Hey, ACT
Leave our schools alone.
We don't need no education
We don't need no thought control
No dark sarcasm in the classroom
Teacher, leave them kids alone
Songwriter: Roger Waters
That was my favourite song as a kid; who could resist the refrain “We Don’t Need No Education”? It was music to my young, rebellious ears.
Back then, I knew that violence by teachers against children was wrong; it was obvious. I’m not talking about smart-arsed fourth-formers getting the cane; I’m talking about little children, primary kids, getting strapped.
Do you remember the day at school when you were the runner, you sat outside the Principal’s office, and you ran errands all day rather than attending class?
My day being the runner was going from class to class and taking kids to the Principal to be strapped. Damn, it’d be 45 years now - I can still picture the faces of those kids - none of them was white.
Miraculously, I never got caned or strapped, but I did have my head whacked into another kid's head, clang, at both intermediate and high school, and one teacher hit me in the head with a hockey stick, I assume to put an end to any fun.
Those days are gone, and we’re better for it; neither parents nor teachers should need to use their strength against the children in their care. So I was disappointed, though not surprised, to see Paul Henry announce ACT’s policy allowing teachers to use “reasonable force” against what he called the “little shits”.
Annoyed by the smug faces of Seymour and Henry, I posted, “Why stop with teachers? Perhaps members of the public should be allowed to use ‘reasonable force’ on these two ‘little shits’ if they encounter them.”
Alison replied, “More learning support staff & teacher aides in classrooms would be a damn sight more effective. These two are simply playing to their gallery.”
That’s ACT’s attitude towards our children; they and their supporters see them as a burden rather than an investment in the future. Feed them low-quality gruel, and if they don’t eat it, reduce the number of portions delivered to save even more money. If children are disruptive, don’t consider what might be happening at home or whether more teaching support is needed; subdue the little buggers instead.
Garth wrote, “Great idea! Teach children that violence solves problems! Great building block for a better society. A little violence never hurt anyone,” although I suspect he was being sarcastic.
Moira said, “These morons have never been in a classroom where a child is in crisis. So much for teacher and children’s safety! So much for de-escalating a child’s heightened behaviour so they can maintain their mana.”
This government wants to “move on” the homeless, encourage shopkeepers to take the law into their own hands, and even treat our children as people who need to be made to behave, rather than nurtured and supported. It made me wonder - what on earth qualifies Seymour and Henry to set rules for teachers? What do they know about education?
Alex pointed out, “Teachers do use reasonable force. If a child self-endangers, hurts other children, or damages property, the teacher physically intervenes. This is not for punishment but for protection.”
The Ministry of Education guidelines say:
“Restraint is a last resort only. Examples where it may be appropriate include stopping a student from injuring others or preventing them from running into an unsafe area (e.g., a road).
It cannot be used for non-harmful behaviour, such as simply leaving school or as punishment/discipline.”
This seems fair enough, so I can only assume that ACT’s intention is to amend the law so that force is considered earlier.
Paul Henry said, “Let’s be honest, there are a lot of little s**** in classrooms, and we need to address that if we’re going to lift education standards. Teachers need to know they're respected [and] they need to know the law is actually on their side.”
I’m not aware of any demand from teachers for a change; to be honest, I imagine they’d prefer to know the government was on their side.
On 1 News last night, Henry kept going on about teachers needing legal backing to restore order in the classroom, which felt a bit like Trump declaring liberal states hellholes where he would restore order.
He announced that in resolving the problem, “If a parent failed to attend a mandatory meeting without a reasonable excuse, they could be fined up to $300 for a first offence and up to $3000 for subsequent offences.”
He continued, “There are parents that presumably just don't give a damn, so they're the ones that will be fined. The parents that do give a damn but don't know what to do and need help, we'll engage with them, and we'll help them - we will not fine them.” I posted:
Paul Henry is so out of touch with the reality of struggling students; it is obscene that he would suggest punishing families rather than working with them. The man is a fool.
Raewyn wrote, “A $3000 fine on parents with neurodivergent children what next! This party is nuts.”
Jane said, “How dare he describe unhappy, disturbed and desperate children in that way?”
Deb commented, “Calling children 'little shits' shows us what a judgemental, ignorant, abusive man that he is. I'm absolutely appalled by this policy announcement.”
The clip below is of Chris Abercrombie, the president of the PPTA, sharing his thoughts on the matter on Breakfast this morning; it’s well worth watching:
Chris said he couldn’t understand what problem ACT was trying to solve, given that physical interventions were possible under existing legislation but were rarely needed. No teacher had asked for this change, and, needless to say, Paul Henry hadn’t spoken to teachers about it.
“A stupid policy and bumper sticker politics at its worst” - Chris Abercrombie, PPTA President.
David Seymour also appeared on Breakfast, where he said our results in the three Rs had declined due to disruptions and called our classes the most disruptive in the world.
I thought, go to a poor area in the UK and try dealing with sixth formers there - you don’t know you’re born, mate. As for any link between a lack of force in the classroom and results, that seemed to me something Seymour had simply made up.
Seymour said of Chris Abercrombie that he was angry, which I didn’t detect at all, a Trumpian tactic for discrediting your opponent by accusing them of being overly emotional. Then he read out a couple of supportive text messages about “woke schools” that he claimed were from a headmaster and declared that, in and of itself, to be proof that our classrooms were in “chaos”.
David declared that teachers had been “disempowered, undermined, and they deserve respect”. He could have been referring to the rushed education changes made by this government, which have disregarded teachers and shown them anything but respect.
The interview dragged on for a while, but I lost interest in Seymour’s lies. This is an unnecessary policy, a stupid move that hasn’t been requested and is only being done to grab headlines.
It is hard to believe that David Seymour is the Associate Minister of Education, given that his views on classroom behaviour seem to come from Newstalk ZB callers bemoaning the good old days when kids knew their place, rather than from speaking to teachers. It’s a shameful situation, and there are only 83 days left to ensure your enrolment details are correct.
Have a good Monday folks, and take care all of you lovely people.
Ngā mihi,
Nick.
To end today here’s Pink Floyd with Another Brick in the Wall, although that line really ought to be - “Hey, Henry, leave our kids alone”.
Over 50 years ago, I was teaching in an overcrowded, underfunded, tough school in North London with a very high number of children from deprived and broken homes. There were real issues with classroom problems. Our wonderful principal, one of the most influential I have ever worked with, dealt with it this way: if a child became overwrought, you would send that child to him. Depending on the age and circumstances, he would make them a cup of cocoa, sit them down and read a story - or, if older, take them for a walk and a talk. Being sent to that principal was a blessing for both teacher and child.
I suspect this post will bring up some old memories, like this issue has for you. I was strapped when I was 8. The teacher got annoyed because me and my friend were drawing on each other's pictures. He said "so it was you who ripped the books?" And out into the corridor I went ; he lining up the strap at the other end of the corridor so he could get a good run in. His name was Mr Cliff and this was at Terrace End Primary School in Palmy. My parents came in, all concerned faces. I remember sobbing to them : "I never ripped the books". To this day I don't know what he was talking about. But that sense of injustice ran deep. Mr Cliff may well have shaped my revolutionary soul forever! My parents never hit us. We were Dr Spock children, so when the "anti smacking bill" came up in Parliament, I was gobsmacked by the outrage of those who think it is ok to hit a child. Sue Bradford, Lynne Pillay and Helen Clark did great work to get this through. I'm with the teachers on this one, who don't want to be enforcers like P Henry is proposing. They have never asked for it.