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

And saying "if you play up badly enough you get to leave".

But the alternative is you can do what you like and be allowed to return and do it again.

There has to be a balance between lawful inclusion and no exclusions.

More often than not, it is because they are not engaged by the content

What a victim blamey statement about teachers. Kids misbehave because they aren't engaged by the content of a lesson. They aren't there to be entertained. They're in school to learn.

That statement is pretty much saying "kids only misbehave because the teacher's lesson isn't good enough".

@Hercwasonaroll - where is that quote from?

I'm not disagreeing with you, just curious to know who is suggesting this.

From the NME FAQs, I think the third one. Sorry it looks like someone on this thread said it.

Have you ever been rung up to say "come and get your child now and don't ever bring them back"?
If you had, I think you'd know the difference

That situation is an illegal exclusion.

Illegal exclusions are wrong.
Illegal exclusions don't make permanent exclusions wrong.

Justajot
NME seem to overlap a lot with Dix, Pivotal, Ban the Booths and a number of educational consultants who make their money telling mainstream school staff that any challenging behaviour is their fault and they'll solve it if only the school buys into the training/consultancy.

As with any agenda, it's worth looking at whether those pushing it are likely to profit from it.

@LolaSmiles it's not illegal if they send a simple email the same day to confirm it's a PEx.
Which is what happened.

@TheLetterZ

And saying "if you play up badly enough you get to leave".

But the alternative is you can do what you like and be allowed to return and do it again.

There has to be a balance between lawful inclusion and no exclusions.

No, the alternative is a consequence that the child doesn't actually actively want!

Oh and also @LolaSmiles a heck of a lot "legal" exclusions are also very very wrong.

It's not illegal if they send a simple email the same day to confirm it's a PEx.
Which is what happened.
So the either the school have a big enough situation to justify a PEx or there's enough evidence to show the PEx is justified surely. Otherwise an appeal would be possible, and any parent who sees an exclusion for no reason would surely be challenging it?

The amount of evidence we get asked for before a managed move fails is precisely because it makes it clear what the issues were should there be an appeal.

I can't speak for every school but you seem to be suggesting that schools randomly decide they can't be bothered with a student so permanently exclude a 4/5 year old for no reason and, despite there being no grounds for an exclusion, the parent just accepts this, no appeal, no question.

Oh and also @LolaSmiles a heck of a lot "legal" exclusions are also very very wrong

The difference between you and those of us in favour of keeping PEx as an option is that some of us think there are situations where PEx is absolutely reasonable, whereas you seem to repeatedly conflate a range of issues based on the fact you just don't like exclusions.

The more I read about the NME, Ban the Booths (with their regularly changing definition of booths), Pivotal, and other consultant companies, the more I see a hell of a lot of victim blaming where everyone other than the individual student is held responsible for the student's actions. There's always some excuse that means the student who has bullied, harmed, assuated, verbally abused is prioritised over the right of other students to be safe in school.

If you're interested in all students getting the right education provision drspouse then NME isn't pushing for that.

They want to abolish alternative provision, abolish PRUs, abolish 'secure schools' (I think by this they mean secure children's homes with education on site).

They want community leaders to be accountable to young people, not politicians (whereas I'd want politicians who are running education to be held to account).

They have an anti-capitalist agenda too.

Are there parents and teachers open for a discussion about exclusions? Absolutely and I'd count myself in that. I'm particularly concerned about illegal exclusions for those with SEN and also concerned about off rolling.

Are groups like NME really wanting a robust discussion about education? No. They just want education restructured around their ideology.

[quote Justajot]@drspouse - I don't think you necessarily support the position that No More Exclusions is taking. Have you ready their FAQs?

They genuinely seem to think that the victim of sexual assault should explain to the perpetrator how they feel, having been assaulted and that the perpetrator should be able to explain what made them attack.[/quote]
That's frightening and sadly seems to be true from what I've read--although these groups seem to have the viewpoint that it's then the teacher's/schools fault for not engaging them enough!

TitianaTitsling
It's a worrying trend that lets politicians off the hook.

Disadvantaged pupils are disproportionately more likely to end up excluded and they also tend to achieve lower education outcomes than their peers, regardless of whether they are in an outstanding or average school (just the actual grade tends to be higher in an high performing school).
I can't recall the exact number but literacy levels of many prisoner inmates are worryingly low.
CAMHS have such a high threshold at times that it's really difficult to get mental health support before crisis point.
Cuts to funding mean that getting additional funds for SEN, EHCP, high needs funding and so on is increasingly difficult.

Then consider the impact of social issues on some children such as neglect, abuse, insecure or substandard housing, poverty, going without food, having to care for parents with complex issues etc.

I could go on, but in my opinion the energy needs to go towards holistically supporting children and families in need, whilst still retaining AP and PRU settings for those who need it. Blaming schools and saying we should ban exclusions is the wrong way round.

Agree, LolaSmiles without a holistic approach and more support for families then simply shouting for a ban on exclusions and an end to specialist provision will do nothing.

I completely agree Lola.

Agree with lola and delirium although knowing politics, they'll probably then say 'there's no more exclusions or pupils in specialist placements, CUT THE BUDGETS!'

i dont agree with victims of sexual abuse having to be with their attackers or removing PRU and specialist support. I do think politicians should be accountable.
But i do think the education system needs to engage with the idea that FTE can increase the incidence and severity of the behaviour they want to stop in children with SEN. That once schools start illegal exclusions and FTE they go down a road that is very difficult to end as children learn their behaviour is incredibly rewarding. FTE can have a profound effect on creating maladaptive behaviours to get the desired result of going home where they feel safe. FTE very often happen because the child doesnt have the right support in school due to finances and are sold as part of providing evidence for getting an ehcp. The lack of support triggers a fight, flight, freeze, flop response - they get sent home, so next time they are struggling to cope without support they recreate the cicrcumstance that sent them home. Until the point they are permanenly excluded for persistent disruptive behaviour. How much better would it be if suppport could be put in without having to train the children to kick off. Its terrible to get to the point of complete failure to show evidence for sn ehcp.
SEN support without an ehcp needs some kind of ring fenced funding to stop this very well trodden path happening.

@drspouse No, the alternative is a consequence that the child doesn't actually actively want!

What is this magic alternative? Something that the child doesn't want to do and keeps the victims safe! All without them missing a day of school.

If a student has committed a sexual assault (which is the issue we are talking about) the school must have measures in place to stop that person attending. Anything else is further abuse to the victim.

[quote TheLetterZ]**@drspouse* No, the alternative is a consequence that the child doesn't actually actively want!*

What is this magic alternative? Something that the child doesn't want to do and keeps the victims safe! All without them missing a day of school.

If a student has committed a sexual assault (which is the issue we are talking about) the school must have measures in place to stop that person attending. Anything else is further abuse to the victim.[/quote]
I'm talking about exclusions in general here. We have established that knowing they can miss school may lead to all kinds of poor behaviour to get that time off.
With a child that has committed an offence, it seems rather beyond the school's sanctions as far as a consequence goes. The part where you keep both the victim and other girls and women safe isn't best achieved by a wash-your-hands exclusion (and don't give me any guff about schools not washing their hands as that's precisely our experience.)

The part where you keep both the victim and other girls and women safe isn't best achieved by a wash-your-hands exclusion (and don't give me any guff about schools not washing their hands as that's precisely our experience.)
And that's what this come down to: your refusal to consider that the topic of exclusions and how best to respond to challenging behaviour is perhaps rather more complex than your experience.

You've decided you don't like exclusions, so exclusions are wrong regardless and there's some magical solution where students are simultaneously kept away from their victims and students who their behaviour poses a risk to, but also doesn't involve schools deciding to take the stance that a student's behaviour has no place in their school.

I still don't believe (or know of any) schools that wash their hands of students via PEX. Whatever happened with your child must have been a sufficiently bad one off incident or an ongoing pattern of behaviour. Either way your child was PEXd. What alternative do you propose?

I still don't believe (or know of any) schools that wash their hands of students via PEX.
What do you call it when a school doesn't want to apply for/implement/change an EHCP and doesn't try and find an alternative place when they have made a child so scared they've lashed out and then excludes following which they do nothing further for a child, then?
The system makes it much easier to PEx than actually fix the problem or find somewhere else. The school need do nothing further for a child once they are excluded. You are either lying or massively naive.
Read the SEN boards on here and parent groups on FB and then get back to me.

You know what, don't bother.
No school ever thought "it will be easier to be rid of him"
All schools always find another place for a child they know has problems before doing a managed move.
All schools are perfectly consistent in what behaviour they exclude for.
No child ever goes out on their own illegally when excluded.
No child ever tries to get excluded.
Exclusion is a perfect deterrent to the child and to others.

No school ever thought "it will be easier to be rid of him"
Ime it isn't easier to get rid of a student. It's harder and counts against the school from an ofsted perspective.

All schools always find another place for a child they know has problems before doing a managed move.
I don't really know what you're talking about here. Pre managed move the school can't move a child, parents can.

All schools are perfectly consistent in what behaviour they exclude for.
I have never said they are. Schools should be consistent to their own policies however.

No child ever goes out on their own illegally when excluded.
This is a parental issue and not a problem with PEXing.

No child ever tries to get excluded.
I have no doubt some do. Still not a reason to ban all exclusions.

Exclusion is a perfect deterrent to the child and to others.
No one said it was perfect, however there comes a point where the behaviour of one child needs to stop impacting on the rest of the class. What is your alternative perfect solution? (There isn't one).

Yet again, you're taking your experience and deciding the whole topic of exclusions should be viewed through that lens, instead of considering that maybe, just maybe, there's a bit more to it.

You seem to want alternative provision and not want it.
Are against exclusions but then also say that schools shouldn't have to accept a child in school where their behaviour hits a certain point.
Claim everyone washes their hands and get annoyed at schools but the LA has a duty for educating the child, no school has a duty to keep a student regardless of behaviour.
You've confused correlation and causation throughout your posts on this topic
You seem to be suggesting that it's the norm to be permanently excluded in reception for no reason, but then despite these exclusions being for no reason and appeals being available parents just unquestioningly accept it?

You're muddying the waters repeatedly by going on about illegal exclusions, EHCP etc to try and support your point that exclusions are simply wrong.

You'll struggle to find teachers who think the current system is perfect and you'll find many that are in favour of more reform, but trying to argue against exclusions as an option based on you having a bad experience is hugely short sighted.

No child ever goes out on their own illegally when excluded.
I really don't understand this but, why would this have anything to do with the school? Why is illegal to go out if excluded?