In the realm of education, a heated debate rages on the balance between inclusion and discipline. The concept of inclusion, embraced by the educational establishment since the turn of the century, emphasizes emotional regulation and understanding a child's needs over immediate discipline. While this approach has led to a dramatic reduction in permanent exclusions and a 75% decrease in school suspensions over the past two decades, it has also sparked controversy. Parents argue that the focus on inclusion has inadvertently protected bullies, leaving victims to suffer in silence.
Lesley's story is a stark illustration of this dilemma. Her eight-year-old son endured a year of physical assaults, from kicking to head-butting, before the school imposed restrictions on him, rather than addressing the bullies. Lesley believes that the inclusion policy, while well-intentioned, has created a situation where bullies are shielded, and victims are left to suffer. She advocates for a legal framework that would ensure consistent and effective handling of bullying cases across all schools.
The Scottish anti-bullying policy, Respect for All, introduced in 2010, provides guidelines for schools to set clear expectations of behavior and consequences. However, critics argue that these guidelines are insufficient. The policy's lack of enforceability means that schools and councils are not legally bound to follow it, leading to inconsistent responses to bullying incidents.
Lorraine Glass, the director of Respect Me, Scotland's national anti-bullying service, acknowledges the limitations of the current approach. She emphasizes the importance of addressing the underlying causes of bullying behavior rather than solely focusing on punishment. Glass suggests a more relational and inclusive approach, involving conversations with the young people involved to understand the root causes of their actions.
However, critics like Stuart Brown, assistant general secretary of the EIS teaching union, warn against creating a new law that could burden schools with increased bureaucracy without addressing the fundamental issues of bullying. Brown highlights the existing pressures on schools, such as reduced staffing and increased levels of Additional Support Needs (ASN), and argues that early intervention measures are more effective.
The experiences of parents like Ashley and Kirsty further underscore the need for change. Ashley's son, Josh, was bullied at primary school, leading to him becoming a 'shadow of himself' and even setting his alarm to pretend to be unwell to avoid school. Kirsty's son, Kyle, suffered a mild concussion and required medical treatment after being bitten and kicked by a fellow pupil. Both parents emphasize the need for consistent and enforceable bullying procedures across all schools.
The Scottish government, in response to these concerns, has published national guidance on consequences and risk assessments for violent behavior. They have also introduced laws to ban personal mobile phones in learning environments, aiming to tackle bullying proactively. However, critics argue that these measures may not go far enough to address the complex issue of bullying and its underlying causes.
In conclusion, the debate surrounding inclusion and discipline in schools is a complex one. While the inclusion policy has undoubtedly brought positive changes, it has also created a situation where bullies are sometimes protected, and victims are left vulnerable. The call for a legal framework that ensures consistent and effective handling of bullying cases is a compelling one, but it must be balanced with the need to address the underlying factors contributing to bullying behavior.
