Michaela

I have mixed feelings about this though.

Why shouldn't the students who want to learn be allowed to do so without the disruption of those who don't want to?

The problem is not the stance of the school which refuses to accept disruption - the problem is that so many either accept it or are forced to do so.

 

This
I've read comments on hear from teachers who've had children tell them they like the 'detention room' because it's quite and you can get on with your work.
We are failing so many children and on so many levels.

I'm glad I went to school at a time when teachers, management and the whole system cared enough to not tolerate disruption.

 

I think you're missing the point. ZT teachers don't do it because we can't build relationships with the children, nor because we can't teach without the support of an oppressive regime. We just believe that children work better when we do not allow disruption to become the norm.

I don't believe that the teachers who can put up with poor behaviour are actually 'better'. I suspect they waste a lot of time dealing with pointless behaviour issues.

 

Hangs head in shame.

 

ZT schools get rid of children who are more challenging by various means. And they ALL then trumpet their results as due to their ability. And they all use phrases that say other teachers "allow" disruption. Many schools do just as well without the need for such regimes and educate all children in their community. They are better schools and better teachers. ZT schools can learn from them. Schools and teachers who refuse to / cannot accommodate all members of their community are behaving unprofessionally. Other schools then have to take on the young people they can't deal with.

I suggest you look at the evidence from places in the USA, where ZT policies have been in place for many years.

Again, you say teachers "put up" with bad behaviour. They don't. They use better techniques to address it. And if those teachers produce success in more inclusive schools, then that, to me, is miles better practice that we should all look to emulate.

 

Why do you see the only way of succeeding with young people is by treating them so harshly in ZT regimes? Plenty of schools succeed with inclusive and restorative approaches. They are fantastic places

 

The cheap option is ZT and a bunch of young inexperienced teachers. Seems to be the preferred model in some quarters. A professional approach requires competent, rounded teachers with the ability to employ sensible behaviour policies in a consistent manner.

It's also hilarious to watch people who think the only strong centralised behaviour system is a draconian ZT policy with only pupils who can work in such conditions. They hate the idea of having to forge meaningful working relationships with all children in their communities, including SEN and challenging children, who need the most help. To have to employ such a system means you have already failed. And you have already failed those most in need of help.

If we are to have ZT schools, perhaps their teachers should be paid less and they should receive less funding?

 

I have absolutely no problem with such places.
My problem is with those who tolerate the disruption, who ruin the education of those who want to work.
Where restorative approaches work, great.

 

Removing disruption creates an atmosphere which enables positive attidudes to study, positive relationships between staff and students. Doing the 'worthy' thing and keeping those students who cannot establish positive rlationships just ruins the experience and the life chances of the others. If we are going to keep these students in school, we need to find a way to do that which does not prejudice the others.

Without any doubt, the best relationships I've had with students - and the best results - have been in those classes where there is little if any disruption, classroom time is productive and fun.

Achieve that however you want.

 

It's the professional thing, not the worthy thing.

As I have said, many schools do this in very challenging areas without draconian policies and approaches that exclude some chldren.

As long as it doesn't disadvantage other schools and teachers in your area. And especially not if you then crow about being a better school. Schools that can only succeed by using ZT policies should be embarrassed.

 

The real question for me is why we don't or won't make proper provision for all. That means helping the disruptive without disadvantaging the rest.
I hate the idea that kids who want to work in a peaceful, organised environment are denied that because they can't afford a private education so have to put up with constant disruption. If it were the wealthy kids being disadvantaged like that there'd pretty soon be something done.

 

Because the government and Ofsted allow some schools to not make proper provision and then praise them.

Many schools do make proper provision for all, and are successful. This should be the model we adopt as professionals. We don't criticise surgeons who take on the most difficult cases - we praise them and their profession holds them up as examples. And pay them more.

 

Hi scintillant,
Generally I agree with much of what you say.

My experience in a wide range of schools is that most schools allow disruption. Senior management are unwilling or unable to get involved and lay down the law to disruptive students. If senior management do not support teachers then the whole process of teaching goes into a downward spiral. Bad behaviour becomes embedded. That is the point where management see grades go down and scapegoats must be found and publicly executed. Then the chats with parents of troublesome students to convince the parents to move their wee sprogs to a "more suitable" environment and leave the school to achieve better grades.

In my 20 years of teaching, I have only experienced one school which truly comprehensively educated every student in a culture which made disruptive behaviour unacceptable.

 

Better techniques? Those are weasel words. By not confronting bad, unproductive and, quite frankly, hateful behaviour, such children are readied for a life of failure and moral squalor.

 

But Micheala don't confront it. They avoid/exclude it by deselecting/discouraging those types of students.

 

No. There are plenty of schools that address such behaviour in successful ways that do not require ZT policies.

Why do you think there is only one way to educate children?

 

Surely everyone can be made happy. There are the sort of teachers who "like Zero Tolerance schools and who have no real personality, no charisma, can't get on with young people, and can't forge positive relationships " with those they should be preparing for a career.

Let Michaela-style schools be set up for this sort of sad human being, and let as many children whose parents want them to succeed in life, send their children there.

The other children, who like to talk in class, tell the teachers to eff-off, and whose parents couldn't care less, can go to the schools with those wonderful teachers who have real personalities, charisma, and who can get on with young people and can forge positive relationships."

The Michaela-style schools would get stellar GCSE results, the others won't, and the charismatic teachers of the latter, with their real personalities, who get on with young people and forge positive relationships with them, can blame the government, and use their wonderful charismatic personalities to console the kids they had positive relationships with by telling them that cleaning toilets is really ever so fulfilling.

Don't worry -- it will never happen. The Tories, all of whom send their kids to private schools, are not about to give the advantages of a private school to the proles.

They need those toilet-cleaners, and are very happy that the toilet-cleaners were 'taught' by teachers with real charismatic personalities, who got on with them and forged positive relationships while they were preparing them to fail their GCSEs so they could go clean toilets.

 

There are other differences between Michaela and other schools apart from behaviour management. The learning of poetry, high expectations in public speaking, and the culture of saying thank you, to mention just three. The thanking thing strikes me as a bit Orwellian, but teaching children to express themselves clearly has to be a good thing, and learning things off by heart is known to improve general performance academically. The absence of music and drama is a huge negative for me. Maybe it would be too hard to control the children in these lessons.

The cultish elements are worrying. The coercive control would be illegal in other situations. I love the idea of a school where the behaviour is excellent so that children can learn. What on earth has gone wrong with our society since I was at my mixed comprehensive in the seventies, that means extreme methods are the only way to get children to behave normally?

 

I don't agree that it's professional to ruin the educational experience of the many by allowing the few to disrupt.

 

If you read my post you will see that I said that many schools do not need ZT policies to educate children. No one is allowing disruption, they are simply using better methods that do not require some pupils to be off-rolled / excluded ./ dissuaded from any schools. That's true professionalism. If you do't have those skills, you'll need ZT I guess.