Zero Tolerance

Strange - the OP didn’t comment or put her view out there ?

David, your old school obviously was good at discipline . I did initial teacher training in the 70s where progressive methods were favoured. There was no clash between good discipline and progressive methods, quite the opposite in fact. Basic discipline, that's to say basic training in good manners, has to be accomplished before progressive moral education is taught and learned.

I am not a great fan of school uniforms but there are good arguments in their favour.

I am sorry, David I must disagree with you again. I got bullied verbally and physically at school. I was generally considered odd, and I had a medical condition. You didn't need a label in the 1950s, the bullies knew who you were.

My son was "labelled" thank goodness! He is dyslexic and finding out that he wasn't stupid but his brain works slightly differently to most was one of the best things and enabled him to get help and go to Uni. I wonder how many of the dyslexic children. in your school went to university Davidhs? And if any finished up in prison where the percentage of dyslexics is huge

Labels or, as we like to call them, ' a diagnosis' should not make a difference to how kids are treated by friends. If a kid has ADHD his behaviour will be the same before and after diagnosis. However if after diagnosis he is suitable for medication his behaviour will settle & make it easier to study and learn.
Just by naming a condition does not automatically create a change in behavours or others' attitudes!

Make up your mind David

First you say
Back in the 1960s I went to a bog standard Seconday Modern school, all abilities and backgrounds. There were plenty with dyslexia, dyspraxia and other, mental disabilities including cerebral palsy, there was never any problem with discipline because standards were strict and enforced

Then you say there were never any ‘labels put on children’ ? You seem very confused.

Back in those days there weren’t labels put on children that set them aside from others which today seem to be the root of much of the bullying today. The slow learners were just that for whatever reason, in many cases all they needed was a pair of spectacles or a home situation where they could do homework properly.
I haven’t moved far in my life so I still see regularly a good many school mates, some at the top end made a lot of money, (millions), the middle ranking ones that got apprentiships in trades are house owners, at the lower end the ability to turn up on time and concentrate through the day has been the key.
The one condition that has caused most problems is attention deficit, dyslexics have done quite well, most have good verbal and practical skills.

There is an all-school policy of zero tolerance to both drugs and bullying here in New Zealand but I'm afraid both still go on.

crystaltipps I really hope his parents made a formal complaint. That is totally inappropriate. I hope they find another, caring school soon.

A neighbour of mine has a son with Aspergers. He is academically gifted, but he lacks many social skills. He goes to an inner city school with a “ zero tolerance” policy. On his first day at said school he shouted out the answer to a question instead of putting his hand up and was given an hours detention. He has been bullied on the school bus ever since. His mother wants to send him to a more caring school .

David you may have had a happy time but not sure about those lads with special needs! It is not a good thing to generalise on the whole of any system on just your own experience!
I agree that there are students who would be better supported with more of an apprentice style approach to trades etc. rather than pursuing a solely academic syllabus.

Rose colored spectacles, no I really did enjoy it, do today’s kids work harder?, some certainly do, but at 16 today children seem much less prepared for work than we were, regardless of any exam results. Our school did not do A Levels so all of us went into work ( all of us) at 16, the bright ones got office jobs or apprentiships, less able all sorts of unskilled work.
50 years on I think we were very lucky, todays school leavers face a much more uncertain future than we did.

David, I think you are looking back on your education with rose covered spectacles. In the 1950s there was a lot of talk about how poor discipline was in many secondary moderns. Of course there were good schools, and yours was clearly one, but many weren't. The indiscipline in many secondary moderns where many got a second rate education from second rate teachers was one of the arguments for the introduction of comprehensive schools

The biddable children obeying every rule that many of you talk about, is a recipe for mindless obedience. They had it in Chinese schools until recently and in Germany in the 1930s and was that a good thing?

My experience is zero-tolerance or no zero-tolerance, children will always find ways of subverting the system.

True post Davidhs. I can relate to that. It was something known as discipline a little known word in schools and households today and the downfall of the behaviour of many children whose feral ways are there for all to see.

Discipline is security. Where's the security in allowing children to do as they like ? Behave as they like ? It breeds a lack of respect of which they grow up knowing no different and the result is what you see in school playgrounds and football matches ! Feral thugs and excuses for mental health problems.

Many children in the 50's/60's did the shopping, washed their own uniforms ( because it was the only one they had ) looked after siblings and got their own meals-----it was tough for some who were nick-named latch-key kids. They used to have the door key on a chain around their necks. This was the big difference in pre-teens and teens of today who appear to have everything, in comparison.

Education standards in the 50's and 60's were excellent !

A year or 2 ago I read about a school where the HT was placing a total ban on phones in school. He sent letters out to all parents telling them if a phone was found on a child it would confiscated for a certain time.
I don't know what the parents responded, or if the project worked.
In general I don't agree with a totally negative, punitive approach to discipline. As other have said it encourages rebellion. Praise and reward, earning privileges etc probably work better, but I can't back that up.
Still not sure what zero tolerance really means, sounds frighteningly like some kind of prison.

david have you subsequently worked in education since leaving school? If so you will know that expectations and standards since 1960s have risen. It does tend to annoy some people, who hold their own school days as a rosy time, to discover that today's average 13yr old is tackling work not taught until O level in the 60s! I am watching it happen with my 13yr old DGD at the local " bog standard" comp up the road. Funnily enough she rolls her skirt up too short, just as I did, sneaks on make up, just like I did but works a lot harder than I ever had to. Popular to put current education / schools down but think it is misplaced.

It was educating working class people to think that was the big mistake, or it might have been giving women the vote.. I'm not sure which but I'm sure everything would be tickety-boo if we got rid of both!!!

Special needs is used as an excuse for not bothering about keeping standards up and good discipline. Back in the 1960s I went to a bog standard Seconday Modern school, all abilities and backgrounds. There were plenty with dyslexia, dyspraxia and other, mental disabilities including cerebral palsy, there was never any problem with discipline because standards were strict and enforced.
Uniform was enforced rigidly and behavior at breaktimes was supervised so there was very little bullying and the worst thing you could do was talk back to a teacher.

Now all you liberals may say I am old fashioned but I enjoyed that school, and truancy was almost unheard of, just the standard of education that private schools are proud of today. Where did the progressives go wrong

I think zero tolerance is a populist but lazy way of supporting safe, responsible and acceptable behaviour.
Every school needs clear non- negotiable rules and a set of consequences that all students and families know and understand. The school needs to uphold those rules and consequences with responsibiliry.
EG in a zero tolerance schoolchild arrives with non uniform shoes. They are immediately sent home and may not return until correctly shod.
In good behaviour school child arrives with non uniform shoes. They are immediately sent to deputy who investigates reason for non compliance. Depending on the reason a sanction or not is issued.

What is your view BRRedhead?

I am afraid, that as a child, faced with zero tolerance, no matter what the circumstances, I would spend a lot of the time pushing the boundaries, and becoming deeply skilled in undermining them.

I attended schools with mindless discipline, that was the norm in the 1950s and I (and my sweet, gentle sister, my best friend and others) became deeply subversive.

My really rigid observance of every slight remark the headmistress made and plus my taking zero tolerance to absurd levels, and the effect that had on my teachers, was deeply satisfying.

Zero tolerance is for mentally competent adults who knowingly break the law. Children, many with special needs or mental health issues need a more emotionally literate regime.

Actually, units in the grounds of schools for those with special needs are not the best way if dealing with the situation ( as one who knows) the best way is having enough special needs schools built.
However, disruption is not all down to special needs pupils,
There are those from awful home backgrounds, those who have parents going through divorce, and those who just are naturally absolute pests.

This problem is caused by attempting to educate too many children with genuine special needs in mainstream schools; they can so easily disrupt the education of the many, and their needs are not being met.

Units attached to mainstream schools are the best way of dealing with the situation, but so many educationalists refuse to recognise the problems engendered by placing disadvantaged children in environments where they cannot cope.

I would say zero tolerance of clear, well-defined and not too many rules was in place at both my mainstream state primary and my selective grammar school, but back then parents were far more supportive of school discipline than they are now, and were not constantly challenging the schools' authority.

Zero tolerance means no tolerance at all of any behaviour deemed to be bad.Do we want to be a society with no tolerance at all, especially to children and young people?
I would say no!