipe for creating epic battle-of-will situations. Why does it matter if it’s a rebrand?

Just realised I asked the same question twice. Also holiday wine related.

I see what you mean there noble.

On some of the Michaela style things, whilst it's not for me, I find it hard to characterise them as an uncaring body of staff. I sympathise with some elements of their ethos, but couldn't work there. I do think they are working with good hearts and do care.

I think behaviour has been the elephant in the room over time and that's gone hand in hand with other questionable pedagogical and ideological fads. It's a tough one to crack, but ultimately I think there's a difference between draconian authoritarian regimes and schools that are strict and consistent.

The problem with the term "zero tolerance" is that it misleads some people into the "victory by definition fallacy":

Using a dictionary's limited definition of a term as evidence that term cannot have another meaning, expanded meaning, or even conflicting meaning.

www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/27/Appeal-to-Definition

I've seen so many people over the years comment "But it's zero tolerance, right, and that has to mean literally zero", implying that if a pupil burst into tears in class, the teacher would simply give them a demerit and tell them to sit up straight. And it doesn't matter if someone actually working in the school, like Sabine say "no, that's not actually how it works", because well, we all know the dictionary definition of "zero", don't we?

Just been thinking about this some more, and it reminds me (Rafal will probably remember this) of how some anti-phonics campaigners insisted on misinterpreting the phrase "first, fast and only" - which actually described an approach where only phonics should be used for decoding, i.e. no picture cues etc - but people like Michael Rosen insisted it had to mean children weren't allowed any access to real books at all. He actually said to me on Comment is Free - "what is it about the definition of only that you don't understand?"

I think some of it is also based on 'zero tolerance' in prisons in the US and the famous sick bucket debacle where literally what you described did happen.

Sabine does not work in a zero tolerance school.

sabine does your school actually really sue that term on its websites? And in its policies? Di children get zero strikes and you're out? Are children given 'demerits' for looking out of a window, or talking on the way into or out of a lesson?

If so, the , yes , it's 'zt' but your previous descriptions of the school just make it sound quite firm. In lots of the schools which are now called warm-strict, the students never speak at all (ever) without being specifically asked to.
The whole rebranding thing matters : of course it does! Otherwise why do so many big companies pay so much to brand consultants! why is the government currently going into battle over what 'prorogue' means? And saying 'it's just a day break really...'

Use , not sue! No intention of suing anyone!

We say that we have a “zero-tolerance” stance on disruptive behaviour.
In reality we have a stepped policy with warnings. Our corridors are definitely not silent. We aren’t a silent school by any stretch but I don’t think schools with silent corridors are necessarily oppressive.

No, not always at all.

This is the Michaela and Barry Smith thing, isn’t it?

On the surface it sounds quite creepy, like a Gestapo Officer who offers free hugs, but people who have been to the schools say they are genuinely warm places, just with very high standards and consistent responses.

I think some of what's gone wrong in schools is that adults, in a bid to be cool and pat themselves on their back, start lowering standards, being inconsistent, say one thing but don't follow through. Some leaders spend their time telling staff they'll get good behaviour if they pander to trends, spend less time teaching and more time "getting them on side" and generally prioritising the minority over the majority.
I think relationships are hugely important, but have spent years rallying against the silly idea that disruptive behaviour is caused by teachers not being entertainers or that staff earn respect and decent behaviour. I think there's a basic level of respect and conduct that is a given.

This. And no, it doesn’t involve spending five minutes listening to kids “gob off” - when we start thinking this is an inevitability, we have given up on sensible standards.

Warm-strict, to me, is you care about them enough to enforce the expectations properly, to their ultimate benefit.

And I don’t support zero tolerance of forgetting a pen. It should be recorded, child should be expected to have borrowed or bought one by next lesson and if they repeatedly don’t bring one, yes, detention. But “zero tolerance” of back chat and “gobbing off” to me makes perfect sense. Children don’t come to school to argue and back chat staff. They come to learn.

Nick Gibb, schools minister praising warm-strict and retweeting a Lehain blog which bangs on about how marvellous zero tolerance schools are:

twitter.com/nickgibbuk/status/1169673888701263877?s=21

Similar to the lot praised by Boris Johnson.

And they promised a crack down on behaviour. Hmmm.

I don't think there is anything wrong with the principle of being warm and strict, but a) it seems like it's actually code for something else and b) the phrase makes me feel queasy, like almost all ghastly educational jargon and buzzwords. Ugh.

Oh look, now the TES is publishing ‘All schools should be warm-strict’

www.tes.com/news/why-all-schools-should-be-warm-strict-behaviour

That article really says nothing. It's all just words strung together!

In some ways , I wouldn't mind the whole 'warm -strict' thing if it didn't tie in with such restrictive teaching practices as well. I'd be fine with the quiet corridors (especially after three days of already having had two arguments with students and overhearing them swearing constantly) and the zero tolerance of some behaviours if the classrooms were warm and buzzy places full of energy and enjoyment of learning and thinking. In my experience the battery hens approach to learning goes hand in hand with these behaviour policies.

The Ban The Booths brigade really seem to have lost this battle at the moment!

For a while TES seems to have had articles from Ban the Booths types Vs the Zero Tolerance types.

I'm glad the Ban the Booths brigade have lost this one because it was a silly campaign led by a couple of men with a vested interest in getting schools to spend lots of money on their training which adds to staff workload and makes behaviour worse.

I'm not a fan of the very self styled zero tolerance style approach, but I can get behind there being a proper conversation about behaviour that doesn't involve everyone blaming class teachers for not being entertainers, and doesn't involve no sanctions for poor behaviour unless the class teacher has taken 15 minutes of the lesson to indulge a disruptive student as the rest of the class stop learning.