Comments on: Five Incidents that didn’t Result In A Permanent Exclusion

By: Lynx

Lynx — Fri, 23 Feb 2007 01:23:16 +0000

I teach in California. Last year, a student brought a BB gun to school. It was either before or after school, so there weren’t too many kids around, but some. Anyway, he shot it and hit a girl in the eye. His consequence? Merely a suspension.

I guess since it happened a few minutes before or after school, it didn’t warrant a suspension.

By: Anon

Anon — Mon, 12 Feb 2007 05:34:13 +0000

Some of the things made my blood boil, sadly whilst there are bad teachers, there are bad kids, no such thing as bad schools just bad kids.

It appears that the school disciplinary system is rotten upwards from the school, if we are talking LEA etc.

Similar with the police who do a good job, only for the CPS / Justice system to let them get away with a soft sentence.

Quite simply, a borstal system needs to return, sod human rights, if a criminal / bad pupil violates their victims human rights by attacking them, they forego their personal human rights.

By: Anon

Anon — Sun, 11 Feb 2007 20:07:40 +0000

A pupil brought a long bladed knife into school. Clearly under the influence of drugs, he waved the weapon around and announced he intended to “stab as many people as he could”. He was eventually removed from the site by police. Head sought permanent exclusion but LEA refused to support it as “he didn’t actually stab anyone … if we exclude everyone who brings a knife into school, the schools would be empty!”

By: lilyofthefield

lilyofthefield — Wed, 31 Jan 2007 19:46:54 +0000

I have commented at length elsewhere on the breathtaking decision to keep a boy found guilty of rape before (yes, before) he started High School, and who in his first year there committed three separate sexual assaults on three different girls, the violence and daringness of which increased with each attack.

It was felt by his expensive team of apologists that he was “finally starting to own” the wrongness of what he did (but kept on doing) and that his therapy was “really going somewhere”, and that to remove him to a secure unit would not solve anything because he was quite prepared to rape boys as well as girls. The girls would not testify in court (the third girl was so traumatised she left the school) and the opinion of the school copper, the HT and me as to the right to safety of the other pupils was not worth shit compared to the tunnel vision of the youth workers, key workers, young offenders liaison, SSEST, therapist, psychiatrist, social worker and sexual health link person.

He was eventually permanently excluded in Y9 for something completely unconnected.

By: taster

taster — Wed, 31 Jan 2007 19:14:05 +0000

We were discussing the fact that locally, a fortune is spent on alternatives to the expensive and seemingly forbidden exclusions, and it is ‘learning centres’ or other misnomers.
The miscreants attend for a half day a week or so in jeans and smoke and such like, at a hugely inflated cost, purely to keep them out of our hair and not officially excluded, thus preserving our stats.
Allegedly.

By: A Secret

A Secret — Wed, 31 Jan 2007 18:09:14 +0000

Sammy, 15 years old, having spent most of his first three years in secondary education in the behaviour base due to his habit of throwing things (punches or chairs) when he made it as far as class.
Once he started S4, it was decided to put him back in class so he could sit his exams.
In protest, he assaulted his personal TA, sexually assaulted a girl in the class and spat on the HT.
The school requested a permanent exclusion but were refused by the LA on the grounds that he was not a serious danger to staff and pupils.