Further points about behaviour issues and transfer of pupils in our college system

From an educator

One of the readers of my articles, wrote a long comment beneath one of my blogs entitled Lack of support and understanding from the Education Department for the concerns of Parents about the education of their children. In his reply, this contributor, who merely identifies himself as John, makes a number of valid points of which two in particular need to be discussed further.  The first is about issues of behaviour in schools and the second deals with pupils being transferred from one school to another.

In his reply ‘John’ starts by stating that research needs to be grounded in empirical studies. I am afraid, dear John, I can guarantee that my articles are not only based on empiral research but also on my personal experience dialoguing and listening to individual cases. For a long time now, I have been talking with students, parents and educators gathering data. I am particularly interested in what is happening in our colleges. All those I interviewed gave me the same reply – they are worried about the education that their children are receiving in our state schools. Many are of the opinion that as parents they are not receiving what they are e ntitled to. All empirical research that I have conducted till now have led me to the same conclusions.

As a firm believer in social justice, I agree with John that, in cases of serious behaviour problem, support and help should be given to both the perpetrator and the victim. At the same time, action needs to be taken so that the perpetrator is made to stop and the victim is no longer victim. It is much regretted that the measures being adopted so far, whether because of bureaucratic inaction or incompetence, are proving useless. There are cases that demand immediate action. But instead of action being taken straightaway, the authorities end up in never ending philosophical debate and adopt a wait and see approach. 

Failing to be given support, teachers are left in class having to face those students manifesting serious challenging behaviour which disrupts the rest of the class. Whenever there is more than one seriously disturbed and unruly child in class, gangs are formed adding to the bedlam. These gangs start to terrorise their classmates and teachers alike. So wily are these children that when an official from the Education Department visits the classroom, these disturbed students are on their best behaviour. Not a squeak to be heard! This creates a situation where we, the educators, appear to be fantasising. The reality is that this only goes to show how the Department’s approach lacks adequate guide lines when dealing with such cases and inspections. More the pity.

The fact that we as educators are hands on facing these daily incidents in class are far from fantasy. It is stark reality that becomes even more pronounced once these pupils leave school and go out to face the wider world causing further havoc willy-nilly. We have ample proof of these types of individuals often appearing in the media and not only. Other agencies and other entities are coping with a number of disturbed individuals who have ended homeless, even destitute, because incapable of holding down the simplest job and no family support.  

 It seems that nobody is willing to accept what we, the educators, are going through. And with us the SMT must also be included. When a serious incident occurs in a state school because of a pupil’s impossible behaviour, which by the by has been repeatedly reported to the authorities, who is going to be responsible? Is it the Head of School? Is it the teachers? Or is it the bureaucrats who are sitting at their desks at the Education Department burying their heads in the sand?

We then have another point raised in John’s reply. He states that school staff members have always been given the possibility to register their children within the same school where their teaching parents are deployed. This is true but it is actually only a half-truth.  As an educator, I happen to know teachers who have had the possibility to take their children to school with them. This option is mostly availed of by those educators working in primary schools. But what  happens when the teacher is not from the college area where he or she teaches? This option  is only available to them until Year 6. What will happen after that?  The cases cited in my article refer to those students transitioning from Year 6 to Year 7.

Due to the fact that these students do not have an address within the catchment area of their particular school, these pupils will not be allowed to continue their education in the same school and will no longer be with the friends that they have known since kindergarten. Is this fair? Why are these children being denied the right to continue their school journey with their friends, friends they have made since kindergarten? Denying them this right signifies losing many, if not all, the friendships that they have built over the years, and in some cases, the parents or guardians will have to incur additional expenses due to a change in uniform.

Yet, Government will not be incurring any extra costs for transport fees since the parents are prepared to take their kids to school themselves!

I agree that there are times when there can be administrative issues. But, nonetheless, someone somewhere must take stock of the situation and tackle these issues proving to us once and for all that the Department of Education has what it takes to find a plausible solution. 

Youngsters in Years 6-7 are unwittingly going into puberty which only adds stress to this delicate phase of growing up. Must they be also deprived of the school mates they have known since kindergarten?  Must they be put through the additional trauma of having to start all over again finding and making new friends? Something much easier said than done; particularly when they are moved to a college where pupils have already formed their friendships because they were always in the same catchment school. Thus, any newcomer becomes an intruder for the regulars and the newcomer feels left out of the mix and understandably so.  

Behavioural problems caused by disruptive children, who clearly should be in special schools must be addressed and their particular needs fully assessed. This would allow the average student in our schools to serenely move forward and get on with his/her schooling without these unqualifiable disruptions that they are made to endure.   That is why a blanket ban is not on. It is imperative that action is taken in those schools facing these problems. Those students, who are giving a bad name to a particular school, must be restrained and dealt with accordingly.

So, to return to the two particular points raised by John that require immediate attention. Who is going to be honest enough to shoulder responsibility for such a disastrous situation? Certainly not the teachers. They have tried all; from mountain-high reports never tackled to complaints that have been ignored leaving teachers in despair. What was once a vocation has become a nightmare. Few and far between are those prepared to take up class room teaching particularly in state schools.  

This is why action needs to be taken now, so that all is in place by September 2022. Otherwise the downhill trend will gather such momentum as to become a major disaster. And for what? For lack of gumption to show initiative and sense of responsibility by the authorities concerned.