Tough love is not too cool for school
Tasmania’s education system could do with a ‘retro revolution’, writes Craig Carnes
LET’S begin with the facts. The latest government data on school suspensions shows the number of student suspensions in Tasmanian schools increased to 8478 in 2021, up from 6830 the previous year.
This is an incandescent and confronting statistic. Underlaying this outcome are multiple causal factors related to socio-economic, mental health, socialisation, breaking school rules and protocols and the danger of violence or other forms of assault on students and teachers.
Suspensions are not given easily and come at the end of an application of strict parameters mandated by the school and agreed to by students and parents in full consultation.
What’s to be done and what templates of learning can we look to stop this haemorrhaging?
Clearly the current system, though well intentioned, with the action/ consequence trope continues to fail and is breached on numerous and constant levels.
Though it’s the final gasp of the school’s administration to suspend, the very act denies the student access to learning and supportive and muchneeded counselling. They return to school further behind and the cycle repeats.
There is an educational revolution, or should I say ‘retro’ revolution happening at the Michaele Community School in northwest London, headed up by a person the Brits call their “strictest headmistress”.
Her name is Katharine Moana Birbalsingh (below) and she runs her school using traditional teaching methods and quasi-military discipline. Many of her methods have been integrated into Tasmanian schools in the past, but often with changes of staff and principals, implementation of newer models of learning their bind and consistent application erodes.
She believes in tough love. Students walk in silence in corridors between classes, detentions for forgetting one’s pencil case, timetables are taught by rote and teachers move about the class interacting with students. None of this, ‘get on with your work’ mantra. Homework is followed up by teachers and smartphones are banned.
Phones are handed over at the beginning of the day and placed in a school safe.
To detour momentarily on the last point: when Minister for Education and Training (2019) Jeremy Rockliff banned mobile phones in Tasmanian schools he said they would be “off and away all day” from bell to bell. Yes, they do have a place in learning but when not regulated they can be a serious distraction from the essential and core outcomes of the lesson.
The mandating was fine and in the spirit of positive outcomes for the classroom and school but what of the reality as once again time erodes the best of intentions.
A striking comment from one observer of Birbalsingh’s methods, was that once understood and adhered to by students, is that it frees up teacher time to teach.
How many teachers reading this article will recall endless disputes with students who have phones on in class, hidden under books or on their laps fixated on the screen and not have a clue what is going on around them let alone interacting with the class? More, arguing it is their right to have their phone in class. Teacher exasperation is palpable.
What are the outcomes of Birbalsingh’s application of her educational Spartan-type revolution?
Surprisingly, the tough behaviour and no excuses policy sits well with students. Inspectors to the school found students were challenged and the promotion of student welfare was outstanding. Students are appreciative and caring and celebrate the success and achievements of others.
Staff dedication and adherence to school policies, no exceptions, was found to be the fundamental key to meeting successful outcomes of the school. Parents are huge supporters of the program and its protocol and accept that if their child lapses, they will concur with the appropriate punishments. Suspensions are nonexistent and all disciplinary action takes place onsite.
What’s to learn from this type of educational template? First, good teaching is primarily student and teacher interaction. Distractions begin in a class where a teacher does not maintain constant surveillance or move about the room. Second, a
How many teachers … will recall endless disputes with students who have phones on in class?
school must have underlaying rules and protocols that become institutionalised within students from day one.
The Birbalsingh method may be too extreme for some but the foundation it lays down has tributaries we can all buy into on some level. Third, all staff must be on board and consistently applying action/consequence. Rules in one classroom or grade are universal and equitable. As with Birbalsingh when she commenced her school and had to prove the critics wrong, this type of retro revolution will take educational courage from the top levels of administration to the teacher aide. A journey at least worth the planning or some collegial deliberation.
To conclude, as an educator, one of my roles was to work in high schools as a liaison officer to assist students as they made the transition to college. On one occasion I went to a high school and asked if I could chat with the principal. The administration indicated to me I would find his office in the main block corridor. Odd, I thought, but upon turning the corner I came across him sitting at his desk with students eddying quietly past him like trout split at rock pool.
As they went by, he would wave to some, call others by name, tell another, “great netball game” or give a friendly reminder about overdue homework. He gestured to me to sit on the other side as we began our chat. Birbalsingh would have approved.