Mike and I disagreed on one of his stories this week. Of course, we’ll start with the story:
No Touchie
“Following an increase in overly physical behavior last term that disrupted learning and raised safety concerns,” said Stephanie Neill, headteacher at Philip Morant School and College in Colchester, England, “we set a clear expectation of no physical contact to maintain a calm and welcoming environment.” Hundreds of parents protested, asking the school to “reconsider its blanket no-contact rule” as it “teaches children that all physical contact is wrong … including normal interactions such as hugging, high fives, or comforting somebody who is upset.” Students were being sent to detention for violating the rules. The school worked with the student council, and adjusted the policy. “As a result, normal methods of greeting and comforting friends will be acceptable when done in the right way and in the right context,” Neill announced. (MS/Colchester Gazette) …Good. Better: Listening to the students the first time.
First Impression
Mike’s take on the tagline is that parents won for their kids after protesting the school’s zero-tolerance policy. I can understand that point of view, but in my opinion, this wasn’t actually a win.
The concession is that even “comforting friends” is now permitted only when “done in the right way and in the right context.” These are children (aged 11-18 at this particular school), and it’s natural to comfort friends who are hurting. Yet now they have to think about “context” and hugging a friend “in the right way” to appease priggish authority figures? That’s pathetic, not a win. The hard part is expressing that concisely.
I whipped up three tags that concisely expressed my take on the story, suggesting he might come up with a twist that worked for him:
- …Compassion: OK subject to administrative approval.
- …Hugs permitted. Terms and conditions apply.
- …Human kindness: now allowed in approved contexts.
I sent them to Mike, but they were not his point of view, and it is OK that he rejected them on a story “signed” with his initials.
Yes, the school budged …just barely. I simply argue that human kindness cannot only be allowed in undefined approved contexts. The kids don’t need instruction on how to be decent people, the administrator does. Quite simply, zero tolerance is not just obliviocy; sometimes, it’s evil.
Those parents shouldn’t be satisfied with their “win”: they need to press for more.
Mike Responds
Mike is working on moving to a new city, so he didn’t have a lot of time to flesh out his thoughts. But he did send this:
“The full quote from the principal shows that this wasn’t the administration trying to set arbitrary boundaries for the contact, but an effort to allow for reasonable touching while providing some safety for the students who had been experiencing bullying behavior (the reason for the initial policy):
We have worked closely with our student council over the last couple of weeks discussing with them what constitutes appropriate and inappropriate physical contact.
Our students have shown great maturity throughout the discussions and provided some insightful views.
As a result, normal methods of greeting and comforting friends will be acceptable when done in the right way and in the right context.
We will share these views with all students next week and students, staff and parents will be able to feedback on the ideas.
“They worked with the students this time to reach a reasonable solution.”
Expanding My Point
My read of the source stories, “Philip Morant’s new ‘no touching’ rule slammed by parents” (Colchester Gazette, 17 Sep 26), followed by “Colchester school softens no-touch rule after parent protest) (30 Sep 26), don’t support that bullying was a primary reason for the new rule.
That actually was mentioned almost in passing not by school officials, but by parent Jen Summers in her petition to have the rule “reconsidered”:
We fully support the school taking firm action against fighting, bullying, unwanted touching and unsafe or inappropriate behaviour.
Our concern is the current rule prohibits all physical contact between pupils, including normal interactions such as hugging, high fives or comforting somebody who is upset.
Pupils are receiving detentions and isolation for breaching this rule.
We want to work with the school to find a more balanced approach that keeps our children safe and supports their wellbeing.
She is not asking for a free-for-all, but rather that “We want our children to learn what appropriate behaviour looks like, not simply be taught that all physical contact is inappropriate.” You know: to be normal, caring humans.
I obviously don’t support bullying or unwanted contact, but isn’t violent attack and sexual harassment already prohibited and reasonably well defined in the school’s code? If not, they ought to be — yet after “reconsideration” we are still left with “normal methods of greeting and comforting friends” being acceptable only “when done in the right way and in the right context.”
What defines the “right way” and “right context”?
I look forward to reader comments on this.
All this said, my link to the school’s web site is not a suggestion that anyone mailbomb school officials: that does not help, as the linked page (from 2001!) makes clear. The intent of this page isn’t to fight Morant, but rather to show how to take a step back from bureaucratic language to get a bigger picture of what’s being said. It’s to give you awareness so you can monitor what’s being said by bureaucrats who govern you and your children.
About the School
“Our vision is simple,” the school says on its home page: “a community where everyone feels they belong and are the best they can be. We are the largest school in Colchester serving a community of 11-18 year old [sic] students. Our school was described as having a ‘warm family feel’ in our Ofsted inspection in September 2023.”
It’s awfully hard to reconcile that boast with demands that children must “comfort friends” only “in the right way and in the right context.” Their “simple vision” is clouded.
As for the Headteacher herself, she has this to say on her “welcome” page: “Our values are: ‘Aspiration, Success, Kindness’ which underpin our approach to all aspects of school life. We regularly celebrate these values being demonstrated by our students and our staff.”
Celebrating them by creating anti-human zero tolerance rules? Her actions speak much louder than her words.
Who was Morant?
Philip Morant (1700-1770) was an English clergyman and author, celebrated in Essex for documenting the county in his book, The History and Antiquities of the County of Essex, originally published in two volumes (1763 and 1768). A modern printing is available in a single 500-page paperback on Amazon *.
An amateur archeologist, Morant also conducted several of excavations of Roman sites in and around Colchester, where he lived, and he was elected to the Fellowship of the Society of Antiquaries of London. He later served in Parliament.
The school was named for him when it was founded in 1965. The school has a copy of the original publication of Morant’s History on permanent loan from the Essex Archaeological Society.
– – –
Bad link? Broken image? Other problem on this page? Please Let Me Know using the Help button in the lower right, and thanks.
This page is an example of my style of “Thought-Provoking Entertainment”. This is True is an email newsletter that uses “weird news” as a vehicle to explore the human condition in an entertaining way. If that sounds good, click here to open a subscribe form.
To really support This is True, you’re invited to sign up for a subscription to the much-expanded Premium edition.
I see where Mike is coming from, but I’m definitely with Randy on this one. As a kid who was bullied — and who constantly fell afoul of rules I thought I was on the right side of but which had subtleties and exceptions I was unaware of but both my peers AND the adults in my life thought should have been obvious — I would be MORE afraid of a policy saying comforting touches “within certain parameters” were allowed.
One of the problems with this policy is that it will be unequally applied. Not could — WILL. It’s not going to stop bullying, it just means that the bullies will run crying to the adults and say their victim touched them (or someone else) in a way that doesn’t fall under the guidelines. It’s also going to put queer kids, BIPOC kids, and anyone else the Establishment doesn’t like under very close scrutiny. Something harmless for a kid people “like” will be against policy for someone they don’t.
It’s possible, even probable, that the way it’s phrased in the actual ruling is clearer, but in this case it looks too vague to be of much help.
Concur, and I want to emphasize a point: kids make mistakes. They do inappropriate things, because they haven’t yet learned “the rules”. The correct response to an inappropriate action is counseling, not punishment.
At the same time, resilience is important. As the target of an inappropriate action usually the right response (the first time) is “hey, please don’t do that”, rather than running to authorities. Sometimes it also involves learning how to send messages that the behavior is not welcome *before* it becomes a problem.
I can see what the administrators are trying to say, but I agree with Randy that their wording is vague. But I’m not sure how to make it any better.
I think it’s pretty obvious that one criterion for whether a particular kind of contact is acceptable is that both parties consent to it. But beyond that, there are probably things which people consent to that still are not appropriate for this setting. We probably don’t want to allow things that are offensive in some sense.
To take an extreme example, what if two people start having consensual sex in the middle of the schoolyard? We don’t want to allow that. How about two sweethearts holding hands? That sounds innocent enough. But what if someone is offended by seeing a same-sex couple or an interracial couple? What some people find offensive, others find acceptable. Should we use something like the “community standards” test for obscenity?
I don’t have answers to all these questions, but I think this needs to be discussed before setting policy.
I think/expect this is the kind of behavior the school administration is really attempting to deal with — the “overly physical behavior” of certain “lovers.” I am curious how a school can set a “policy” or “rule” that defines behavior that is “within bounds.” But, yes, it makes sense for an open, thoughtful discussion within the larger community of all concerned, students, teachers, parents and administrators.
“Students were expressing insults at other students. School responds by not allowing any talking at school.”
This is the same type of reaction. Hopefully it shows how ridiculous the initial school rule is.
Rules like these remind me of my experience in 6th grade. New city, new school, smart kid with a sometimes smart mouth. I always seemed to be violating some rule that was never shown to me. Strangely enough (not), the “cool kids” could say or do the exact same things and not only not be punished, but in fact be lauded.
Sixty years later, I’m still the guy who says, “Show me the rule in writing and explain why it’s necessary”, which really irritates the people who make up the rules as they go.
I’m siding with Randy. While appearing to relent, the administration cleverly left the door open. Retaining “WE will be the judge of THAT!
This is raising their right hand to swear (or affirm) while holding their left hand behind themselves with fingers crossed. I smell politicians.
—
I’m trying not to weigh in on the comments since I’m not meaning for this to be a me vs Mike issue. Rather, it’s that there are multiple ways to look at issues, and we often need to think things through as there can be greater implications. That, and Mike and I clearly do agree that ZT is definitely not just a thing of the past! -rc
I have expressed this in the past, it needs repeating — even though, in this case, the Fearful Leaders eventually recognized normal behavior.
Zero tolerance is a policy that stipulates that the administrators of an institution are incapable of possessing and using common sense and making basic judgments as to the severity, or lack thereof, of an action, utterance, symbol or expression that equates to a prohibited behavior — directly or by implication, reference or suggestion.
This results in absurdities becoming legal issues, affecting the mental health of the transgressors, stigmatizing children, destroying lives and, in general making the administrators look like fools, idiots, or zealots unworthy of their salaries.
In the early 90 I was given special access to the library’s computers (I have learing difficulties). Of course the bullies showed up and chaos ensued. The solution was to take my access away because “it was causing problems.”
Sadly this school’s response feels familiar. To prevent bullying, for whatever reason, it seems logical to remove rights. Not actually addressing the reasons behind the bully is acting out. Or addressing the behaviors of the bully directly. Or actually having consequences for the bully. Not everyone else.
I’m reminded of an incident at an SF convention many years ago. At cons people are often greeting friends they haven’t seen since the last con. Lots of hugs, and in some demographics perhaps a bit more.
I was walking down the hall and someone I barely recognized, and whose name I certainly didn’t know, said “what, no hug for a friend?”
Rather than make a scene, I hugged him. It was awkward and uncomfortable for me.
Women get this ALL THE TIME — putting up with unwanted physical contact to avoid making a fuss, as we are heavily socialized to “be nice” at the expense of our personal boundaries.
Junior high school (or sometimes earlier!) is the exact age when sexual harassment starts for many women. And yet a lot of subtle harassment looks, from the outside, like fully consensual interaction.
How do you protect hugging between friends while also protecting kids from coerced hugs? (The obvious starting point would be sex ed that teaches about boundaries and consent, but that’s way too controversial in far too many places.)
—
Thanks much for your experience-based point of view. Your parenthetical is highly important too. -rc
From what I have read about Japan, the first three years of school are not spent teaching children how to do things like read or do math, but rather teaching children to be kind and considerate to others. That is why you don’t see trash on their roads and sidewalks. People don’t want to inconvenience others to pick up their trash so they pick it up themselves. You can leave your wallet and laptop on the diner counter while you go to the bathroom and they will be there when you get back. They leave their keys in their scooters when they park them.
All by teaching all children what is really important. Being a decent person.
—
It shows in other ways, too: when we were there and in their complicated subway system, standing there looking confused would bring a local right to your side to ask, in English, how they could help. When you reply that you’re looking for the Whatever Line, they wouldn’t just point it out, they would escort us to its entrance. We loved our time there. -rc
Having been (many, many years ago) a frequent target of bullies during my own schooling, I can well imagine that without the caveats it would be harder to deal with the bullying and harassment that inevitably will happen. I’m sure many of the offenders would be willing to claim that they were just greeting friends in a normal way (never mind that the slap on the back was way too hard, or the hug was unwanted). Having flexible language gives staff options.
Of course, that cuts both ways, and it can be used by lazy staff members to ignore issues and deal with incidents on the basis of whatever is most personally convenient.
As ever, the really important factor is less the precise wording of the policy, and far more the quality and dedication of the staff, and the degree to which they truly care about their students. And (since I’m sure you’d point it out if I didn’t!) the fact that they passed the initial policy does not bode particularly well for that; but we don’t have enough information to tell. Probably there are some good teachers and some lazy ones, just like everywhere.