No more exclusions and sexual violence in schools

[2fallsagain]

Have you seen the group No More exclusions are recommending that those who commit sexual violence should not be excluded? Rather they think the school should take a "community approach".

Whilst exclusions are not desirable you cannot include one child at the risk of others.

There is a big row going on with the NEU as they state it's not official policy. However many local NEU groups are tweeting in solidarity. It is alarming that so many are overriding safeguarding.

Here is SSA comment

twitter.com/SafeSchools_UK/status/1321193026228752387?s=20

Because girls have to learn that they are ‘support humans’ whose own needs are unimportant. Ffs.

Yes it’s absolutely horrendous. And they are trying to claim this is a “victim led” approach. NEU claim to have nothing to do with this group but have platformed them. And their local groups clearly did. It get the memo.

Keeping rapists in schools puts teachers in danger as well as pupils.

There’s some comments on that thread about PRUs so I apologise in advance for a bit of a detail (possible merail).

My background is working in the PRU system (for about a thousand years) and I think there should be no stigma to a child attending one. There are children who cannot function in a mainstream setting (ms schools will never change enough to accommodate these kids’ needs) and deserve an alternative curriculum to thrive.

Note I’m not justifying sexual assault but speaking of PRU kids in general.

I’d be wary of simply sending a child who has committed sexual assault to a PRU - there are still vulnerable girls and female staff to consider, there should be a higher risk tier for dangerous kids I think for everyone’s safety. There are already residential schools for the most dangerous kids. Would something like that not be better?

(For the record I have worked with kids who have committed sexual assault, one posed no threat one posed a massive threat. We also had kids classes as “potential sex offenders” but it wasn’t revealed who they were.)

Again sorry for merail.

Another detail sorry.

Diversity Role Model at the NUHT's charity of choice and national bullying week is coming in November.

Thanks for sharing OP, I'm digesting news of the GRA consultation inquiry this morning...

I think that's relevant and useful info, Delirium.

@ArabellaScott

I think that's relevant and useful info, Delirium.

Thanks I didn’t want to take an important issue and make it all about me but this is a problem that’s not going away so we need a new solution.

I wouldn’t see kids who have committed criminal acts or even been in young offenders units discriminated against- youth offending it complicated and most will be victims themselves. But I’m unsure that a boy who rapes or sexually assaults always falls into that category. I’m dubious that these are acts the child himself did not feel were acceptable to commit and ms schools at PRUs are not the place to rehabilitate an offender of this type.

PRUs always have a lot of girls who are victims of CSA/CSE or have SEMH issues -and it would be horrific to put a rapist in with them. I don’t have an answer but until a pupil is safe to be around girls (and possibly other boys) they need a different environment. And if you’re looking at Y10–11 pupils they’re often physically stronger than most female staff which makes the working environment unsafe- something the union should be thinking about.

I was lucky when I worked with ks4 in that none of them ever attacked me but it is seen as a bit of an occupational hazard in a PRU - I have a problem with that for many reasons - but sexual assault for staff or pupils is unacceptable.

I read a novel years ago in which a teenage girl was subjected to a serious sexual assault by two boys on school premises following a series of sexual harassment incidents against numerous females in school. The school refused to exclude him long term backed up by the authorities etc. The girls got together and upon his return to the classroom / upon his entry to any room every female student stood up and exited the
room. In the end with press backing they were successful in having him excluded.

Just a note - the only reason PRUs have been mentioned is that NME want to see their abolition and they’re needed - we care deeply about the safeguarding of children in PRUs.

Who actually are NME?

... I have worked with kids who have committed sexual assault, one posed no threat..

Could you explain a bit more how a child who has committed sexual assault is not a threat?

Exclusions don't work.
They don't make children reduce their unacceptable behaviour (whether that's a primary age child reacting aggressively to feeling unsafe or a secondary child engaging in illegal behaviour).
They disproportionally affect children from BAME backgrounds and those with disabilities (my DS was PEx in year 3 he has ADHD and children with ADHD are 8 times more likely to be excluded, for ASD I think it's 4x).
They just push the problem on to another educational setting (the point about girls in PRUs is spot on, but some will just be going to another mainstream school). Some boys will have abused other boys so a single sex school isn't going to help as a blanket solution (plus most settings will have female staff).
I agree that victims shouldn't have to fear seeing their assailant (where that child is a genuine assailant, I don't think that excluding a child like my DS who pushed some other children is helping those children to learn how to co-exist with children with disabilities). But there must be another way to reduce this behaviour - exclusion doesn't do that.

NME is No More Exclusions.

I think this is tricky, but I think that there is definitely a line across which it isn't right to have an abused pupil see their abuser every day at school, and that for a child who crosses that line, it's potentially not safe for staff and other pupils either.

For example, in my DS2's class (primary), there's 3 kids with some issues - the school is handling it very well - working with the parents, having extra support for those children, having strategies around it all, the rest of the class is aware, and asked to be tolerant, but also supported in their boundaries around obviously not wanting to be hit by these kids. This is normal stuff. If there was a child who was victimising another, who was attempting to assault another (sexually or otherwise) intentionally, rather than as a result of not really thinking/heat of the moment, or if the heat of the moment child wasn't being supported to stop those incidents, then I think that crosses the line, and exclusion (but then helping the parents find a suitable alternative, not just abandoning them) must be the solution for all concerned.

I have a family member who went to a special school when at primary, then was in a high school with a special needs unit for secondary. I understand why it's done, but I think that it didn't do him much good - I think that some children it would have been great for, but as children have individual needs, they need individual solutions.

Well why dont NME start to tell us what that other way might be, so that we can discuss it. And ask them how we would measure the effectiveness of their plan, or is it purely dogma to stop exclusion, but not stop violence?

There is a good deal of research in how to reduce exclusions in schools.
Exclusions increase violence. They just move it out of the first school that the child was in. And may not even do that, if it has no deterrent effect on children who remain in school; they may be escalating behaviour in children who remain in school because they aren't doing anything to address it other than exclude children once it's happened.

@TreestumpsAndTrampolines

If there was a child who was victimising another, who was attempting to assault another (sexually or otherwise) intentionally, rather than as a result of not really thinking/heat of the moment, or if the heat of the moment child wasn't being supported to stop those incidents, then I think that crosses the line, and exclusion (but then helping the parents find a suitable alternative, not just abandoning them) must be the solution for all concerned

Because "heat of the moment" sexual assault really just isn't as serious is it?

That's exactly the same belief that mens that a man gets 10 years for strangling a woman to death.

Well, the solution (which should include prevention of further incidents) may well differ, so it is different in some senses.

@IwishNothingButTheBestForYou2

... I have worked with kids who have committed sexual assault, one posed no threat..

Could you explain a bit more how a child who has committed sexual assault is not a threat?

He was escorted to sessions with a social worker and was in a very small group of just boys. He didn’t stay with us for long.

Whether he was a threat elsewhere I can’t answer but he didn’t come into contact with any girls whilst with us and unlike the other student didn’t harm anyone.

Obviously I can’t say what he has been like elsewhere.

And the situation was not ideal but as much as possible was in place to keep everyone else safe.

Also reading my post back I may have been unclear -
One child, whilst with us, behaved impeccably. This doesn’t excuse his past or alter the fact that in other scenarios he could still be a danger to others but the few times he was with us he did nothing wrong and nothing occurred that needed any further action, whereas another boy caused problems (which I’m not down playing but will not discuss further on a public board for obvious reasons).

I’m not saying he was not a threat but at the time we had him no incidents of any kind (including sexualised language) occurred.

I hope that makes sense.

Ah, I see someone has helpfully translated NME. I couldn't get New Musical Express out of my head and some of the other abbreviations on this thread mean absolutely nothing. NEU, SEMH etc. There's about one out of six I could figure out or make a good guess at: NUHT.

I am very dissapointed about NME this in relation to sexual assualt as its not reasonable to expect a victim to be taught along side their rapist. Its also very different than some of the main reasons children get excluded. I have had a lot of time for NME prior to this for the reasons listed by DrSpouse.

@Abitofalark

Ah, I see someone has helpfully translated NME. I couldn't get New Musical Express out of my head and some of the other abbreviations on this thread mean absolutely nothing. NEU, SEMH etc. There's about one out of six I could figure out or make a good guess at: NUHT.

NEU is the national Education Union and SEMH is Social Emotional and Mental Health (issues).

Sorry, it’s very easy to just go with the jargon.

I absolutely agree that sexual assault is a line which if crossed there can be no alternative than exclusion. Anything else risks the victim either physically self excluding (not attending or changing schools) or even internally self excluding by having to constantly disassociate from their feelings of distress triggered by the presence of the abusive boy.

However on the subject of exclusions per se I think it's tricky. Of course it isn't good if schools give up on pupils too quickly. However some children have needs that simply aren't well catered for by mainstream schools. Special schools can be amazing places offering a tailored education to multiple needs and the chance of genuine peer relationships for their pupils. There still seems such a stigma to them which I think leaves some pupils being badly catered for in mainstream for too long. Although I know this is also because it can be hell for parents to get the council to agree to find provision.

A friend of mine works in a school proud of its record of no exclusions. She says the reality is there's a handful of kids who spend almost all the time having their lessons separately in a tiny room. I don't think this approach does enough to address the core problems that lead to the bad behaviour in the first place. It seems more like its preparing those kids for prison.

Thanks Delirium. I've never heard of the National Education Union, although I would generally be familiar with the various main teachers' unions over a number of years.

I think they’ve come out of an amalgamation of the NUT and something else.

(I should know I’m in them 😂)