Education
Should we show zero tolerance to rigid rules in school?
When it comes to zero tolerance behaviour strategies in schools, I’m afraid for some I have … zero tolerance.
I’m not talking – certainly in terms of Manx secondaries – of the broad brush behaviour policies published on websites or in the back of those natty planners our teenagers produce for us to sign to prove they have homework.
No. it’s the application and the fairness of how schools try to achieve these stated aims.
This is not directed at our new education minister and hopefully it won’t get to the stage where it needs to be. Daphne Caine has plenty on her plate already, not least finding a way to ensure schools are sufficiently resourced and staffed to provide the education all our children deserve.
My worry is directed partly at some of the more extreme approaches being adopted by a number of schools in England and whether we may be subjected to them here. The buzz around many of these policies is about preventing disruption in classroom, to improve learning. But could the imposition of inflexible rules – and blanket punishment for very minor transgressions – be more detrimental than beneficial?
When you scan each of our secondary schools’ behaviour policies online, they are reasonable. Understandably, they do not go into the nitty gritty of every strategy in place to enforce and enable those policies. Fair enough. A school will often have to adapt and update specific methods to meet circumstances.
Let’s be clear. Our secondary schools get the vast majority of things right.
What follows is not a criticism of teachers and support staff, who have to battle against limitations ranging from poor buildings to a lack of resources to allow them to focus on individual needs and ensure access to learning is as fully inclusive as possible. (Okay, Daphne, that bit is for you.)
But do school leaders and their political masters sometimes lose sight of what matters most?
Uniforms and behaviour are probably the two most debated areas, and schools may adopt different strategies to apply the broader policies.
Occasionally you hear of something that causes alarm – Sharpie over the logo of your trainers or face punishment, anyone? As a parent you hope these are outliers rather than the norm.
However there’s a growing inclination for some UK schools to adopt broadbrush, zero tolerance strategies, often justified as a method to prevent classroom disruption.
Some of these strategies, critics fear, risk a negative impact on wellbeing, equality, inclusion, even the flexibility a teacher needs.
If you want an extreme example of how a zero tolerance strategy can be damaging – and thankfully it is not something that I have heard of happening here – just take a look at this case of an England school’s strict rules over toilet access, including for girls during menstruation.
It’s hard to know where to begin. Yes, some people may seek a loo break to get out of a lesson, but it’s difficult to defend what has been alleged and unwise to minimise the possible impact.
There are two sides to stories like these but the bravado of ‘zero tolerance’ policies can often leave schools with little room to manoeuvre, to the detriment of everyone.
We can all get behind a hard line, no excuses approach on violence, prejudicial language and bullying, for instance. Schools should have no tolerance for those. But we’ve probably all heard the zero tolerance also being mentioned during crackdowns on the likes of uniforms and lateness.
Feedback from a handful of secondary school children across the Island included a general feeling that strong arm tactics on lower level issues are being used as a muscle flex to hide more serious problems they feel the school struggles to cope with. It’s a view that has been shared with me privately by some past and present teachers.
One 14-year-old female student said that while uniform rules were applied strictly, bullying victims struggled to be believed. Some pupils were left to feel as though ‘they care more about if you’re wearing the correct uniform than the lessons.’
Pupil perception is important.
When you have victims who feel it would be harder to report bullying than to continue suffering, that’s not going to get any better if the general belief is your school is more bothered about whether your shirt is tucked in.
Equality on uniforms was another issue. Some girls feel they face stricter rules. We’ve all seen school messages about skirt lengths and types. If anecdotes of uniform inspections in class are correct, I’m not sure that’s reducing disruption.
And I still struggle to comprehend how a patterned sock could lead to disruptive behaviour unless there’s a black market in ankle warmers bearing rude motifs.
A counter argument is uniforms contribute towards a sense of order and improved behaviour, as well as instil a sense of pride. Colour me sceptical on the pride theory – I suspect it annoys as many people as it cheers.
A parent told me about a school in recent times where there was a rewards system under which a year group had a non-uniform day, and students would go on stage to accept a prize – except for those who had received one or more ‘behaviour points’ over the term. They had to attend in uniform and applaud as other pupils received small gifts.
The parent argued it meant some pupils with other difficulties often missed out and were set apart from their fellow students, which was demoralising and divisive.
Looking further afield, I hope schools here are not tempted to go down some increasingly fashionable – and divisive – strategies. One such is such SLANT, which is appearing up and down the UK. But it sounds like some elements of it may be cropping up here too.
The SLANT technique was developed by Doug Lemov, author of Teach Like a Champion and requires pupils to ‘sit up, listen, ask and answer questions, nod your head, track the speaker’. He has argued it can emphasise ‘key behaviours’ to boost learning.
While it has been gaining traction in some schools across the water, with the occasional minor variation on definitions for the acronym, it has also sparked concern in some quarters, including the neurodiversity charity ADHD Foundation which questions whether SLANT may cause more problems than it solves for SEN children.
Whether you would class the use of SLANT as zero tolerance may depend on the application.
There’s a rather weird training video in circulation on social media – that I hope is ignored by anyone near a classroom –where teachers are instructed to insist that children’s arms must be fully straight when raised in order to display a ‘vertical hand’. You can judge that for yourself here.
Lemov challenges negative representations of SLANT and responds to criticisms here.
I imagine – and hope – where elements of SLANT have been adopted in a school, they are at least adapted to particular circumstances. Even with that, it’d be a hard sell to ensure teenagers don’t feel, at best, patronised.
Unfortunately one-size-fits-all policies that are picked off a shelf and applied unwaveringly risk leaving schools and their staff with no room for manoeuvre, as well as disrupting, upsetting and excluding pupils including those who weren’t causing disruption to start with.
A retired teacher I consulted about zero tolerance rules asked what was more disruptive of learning, allowing a student to have their tie askew, or insisting that student does up their top button and straightens the tie before learning can begin? Would a growing, uncomfortable teenager struggling with a tight collar be more of a distraction than one who is comfortable and fully attentive?
Again, probably a judgement call as per the situation, if the zero tolerance policy will allow such judgement.
Other former senior teachers told me any school leaders using a zero tolerance policy would certainly believe it led to overall improvements, but questioned whether they always addressed the causes of disruptive behaviour in the classroom or were just a sticking plaster for to cover something else.
To an outside, sceptical eye, some of the more rigid strategies we hear about sporadically come across as short cuts used by under-funded and under-resourced schools that don’t have enough teachers and support staff to enable them to adapt the learning environment appropriately for the pupils they have.
Would ensuring enough staff for schools to be able to provide a fully engaging and inclusive learning environment be a more effective mechanism for reducing classroom disruption than, for instance, teachers spending time punishing children for wearing the wrong shoes, or insisting that students sit up straight?
Another problem with an inflexible strategy, one that is promoted as such, is that if you apply it across the board it means penalising well-behaved pupils for incredibly minor, one-off indiscretions – such as wearing the wrong shoes. If not, the zero tolerance policy will be seen as a weapon to be used on some pupils and not others. Neither is satisfactory.
Fairness matters. Parents mentioned children getting into trouble for having their phone on at the wrong time. Yet the same schools had lessons where students were invited to use their phones for learning purposes. It’s a bit harsh if they then to forget to switch their device off again and are punished when it beeps in the next lesson.
Clearly, bad behaviour should be dealt with rapidly and appropriately. But to cite the extreme example in the arm-raising video referenced earlier if a school begins to insist on something as petty as the straightness of the arm, you risk losing the classroom.
There may be plenty of self-conscious teens who’d rather not be exposing their armpits to a wider audience and that’s before you even consider that hard-working, well-behaved exam students might just object to being treated like toddlers while being told they need to prepare for adulthood.
Conducive to engagement and learning?
All of the above is intended as food for thought. I would love to hear that none of the extreme examples quoted has occurred in Manx schools.
For pupils, being lumbered with restrictive rules that seem to be there for reasons other than stated is nothing new.
Parents, if you’re concerned, ask your child’s school. You may be happier after an explanation and your feedback should be valued.
I imagine school leaders ask themselves and their staff if the strategies they are implementing are achieving what they desire and constantly strive for lessons that are engaging, inclusive and instructive.
Meanwhile, If the new ed minister manages to perform the magic trick of finding the money and working conditions to ensure enough staff, appropriate buildings and equipment, plus the time and resource to provide the education our children deserve, much of the above will never reach her in tray.
- In a follow-up article, Paul will talk further about some of the feedback he had, including on attendance messaging and whether teachers themselves are always comfortable with strict regimes.
Links to secondary school behaviour policies:
Castle Rushen High School:
Behaviour_Policy_2023.pdf (sch.im)
Ballakermeen High School:
Behaviour_Policy_March_2023.pdf (sch.im)
St Ninian’s High School:
Ready_to_Learn_Behaviour_Policy_3_.pdf (sch.im) (2018)
QEII High School:
Ramsey Grammar School
