Behaviour Policies

Frustration is at the heart of many a teacher's day. It can manifest itself in many ways:

1. The kids won't listen and aren't taking their education as seriously as they should.
2. There aren't enough hours in the day to do the various tasks you have to do as a teacher.
3. The photocopier's broken and you need a class set of worksheets.
4. Your computer crashes in the middle of an observation.

There are many frustrating issues that go along with being teacher, and probably most jobs in fairness, but my main frustration has to be exclusive to educators:

How some kids essentially get away with everything: doing no work, being rude, smoking, swearing at staff, the list goes on.

Take an example from last week of a child who is regularly in trouble with the police for offences such as burglary, drug dealing, theft in general and wagging school. His home life is extremely settled, or should I say, should be extremely settled. This child's parents have applied for the child to be taken into care because of the carnage that surrounds their every move. This student, whom I attempt to teach when they are there, last week went nose-to-nose with me and called me a "fucking idiot" whilst I was on duty only to go on and threaten a colleague of mine, warning them to watch their back as you never know what might happen.

Both myself and my colleague wrote the incident up, but bright as a button, the student strolls into my lesson the next day. This student doesn't intimidate me in any way, although perhaps that's pretty foolhardy of me considering some of the people they hang around with, and this is not the first time this kind of thing has happened. The student clearly feels that they can do what they want, when they want. In fact they threatened another member of staff a day or so later. Nothing's happened.

Not only is this absolutely shocking, but when you see normally nice kids make a mistake or lose their temper and get the full rule book lobbed in their general direction, receiving time in isolation and phone calls home to explain to their parents just how naughty they've been, it makes me wonder why every child isn't misbehaving more. The more you do, the more untouchable you seem to become.

I'm not saying that schools should be excluding every child who sneezes in the wrong part of the corridor, but unless there are consequences for those who misbehave, where's the incentive to toe the line? The government (no surprise there) has made it almost impossible for schools to exclude, although they will obviously claim otherwise. If a school does exclude, it still has to pay for their education. In a climate of decreasing budgets this is not an option for many schools.

Consequences For Actions

FACT: If I told my boss to "F*** Off" I'd get the sack.
FACT: If I repeatedly told colleagues to "F*** Off" in anger, I'd get the sack.
FACT: If I prevented colleagues from doing their job, I'd get the sack.

The constant moan from employers is that schools aren't preparing the youth of Britain for the world of work, so why don't the same consequences listed above apply to school children?

The summer is a period when many schools send students on work experience. Many students, if they had been bothered to find a placement that they might be interested in, find work experience extremely rewarding, but the number who act like they do at school (ie. refusing to follow instructions) seems to be on the increase and turn up at school having had a strop and stomped off from their placement.

Why is this?

In my view it's purely down to a lack of consequences for actions in schools for students.

Now I'm not advocating that schools should kick out every child who misbehaves, and I also realise that school children are liable to make more "mistakes" than adults, but part of the problem is that when a student seriously crosses the behavioural line, a day spent out of circulation and then a return to a regular school day is perhaps not enough of a deterrent.

Behaviour of children is a major gripe amongst teachers (although politicians are up there too). Every school, no matter what the headteacher says, has challenging students who you would think would be in line for possible exclusion. As a colleague of mine was saying the other day, there are a few things you need to weigh up when prioritising who should possibly face this (extreme) sanction:

• Do they regularly misbehave?
• Is there evidence for this behaviour? (Evidence is crucial now due to the appeals process.)
• Has the school put a plan in place to help this child modify their behaviour?
• Is this plan making a difference to their behaviour?
• Does the child regularly prevent other children from learning (a consequence of preventing the teacher from teaching in many cases)?

I don't want to see loads of children excluded from school - they have to go somewhere after all, but does repeated poor behaviour mean that they relinquish their right to choose where they are educated? The problem is that if there are no obvious consequences for poor behaviour, the problem will only get worse as those students push the boundaries further and more students jump on the poor behaviour bandwagon.

At my school we have a few students whose names regularly crop up in behavioural discussions, but none appear to be on the brink leaving for good despite the fact that their behaviour is getting worse. One child who I have had the "pleasure" of teaching recently appeared on the board yesterday, presumably for swearing at the teacher, constant disruption of lessons, refusal to follow instructions, storming out of class and then telling a senior member of staff to "F*** Off". I don't actually know why they've been excluded, but that is what has happened on numerous occasions in the past, and still that child will come back in a few days as if nothing has happened, despite having been told repeatedly that they are in "last chance saloon". 

Government introduced red tape, including the right to appeal, doesn't help as schools lose money every time they exclude a child permanently, but they would lose a lot more if they kept a child who affected the results of many due to their behaviour. If politicians genuinely want standards lifted (a debatable issue) then they may want to think about allowing schools to excluded children who keep those standards low through their choices regarding how they behave. Teachers often complain that most of their time is spent on the minority of students who misbehave rather than imparting knowledge that may actually raise standards. This clearly isn't right - teachers shouldn't essentially be stewards, predominantly keeping control in their classrooms, they should be teaching, the job they were trained to do (in most cases). How are standards going to improve if teachers aren't allowed to teach?

And then we get to parental support...

It is often no coincidence that many of the students who fall into the category above have parents who either don't set consequences for their children's actions, or will defend their children until they are "blue in the face". But that's a subject for another blog.

Is it worth paying for education?

I've been a bit busy recently, but a conversation with a parent the other day got me thinking.

Their child is very good at sport and has been offered a place at a decent public school, which would normally cost in the region £9k per term. The family is very close knit and asked my advice on what the benefits would be, bearing in mind that you couldn't describe the child as particularly academic, by the family's own admission. The child currently attends the local state comprehensive.

My advice was that they should seriously think about it for the following reasons:

1. The facilities and coaching for sport will be much better. This is due to money and time being invested in sport at public schools, money and time that simply isn't available in state education.
2. The child will almost certainly get better exam results. The parents worry that all the others would be more intelligent and that would add increased pressure on their child, but I pointed out that they were offered the place for sport and that because the teachers could just concentrate on teaching rather than disciplining other members of the class, as they do in state schools, the child would learn far more. The teachers in public schools are no better or worse than their counterparts in state schools, there's just not the behavioural issues to deal with so that they can actually do their job.
3. Even though the child would have to board, a major worry for the parents, that child would almost certainly enjoy it hugely. It's not ideal for everyone, but this child, I have no doubt, would thrive in the environment. It builds a sense of community and that can't be a bad thing.
4. It opens doors in the future. Like it or not, a private education and the old school tie still hold weight and open more doors than would otherwise present themselves. In an ideal world this shouldn't happen, but the fact is that it does, so if you are offered that for nothing, take it with both hands so that you have the choice in the future.

The parents said that I really shouldn't be suggesting that public schools are better than state schools, but in general they are due purely to the ill-discipline of too many children in comprehensives. Private schools just get rid of these troublemakers who disrupt others' learning, but state schools, because of government policy on "inclusion" means that state schools have to try to cope, often to the detriment of those who are well behaved.

State education is broken for many reasons, but the fact that there are no consequences for poor behaviour because these poorly disciplined children at home ruin the futures of those who toe the line.

Not that the politicians would notice - as long as money is being saved.

Excuses Are Wearing Thin

I'm not keen, as a classroom teacher, on phoning home about children when they misbehave in class. I have better things to do in my free time at work like plan "outstanding" lessons. I also would like to think that I could discipline most young people in my class with a mixture of humour and clear boundaries, and generally it works to be honest. There have always been some young young people who don't respond, but you tend to find that they don't respond to others either.

This number is increasing though, and what's the reason? Autism and ADHD apparently. I really don't buy into this. I'm not saying that autism and ADHD are figments of parental imagination - I have seen genuine cases where support is deserved and required, but due to more accurate "tests", more and more youngsters are being diagnosed with the conditions when actually they just can't behave or can't be bothered.

These are being used as excuses for poor behaviour and/or performance. These conditions are almost desirable for lazy parents, as it gives them some leeway and "substance" to their argument when teachers phone up to inform them that their spawn are going to leave school with few meaningful qualifications.

In a political climate where Wilshaw (Ofsted's head tyrant) is saying that he wants to get rid of the excuse culture and make teachers fully accountable for their students' performance, why do we offer the parents and students themselves so many excuses on a plate?

Hardly a level playing field.

Ofsted - clueless!

It's not just me who thinks that Ofsted are totally clueless when it comes to assessing schools. There was a letter from a teacher to Chris Woodhead (former Chief Inspector of Schools) in The Sunday Times this week bemoaning a glowing recent Ofsted on their school. The report had stated that the behaviour of the students at the school was "exemplary" whereas in reality the students ran the place with the headteacher being totally ineffective and using the Ofsted report as justification for doing essentially nothing.

The stories from this teacher, whose name is understandably withheld are truly shocking. Female staff are called "stupid bitches" to their face, students regularly "go on strike" and corridors are urinated in (by students rather than staff!). The place sounds like a candidate for academy status to me, but apart from one minor quote about behaviour in the corridors being occasionally "boisterous", the inspectors have clearly no idea what really goes on in the place, relying heavily on data to form an opinion.

You have to give credit to Woodhead who attempts to defend Ofsted, as he always does. He claims that maybe the troublemakers amongst the student body were "mysteriously disappeared" for the visit, which does happen regularly. When our school was last inspected the board listing those students on external exclusion was pretty jam-packed with the usual candidates. Woodhead does admit that due to the inspectors' reliance on data and the brevity of a visit, their judgement can be far removed from the reality of what's going on. Which would suggest that the entire inspection process is a bit of a waste of time, would it not?

The teacher is clearly exasperated with their head's totally ineffectiveness and Woodhead suggests writing, as a staff body, to the head explaining what the issues are. He then says that if the head does not accept the view from the staff then you should go to the school's governing body and/or the local authority.

This only goes to show how far removed from the reality of school life Mr Woodhead is. The member of staff would be committing career suicide by writing to the headteacher, and if they tried to drum up support from other members of staff, news would quickly get back to that headteacher about who was behind it. Bear in mind that the teacher requires a reference from that headteacher to move on, and if moving on isn't an option, they would almost certainly find that next year's (and all subsequent years) timetable would be shocking for them, and leadership drop-ins/observations would increase. On top of that teachers are very good at moaning about something, but not always so good at doing something about it.

Writing to the school's governing body would have the same result as writing to the headteacher in that essentially most of the governors don't want any grief and are doing the job either to further their career in the local community (mayor anyone?) or because their child is at the school and they want to know what's going on. A few might do something about it, but as it's not a paid position, can you blame them for wanting an easy time of things? The headteacher will often hoodwink the governors into believing that everything's going swimmingly, and they won't know any different, so won't realise that there's a problem.

The only possible action would be to write to the local authority, but that would almost certainly get tied up in red tape and take an eternity for anything to happen. Even then, when they visited, who would be the only person to have contact with the local authority employees? The headteacher. So ultimately, headteachers are untouchable. I suppose the new Chief Inspector of Schools' proposal to have local troubleshooters is an attempt to tackle this, although it remains to be seen if these troubleshooters will be effective.

The letter just highlights the fact that Ofsted are clueless, overpaid and of no use to parents, schools or children.

Teaching's Vocational Pull

I had never entered the National Lottery until around Christmas last year. I now regularly buy two “lucky dips” (the name is rather ironic to a mathematician who knows that the chances of winning are around 14 million to 1) and even watch the draw on a Saturday night, which although not stooping to the levels of X Factor or Britain’s Got Talent, is still a bottom feeder in the televisual stakes. There are only so many parts of the human body that can be crossed at any one time, but it hasn’t worked yet.

So why wait 17 years until finally buying a ticket? I have always known the odds of winning, and let’s be honest they aren’t great, but somebody’s got to win and it is just as likely to be me as anyone else. I have a mortgage that drains half my resources every month, but that’s Ok and I can budget for that with my wages. The problem is just that though: my wages. I’m not complaining that they are too low (although I wouldn’t gaze into the gift horse’s mouth if someone offered me more), and any teacher who does complain that they don’t get paid enough shouldn’t have joined the profession in the first place. The wages in teaching are very well advertised, so if you don’t like it, don’t do it.

The fact is that I don’t want to have to do the teaching bit anymore. I have been a teacher for over 10 years now and my enthusiasm for teaching itself is untainted, it’s just the other stuff that goes with it, stuff that barely existed when I embarked upon the career all those moons ago.

I have just read a book called “On The Edge” by Charlie Carroll (available on Amazon and worth a read) about a young teacher who decides to do supply in the most difficult areas of England in which to teach. I would suggest that every teacher who’s a bit down in the dumps read it, as you will quickly realise that it’s not that bad where you are (unless you are in one of the schools he taught in obviously, but then we all know that supply teachers suffer more from unruly students).

Carroll teaches in deprived areas to length and breadth of the country, including Pupil Referral Units, and some of the stories are truly horrifying. There are many situations which many teachers will recognise, like being threatened, feeling totally hopeless in front of 30+ screaming, seemingly out of control children and many others. The author suggests changes to teaching conditions that have been implemented by different governments of different coloured rosettes, most of which have been to the detriment of the educational system in the UK.

He points out that schools and teachers have little or no power to discipline children for poor behaviour for fear of litigation from parents or chastisement from Local Education Authorities/Ofsted. As a result children essentially do what they want, when they want without fear of rapprochement. He also points out that when schools do lay down strict discipline rules, the children appreciate it (everyone likes some kind of structure) and the school thrives, but it takes a brave Senior Management Team to do so. Although a visible SMT would be nice, as most headteachers are locked away in airtight offices pouring over Excel spreadsheets or attending “strategy” meetings rather than being seen in school but staff or students nowadays.

It’s this powerlessness in teaching that has ground me into the dirt professionally, with the actions of a few disruptive teenagers influencing the lives of so many of their peers so heavily and being able to do little about it. I was told to “F*** Off” by a student last year; their punishment: an hour’s detention, and my punishment: I was told off for goading them and since have not been backed up in any similar situations by certain members of SMT. I can only assume therefore that if told my headteacher to “F*** Off” I would just have to stay for an hour after school planning lessons as my punishment, rather than picking up my P45. Hang on, I do that anyway, without the P45 bit (so far!).

So fingers crossed every Saturday night as I watch those 6 balls, plus the bonus trickle out of Lancelot. The worrying thing is that I know that I’m not the only one who is doing it. My department has a syndicate that if it won the school would be down at least 5 teachers, if not more the following Monday morning. I would not miss the job, and would probably still do something related, as long as it didn’t involve trying to control 30ish kids who have few goals in life other than to ensure that no-one else in the class gets a chance to learn.

Teaching is no longer a desirable vocation, it’s become a necessity for many who are trying to make ends meet and pay the rent/mortgage. And that’s not a healthy situation for the teachers or young people of Britain.