I read John Tomsett’s account of his speech at Michaela School’s Debate on 23rd April on why ‘no excuses’ behaviour systems don’t work with great interest. As a speech it is well researched, well argued and kinda misses the point. He acknowledges this when he says, “If I’m against “no excuses” discipline, I must, logically, be in favour of “excuses” discipline” but then dismisses this as “nonsense”. But is it? He says that “relentless rigorous routines, and consistent, and I mean truly consistent, implementation of behaviour systems were the bedrock of good behaviour management in schools”. What’s that if not ‘no excuses’ discipline? The position he argues against is a straw man. He says, “You need a bedrock and a heart.” Well, who would disagree with that? Are there schools championing heartlessness? And in claiming “You need rigour with a smile, not a SLANT” he presents a false dichotomy. Why not SLANT* with a smile?
I’m one of John’s biggest fans and love the approach to school leadership he outlines in his wonderful book, Love Over Fear, but despite his great wisdom, on this question I’m not sure he’s thought through the consequences of opposing the argument that ‘no excuses’ discipline works. I’ve argued before that school behaviour systems based on zero tolerance and inflexibility appear to be at odds with what we know about teenage psychology and brain development, but I’m also very clear that making or accepting excuses is not the answer.
In this post I made the following point:
There’s no reason why ‘no excuses’ has to equate with being punitive and making children suffer. I see it more as holding children to account for their effort, attitude and behaviour. If ‘no excuses’ results in relatively minor but consistently applied consequences, maybe those being ‘punished’ might feel differently. Maybe they wouldn’t rage at the injustice, but take their medicine with good grace. Maybe not, but there would be ‘no excuse’ for choosing to take it with bad grace.
This speaks to John’s example of Jordan, he of the unreasonable father and the “extreme” haircut:
Meet Jordan. He came to school with a 0.5 shaven Mohican haircut that broke our rules. I imposed the standard sanction, loss of breaks and lunchtimes until the hair grows back to a number 2. His dad was outraged and refused to support us. He went to the press, not just the York Press, but the Sun, the Mail, and the Mirror. He kept Jordan at home instead of coming into school, six months before his GCSEs. Children are influenced by the example their parents set.
Clearly if a school has an absolute rule on what haircuts students are allowed to have then it becomes a nonsense to just ignore the flaunting of such a rule. There is no excuse for Jordan’s haircut and even less excuse for his father’s refusal to support the school.
However, there are two possibilities which John doesn’t explore in his blog. Firstly, do schools really need to have rules about students’ hair styles? This is very much a question for debate and I’m not claiming I know the answer. But I do think schools tend to be too quick to impose arbitrary boundaries without really thinking through the consequences. Second, just because we’ve decided to ban something doesn’t mean we therefore need to enshrine inflexible consequences. Does a breach of the hair style rule warrant the consequence mandated by the school? Cannot flexibility of consequences be built into a system where there are no excuses for poor behaviour?
How we behave is a matter of choice. We all need to be helped to make good choices sometimes, and we all benefit from being reminded of the consequences for poor choices. And at the same time, we all deserve at least a second chance. But if children are ever going to be responsible for their actions we need to stop making excuses for them. There may be perfectly valid reasons for our behaviour but it’s up to us whether or not we choose to use these reasons as an excuse.
The poet Alexander Pope said, “An excuse is worse than a lie, for an excuse is a lie, guarded.” Making an excuse is a failure to take responsibility. Accepting an excuse for poor behaviour is to accept that children have no choice. What we accept becomes acceptable and what we permit we promote.
John talks about alternatives to ‘no excuses’, but what I think he really means is alternatives to cruelty and injustice. His insistence of love over fear is admirable but runs the risk of becoming meaningless through repetition. Of course we should approach children with respect, kindness and honesty, but just being respectful, kind and honest may not be enough. As every parent knows, sometimes we also have to be firm. Sometimes refusing to accept excuses is the only respectful, kind and honest option.
What I know about whether no excuses behaviours policies work is this: Instilling a culture where children are encouraged to take responsibility for their actions and excuses are not accepted is no excuse for inflexible tyranny or harsh punishment.
*Sit up, Listen, Ask and answer, Nod your head, and Track the speaker – one of Doug Lemov’s Teach Like A Champion techniques.
My daughter makes the point that what school says is a ‘dress code’ is in fact sexist because there is no equivalence for what is demanded of girls and boys.
That really depends on the school. My daughters’ school makes provision for equivalence. Boys are explicitly allowed to wear skirts should they so wish. More schools should do this.
But culturally and socially that’s not equality of choice…
So the schools can’t win then Angie.
1) they have different rules for boys and girls clothing — that’s sexist;
2) they have the same rules — that’s not actually “equality of choice” and so is sexist.
So, pray tell, how can they avoid your little trap?
In fact there usually is an equivalence of what is demanded for boys and girls. It’s just that boys and girls break those rules in different ways — girls are more likely to press the point on tightness and shortness, say, while boys will go for ridiculous hair, as an instance.
But a boy turning up with ridiculously tight shorts will be given the same treatment as a girl with ridiculously short skirt. And a girl with a mohawk will get the same treatment as a boy with mohawk.
You can’t blame the schools for the fact that the different sexes break the rules in different ways. Most people just get over the trivial differences anyway, because I’d suggest that there are far worse areas of sexism to worry about.
Which doesn’t address the point being made. You are shifting from the school to wider issues in society which needs to be debated within society. Men who want to wear skirts need to push this.
I worked in a school that banned really short ‘skinhead’ haircuts for white boys… the school was accused of being racist…
Some schools do themselves no favours.
Agree wholeheartedly with this …well said your girl…
There are some schools that ban skirts for girls – they can only wear trousers. I find this sexist.
The teachers I really liked at school had two features; they were really nice and really strict. That’s what the best teachers and the best schools do today- they get the balance right. Doing one without the other makes for a tough life.
I think a simple test of reasonableness is often very helpful:
1. Is our rule reasonable?
2. Is our response, if the rule isn’t followed, reasonable?
3. Do we deliver this response in a reasonable, supportive way?
Healthy relationships seem heavily reliant on having reasonable expectations of each other.
This checklist looks like a good start. I’d add ‘predictable’ to #3
Having worked in a rigid no excuses culture of a school in east London that has achieved incredible nationally recognised results I’ve seen first hand how no excuses for the seemingly insignificant aspects like haircuts and socks can provide a platform for truly great teaching leading to life changing outcomes. Only part of the story but a no excuses approach to hair supports a no excuses approach to effort, homework, behaviour and so on. Also, this was a brand new start up academy where this was the culture from the get-go. Much easier to do than try to introduce a no excuses culture where an excuses culture is ingrained.
Interestingly, John references KIPP schools in the US that have gained a reputation for such an approach. However, from Walter Mischel’s book The Marshmallow Test (coincidentally I’ve just finished it) the no excuses culture is seemingly much more about not making excuses about what you cannot achieve or cannot become.
Greg Perry – yes!
The moment you start considering excuses or exceptions, you inevitably end up on the defensive and waste a lot of time arguing. It makes very little difference where you draw the line so long as the line remains inviolate. If you have pupils like ‘Jordan’, there’s nothing to stop their parents from choosing another school. The paradox that most people fail to understand is that zero-tolerance is not harsh–indeed, the opposite is true. When kids know that teachers are in charge, challenges are not only few and far between, but they gain no support whatever from other pupils. Teachers can relax and teach, and they can afford to be friendly because they know that pupils are on their side and won’t take advantage.
I’ve heard sceptics argue that Michaela isn’t facing a lot of hormone-fuelled teenagers yet, and Katherine’s system will break down as the school grows and the average age of their pupils increases. This is nonsense. When I visited Framlingham Earl (just outside Norwich) in 1999 for the Telegraph Good Schools Guide, I was left alone in the school library with all the Year 11 pupils. Their enthusiasm for zero tolerance was compelling. One pupil said that coming from permissive feeder schools, it was a bit of a shock getting sent to time out for dropping a pencil on the floor, but that very quickly you realised how much more interesting classes were when they weren’t constantly interrupted. Another volunteered that because teachers weren’t stressed out, they were always happy to help you during their free periods and breaks. One of my colleagues had a son with SEN at the school, and both she and her boy echoed the comments I had from the Year 11s.
Unfortunately, far too many educators think in terms of ‘behaviour management’. This is a telling phrase–it presumes that children have a right to behave as they please, and it is the teacher’s job to ‘manage’ their impulses. Ironically, a recent study conducted by Teach First and Pearson found that 76% of the pupils surveyed wanted stricter discipline. We’ve reached a pretty pass when our kids have more sense that our educational establishment.
Although I am a great fan, I have to disagree . When rules is rules because they serve an institutions’ desire for an efficient code, then they lack the ability to take account of the wind; for change, of reasons for change. When is an ‘excuse’ something that is understandable as a circumstance? When should we be trying to understand? No excuses undermines the whole process of reasoning that we surely must favour as a a deep understanding of what is going on. Is this not what we attempt to promote as a highly regarded skill in/for our students? No excuses teaches us to become slaves to the automation process; it trains us for servitude. Students, however, seek and see justice as something that is valuable, as should we.
Hi Nicholas – you appear to be making the same mistake as John. To whit, confusing a refusal to excuse poor behaviour with severity of consequences. In so doing you produce a straw man argument. As I explained, we all have reasons for our actions but we shouldn’t use these reasons to excuse mistakes. That said, everyone deserves a second chance. We all benefit from greater understanding and better reasoning, but excusing some children’s behaviour just results in another form of servitude. The kind of determinism that says ‘kids like these’ can’t possibly be accepted to take responsibility for their actions is ugly, irresponsible and doesn’t work.
David,
Thanks for the education. I always appreciate the opportunity to learn. I note with some alacrity that your penchant for scarecrows litters your field.
I have to confess that I was guilty of not reading your post carefully enough. To Whit, I also embrace a standard code that is applied across the class/school. However, I would ask whether the school refuser, or the self harmer whom you have recently been working with to bolster their fragile self esteem (‘kids like these’), would be allowed leeway in relation to the rules. I would also ask whether the imposition of rules is given as diktat or whether it should be based upon a coherent philosophy/pragmatics that the individual should reasonably be able to understand? Although haircuts do not figure here (or do they?), an extension on a homework deadline may well fit the bill. You mistake my quest for reason as a desire to excuse. These are not the same thing.
Hi Nicholas – the point I made in this post https://www.learningspy.co.uk/behaviour/no-excuses-is-no-excuse/ was that a ‘no excuses’ policy was no excuse for unfairly victimising the lest fortunate. Clearly, punishing school refuser for non attendance would likely be counter-productive and the last thing we want is for school policies to result in greater self harm! I would go to great lengths to ensure the most vulnerable students do not get the opportunity to break inflexible rules.
That said, whilst we might have a perfectly valid *reason*, that would still not excuse deliberate rule breaking. The trick, if there is one, is not to draw unnecessarily arbitrary lines.
[…] prominent bloggers who were present have offered their responses; this has in turn produced a lot of reaction from people not present for the […]
As you’ve suggested for John, I think you kinda, miss the point here, David.
For example. A school has a C1, C2, C3 etc discipline system and a clear ‘no excuses’ policy. Criteria for giving a C1 (perhaps with consequences – certainly in the eyes of the pupil, as they’ve been given a C1) would perhaps include not coming equipped for school with a pen pencil etc.
A pupil arrives without, but has had the most horrific weekend, unexpectedly not sleeping at home because of dreadful difficulties, thus not having access to his personal things, so arrives at school without his ‘stuff’ and immediately gets a C1, which is repeated in all 4 successive lessons.
Is this the correct thing to do?
The pupil is being punished, again and again, for a problems outside of his control. Surely the best approach would be to subvert the ‘no excuses’ policy and the first teacher that discovers his difficulty (hopefully his first, maybe his form tutor and that would involve someone being interested, kind and asking if he was OK) give the pupil some equipment.
That’s where kindness comes in and to be kind produces far better results than an inflexible ‘no excuses’ policy, don’t you agree?
Paul
I’m afraid Paul, that it’s you who have completely misunderstood my position. You might find this post helpful: https://www.learningspy.co.uk/behaviour/what-no-excuses-means-to-me/
In a nutshell, it’s important to differentiate between a ‘reason’ and an ‘excuse’. If s student forgets equipment because of an horrific experience that she clearly has a good reason. But this reason should not then be used as an excuse for not being equipped in lessons. In a well-run school there will be provision for this student to take responsibility for their missing equipment at the beginning of the day and subsequently have neither need nor excuse for lacking said equipment.
If the school is not well-run it will be up to an individual teacher to discover and address this deficit and it becomes easy for pupils to avoid taking responsibility.
In an appallingly run school, there would be no facility for the student to borrow the necessary equipment and no expectation that they take responsibility. This results in extra work for teachers and confusion for students. This, in my view, is truly unkind.
Flout/flaunt!
I would feel uncomfortable working with a no excuse policy ( and certainly would feel so working under such a policy). I don’t think it respects the individual, although I can see the logic in the argument that it does. It seems at odds culturally with the way in which we interact and its unnatural objectivity suggests an underlying lack of confidence in how pupils would behave if left to more nuanced interactions between them and their teachers.
The alternative to working with a no excuse policy is working with a policy in which excuses are made and accepted. I for one am not at all keen in accepting a cultural norm of no one accepting responsibility for their choices.
The point is, children are still children. When they’re adults they can see how successful their lives are if they’re always making excusing, but while they’re children, wouldn’t it be better to help them be responsible?
I don’t think accepting an excuse necessarily means building a culture of no one accepting responsibility. Always accepting any excuse would, of course. The flexibility of consequences is key, as is never not challenging pupils’ poor behaviour.
[…] No. Our reactions to the environment may well be – at least in part – pre-determined, but we can also learn to suppress and control our desires. This still isn’t free will, my choice to delay gratification or to avoid a risky situation may still be governed by algorithms but we can, thorough socialisation, influence children’s perceptions of what constitutes a good choice through well-chosen rewards and sanctions. The key here is to understand that there may be all sorts of very valid reasons why children may choose to misbehave, but these reasons should not be accepted as excuses. […]
[…] I support my children’s school right not to accept excuses for bad behaviour. Of course, as I’ve argued before, there are usually reasons for such behaviour and some of these reasons may even be good one, but […]
[…] parent I support my children’s school right not to accept excuses for bad behaviour. Of course, as I’ve argued before, there are usually reasons for such behaviour and some of these reasons may even be good ones, but […]