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.

Maths Teachers Are Rubbish

In his latest assault on the teaching profession, the Chief Inspector of Schools, Sir Michael Wilshaw claims that maths teachers are letting all children down. The school system is so focused on the C grade that the best mathematicians are not being stretched, those who fall behind early in their educational career are just left to flounder, and exams are getting easier.

As a maths teacher I would like to try to justify, maybe defend, the maths teacher's predicament.

1. C grade being a Holy Grail - whose fault is this? Ofsted's, the very body Sir Michael heads. Schools are judged on their A* to C grade percentage, and for some reason the government and public seem to think that Ofsted know what they are talking about. Smell the coffee people, Ofsted don't have a clue what they are on about. The quango is made up of failed and ex-teachers who have little idea how modern classrooms work. Wilshaw himself has had success at a local level, but that's because he got rid of people who didn't toe his line. That's the path the Children's Minister told me our school should go down, and is easy to do on a local level, but what they all forget is that the children have to go somewhere. They can't be left to roam the streets surely.
2. Those children who fall behind are always going to flounder, because if they struggle with the basics, they are going to struggle with the tougher stuff - obvious, no? Not everyone can get a C grade (a pass in real terms), or the pass mark would have to be raised. This government, and in that breath I include Ofsted, who although apparently independent, are just a government vehicle, are fixated on getting everyone a C grade or higher. It's not going to happen I'm afraid - some people just aren't very good at maths. Fact! Not the teachers' fault.
3. Exams are easier - not the teachers' fault either.Government have allowed exam boards to be privatised, which has led to exam boards trying to attract customers. The more A* to C grades candidates achieve, the more customers you have, the more money you make. Simples.

The "celebrity" mathematician Alex Bellos was on BBC Breakfast this morning and hit the nail firmly on the head when he said something along the lines of:

The problem with maths in this country is cultural. People are happy to say that they are rubbish at maths, but they would never admit to not being able to read.

Spot on Alex - not teachers' fault! Wilshaw - shut up you idiot!

Turning To The Dark Side

Excellent, that's my sister's Christmas present next year sorted: a red light sabre. All those in the Star Wars films who have turned to the Dark Side own a red light sabre.

My sister, who is also a teacher has turned to The Dark Side by accepting a job that starts in September at a private school on higher wages and what has to be better working conditions than she currently endures. After a few years teaching at an academy she has finally had enough.

She has been called every name under the sun by students, regularly has boys pulling each others trousers down in class, trashing the classroom/equipment, found subjects on her timetable that she has no desire to teach and had requests for assistance to the leadership team ignored, or even worse, told "what you need to do is...". Having got into her car and bursting into tears one Friday, a quick polish of the CV and a first class stamp later she was at interview being offered a job, which she took with no hesitation at all. The academy now has to replace a hard working and good teacher, spending hundreds, if not thousands advertising a wholly undesirable post in an academy that is arguably going to the dogs due to overpaid leadership being reluctant to get their hands dirty in any way, shape or form.

Can you blame her?

The simple answer is "No", and I nearly did the same thing a couple of years ago, but with the increased travel coupled with a similar wage as I was already on, I decided not to take the post I was offered.

What are the benefits of teaching in a private or public school (there is a difference, but both essentially involve parents paying money for their child's education)?

1. The term are shorter, although more intensive for the teaching staff as the days are longer and the running of extra-curricular activities tends to be an expectation. The holidays are longer though, which means that staff can take of advantage of cheaper holiday prices as they can go outside of state school holidays.
2. Discipline is far stricter due to the fact that private schools can just get rid of those students who feel that it's beyond them to be able to behave. If you are too much hassle as a student (behaviourally that is) you can leave - the school can live without your fees, thank you very much. In a state school evidence has to be gathered in the form of statements from all witnesses, staff and students, and even then the governors might just let the child back or the local authority will rule that your school has gone over its quota of exclusions this year, meaning that the student can continue to cause havoc without fear of recrimination. All, that drivel in Channel 4's "Educating Essex" about not excluding permenantly just doesn't teach kids how the world works - if you mess up you face consequences. Not in state education people!
3. Resources don't tend to be as good in private schools as they are in state schools, purely because the school has to buy the stuff itself rather than get it all funded by the local authority. The upside in private school is that because the discipline is good, you can use what you've got effectively, whereas many resources in state schools are just abused by children who don't realise how lucky they are. The state-of-the-art equipment is rarely used to its full potential because the teacher is constanty trying to discipline the class or stop them breaking the stuff.
4. Extra-curricular activities are allowed to flourish at independent schools in general - the facilities are excellent and it is made clear that you are privileged to be allowed to use them. Time is given for students to reach their potential outside of the classroom, which can have a positive effect in the classroom; whereas in state schools, depending on the make-up of the top brass at individual schools, extra-curricula activities often get sidelined due to pressure on achieving results to gain a decent league table position.

Many teachers and people in general may feel a little intimidated by the independent school system, not knowing how they really work. Some have a moral objection to their existance, but you have to remember that not every student in private education is going to be or act like a front bench politician (fortunately), most are just like the children in state schools - decent and hard working if given the opportunity to be so.

I must admit that I did start looking at local independent schools again after a recent incident at school where I was told that I was an "F****** C***" by a child in class. I told the boy to "Stop acting like a prat and sit down" as he was just showing off to his mates. I was told shortly afterwards that I had made the deputy head's job almost impossible with my comment and the child dutifully received a day in internal exclusion and an hour's detention. The child not only swore at me, he then used his mobile phone (which he shouldn't have in school) to phone his father to accuse me of all sorts of things that I hadn't done (my story was backed up by the "statements" of all the other students in the class) and the father abused the deputy head down the phone. The deputy duly folded to parental pressure and relented from excluding the child for a few days. How supported I felt - not!

I will be checking online for any upcoming jobs, as well as finding a red light sabre. I might even get one myself.

Drugs and the Inclusion Policy

Now I don't know about any of you, but when I was at school, and I went to a relatively posh establishment, if you got caught with drugs you got expelled. In fact, when I first started teaching, a similar policy existed. It's not the case anymore, as I have discovered this term.

The inclusion policy is a government backed thing whereupon as many children who can cope enter mainstream education. This is whether they have physical or mental disabilities, emotional issues or whatever else their parents have had them diagnosed with to excuse their awful behaviour (ADHD has been a particular favourite in recent times - I know it exists, but it's not as common as diagnoses would make you believe). This is a great policy, IN THEORY. Young people shouldn't be sent to a "special" school automatically; judgements need to be based upon whether they can cope physically and/or mentally with a mainstream school. For some young people it can be the making of them, for others it can be a terrible experience and for the remainder, they are not capable of behaving to an acceptable standard. As far as the various governments who have supported this policy are concerned, it saves them millions of pounds each year because with the inclusion policy, expensive to run "special" schools have closed due to dwindling numbers.

Schools must avoid permanent exclusion (the new word for expulsion) at all costs, but when forced to permanently exclude a child, the school basically has to foot the bill for their future education. With budgets so tight, schools can barely afford to do so. The trouble is that those mainstream schools that can't afford to exclude students are also taking in more students with behavioural difficulties, students who would previously have gone to a "special" school that has now probably closed.

If a child really does have behavioural issues (and many do), for whatever reason (in a lot of cases, no reason other than that they are spoilt brats) they will eventually find themselves facing permanent exclusion. If the school can show that the child is a danger to those around them then the job's made a lot easier, and they are correctly excluded. The trouble is that the children who are taking and perhaps dealing drugs in school (and there is almost certainly one in every secondary school, if not more) are seen as less of a problem; the fact that they are stoned half the time makes them a danger only to their exercise books as they may dribble on their latest attempt at an essay.

Around 10 years ago I taught at a school where a child I taught was caught dealing drugs in the playground. He was excluded permanently from the moment he was caught. This term so far we have had two children caught with illegal drugs in school, and their punishment: 5 days off, sorry, exclusion. One of those two children actually went to complain that her "weed" had been stolen from her bag during science by some others in her class and she wanted it back!

Not only is this not shocking enough but the school (and we won't be the only school to do this) did not inform the police, as they should have done for illegal substance possession, because of the bad press that might ensue. How society has progressed - not. Strangely enough the problem is still there and will only get worse for the following reason: these kids like doing drugs and know that if they get caught they will be given 5 days off to smoke as much of the stuff as they want, at whatever time they want without fear of proper retribution. Hardly a deterrent. In fact, when one of the two said that they'd failed to do their homework as a result of their five day exclusion, I responded with "that's even more reason for doing your homework (the homework is available online), you can't use the excuse that you were caught with something you shouldn't have in your bag", they had a go at me about getting my facts correct (it was in his pocket - massive difference) and that I shouldn't make a big deal (nice choice of words) of it. Unbelievable.

Can you blame the school though? The answer's "Yes and No".

Yes
The school should at the very least report the drug possession to the police. Part of the reason the riots occured in England in August 2011 was because young people don't understand that there are consequences to some actions.

No
Schools have to accept some children with extreme behavioural difficulties in their schools, and these children disrupt the learning of the majority, who are decent kids. If a child consistently disrupts other childrens' chances of a good education, they need to go. Even more so if they are putting other children in danger. On top of this, schools aren't really allowed to exclude people permanently anyway, or at least not do so very much. Those caught with drugs are therefore less of a priority as they are only harming themselves, unless they are dealing of course, which is difficult to prove.

This policy of inclusion is a disaster for education, and along with various other things (pension issues, pay freezes, making it easier to sack what some regard at an incompetent teacher to name but a few) means that teaching will die out as a profession. We are seeing worse newly qualified teachers coming into the business each year because some of the potentially good ones are avoiding the profession like the plague for all the reasons I've just mentioned.

And who can blame them?

Sanctions In School (Or Lack Thereof)

As everyone knows, in order to do something you’re not sure that you want to do, you need incentive. At school as a student that incentive is that you will get to keep all your free time and be able to remain on role at that school.

Let’s be honest, if you had the choice, would you do homework or classwork? I’m pretty sure that I wouldn’t, but I’m beyond school age, have a load of qualifications (many of which are of little use, but could be if I changed career) and have little desire to gain any more than I already have.

For children under the age of 16 in the UK, you have no choice: you have to go to school/gain an education. It’s been the law for a while now, so I’m not telling you anything new. There will always be some young people who seem to feel that school is not really relevant to them, but as the law makes them go and they don’t want to get their mum/dad/carer a fine (a fairly common excuse for people who don’t want to be at school but attend) they turn up and just ruin anyone else’s chances of gaining an education.

In previous eras these young people would have been either sent to a special school that would be able to cater for their individual needs or they would have be excluded and given another chance to prove their educational worth at another school, and perhaps eventually a Pupil Referral Unit (PRU).

For those that couldn’t toe the line, there was always the threat of them being ejected from that school althogether. Special schools have been closed on economic grounds, but under the umbrella of the “Inclusion Policy” by successive governments (it doesn’t matter what colour your rosette is, you are as bad as each other I’m afraid). PRUs are scarce and have very few places available.

From the next academic year (September 2011) though, very few schools will be able to afford to permanently exclude students because if they do, they will have to pay for that student’s education at a different establishment, which is extremely expensive, if not prohibitively so. So that removes the final real threat that any state funded school had, and schools will have to provide those students who cannot behave like a civilised human being with an alternative arrangement within that establishment, where they’ll still be able to see their mates and disrupt other student’s learning.

Do politicians lose all common sense upon election to parliament?

As an ordinary teacher, I can essentially do nothing. I can set a detention during school time, but they have to be allowed to have 5 minutes of a break to go to the toilet/at something/smoke a cigarette or whatever else they can think of that could be construed as an infringement of human rights (rightly or wrongly). If I want to keep someone after school for more than 30 minutes (although most schools work a 15 minute rule) then I have to get permission from the parent/carer normally 24 hours in advance. That’s all fine, but many of the students you’d like to detain won’t turn up, will walk out or have parents who hated school in the first place and won’t “allow” their child to be detained. I am not allowed to shout at them in case they feel “intimidated” (30 students aren’t intimidating at all, are they?) and obviously can’t manhandle them even if I wanted to, so that’s me pretty much out of options.

And so it moves up the food chain. Middle management can get a child internally excluded, in other words, put in a supervised area of the school away from all their mates, but the next day they will be back. And with the greatest respect to internal exclusion areas (the staff are great but have no real work to offer the students, because the students were sent with none in the first place), the students may not be able to socialise but they have little to do other than surf the internet in many cases, which isn’t a huge punishment. The internal exclusion facility is usually already full of nice kids who dyed their hair the wrong colour or wore the wrong type of socks that day anyway, depending upon what the senior management’s latest “crackdown” is.

An incident occasionally ends up at the top table, with assistant or deputy heads (headteachers rarely get involved in this stuff for whatever reason you can think of, but usually because they can’t be bothered or don’t have the bottle) who then had the power to externally exclude (send unruly students home for a period of days). This is the thing that has now been fiscally prohibited by those wonderful people in Whitehall.

What this new policy is essentially saying is this:

“Do what you like in school kids, because there’s pretty much nothing anyone can do to punish you for it.” And I’m sure they will.

Fortunately most young people can behave, but their school lives are blighted, increasingly so, by total idiots who should be locked in a secure room until they can learn to be civilised. Without the threat of external exclusion there are no real consequences for actions, and therefore the unruly students will never learn to be civilised.

Teaching really is becoming an untenable career.