Phone and shouting ban 'transforms' Cardiff school plagued by fights
Fights arranged in school via social media, then filmed and shared online.Pupils leaving lessons upset about social media comments.These were regular occurrences at Cardiff West Community High School - one of the most "challenged" schools in Wales - until mobile phones were banned as part of a range of measures introduced to tackle bad behaviour."Almost overnight, exclusions [for violence] reduced," said head teacher Mike Tate, who introduced the ban at the secondary school in Ely, Cardiff, last summer.Mr Tate, who also banned shouting, said internal truancy - when pupils are in school but not lessons - was now "almost nil" and there was better focus in classrooms.
When Mr Tate became the head teacher of Cardiff West two years ago, he wanted to understand what was causing the behavioural problems at the school.The issues included pupils bunking off lessons, being aggressive and fighting due to social media spats.Deputy head teacher Kathryn Stevens said the problems "permeated every part of the school day"."We were having fights at lunchtime, at break time. We were having children walking out of lessons because they were seeing messages popping up and it was causing them distress," Ms Stevens said.Mr Tate said pupils would "come out of class because they would get a message to go and see another pupil"."We could see that these were big issues," he added.
Specific measures were introduced to target the problems, including a ban on phones for pupils, staff and visitors during the school day which was implemented last summer.Mr Tate said it would be "naive" to claim fights had been eradicated completely, but said pupil exclusions for violence had fallen by 72% since the ban was introduced.He said banning phones had also addressed the problem of "pupils texting one another to meet in the toilets, or be out of lessons", leading to a reduction in internal truancy."It's transformed behaviour," added Ms Stevens.The Welsh government has resisted a national policy to ban mobile phones in schools, but said it was working with schools "to ensure they have policies and resources to reduce the negative impacts of mobile phones and promote learning".
'No shouting in the school'
Banning phones is not the only change the school has made.Mr Tate said a big emphasis had been placed on staff building respectful relationships with pupils and not raising their voices."We are a no shout school. There's no shouting in the school," said Ms Stevens."You won't see potentially those old fashioned school days of children being berated by staff or shouting."We always try to talk with children and we always try to start conversations with: 'Is everything OK?'"
So what do the pupils make of the changes?Sixteen-year-old Lanre believes the phone ban, brought in last year, has made a big difference to behaviour.He said pupils were more focused in lessons and there was less bullying "People used to be recorded and it used to go online" but that has now stopped, he said.Lexi, 15, said better relationships between staff and pupils was important."I think better relationships definitely help the children become better behaved in their classes," she said."If they like the teacher, they will behave better than if they have a bad relationship with the teacher."
Mr Tate said that clear expectations and consistency with enforcing the rules was important.Effort and resources have also been focused on tackling the reasons for poor behaviour. A high number of pupils at the secondary school are "functionally illiterate", meaning they have a reading age well below average when they start Year 7.These pupils are being given "primary style" help with reading so that they can fully understand the rest of their lessons, Mr Tate said."There's an absolute link between people's inability to access learning and behaviour and acting out," he added.
The school has also reviewed its curriculum following research with the local community.Ely is one of Cardiff's most deprived suburbs and more than 60% of pupils at the school are eligible for free school meals.The school found that not eating breakfast and consuming energy drinks were potential problems, so it has placed more emphasis on nutrition in lessons.Mr Tate said schools had to identify "what the issues are, looking at what you can do with the money you have, and then how you can monitor the impact of what you're doing"."But money is an issue, there's no doubt about that," he added."We've got to make sure that money's appropriately spent and it's spent on the right things which will impact upon teaching and learning."
Behaviour summit
A recent review by education inspectorate Estyn found secondary schools in Wales had reported a general decline in behaviour, with the most challenging pupils becoming "increasingly hard to manage".A Welsh government survey of nearly 8,000 education staff found an increase in "challenging or disruptive behaviours" since the pandemic. More than half of respondents working in secondary schools said they had concerns about pupils bringing weapons to school.Nearly half of staff working in primary schools said physical assaults on teachers were a serious concern.Education leaders will meet for a national behaviour summit hosted by the Welsh government on Thursday, prompted by the growing concerns about behaviour as well as an incident at Ysgol Dyffryn Aman in Carmarthenshire last year when a pupil stabbed two members of staff and a fellow student.The Welsh government said this summit would "provide clear guidance on the use of mobile phones".So, could bringing together educational leaders from local authorities, unions and schools pave the way for a solution to the challenges?"I think it's an understanding of where schools are and what schools deal with, because we deal with far more than just teaching and learning," said Mr Tate.Additional reporting by Gareth Bryer and Sanjana Idnani.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Sky News
12 minutes ago
- Sky News
Kemi Badenoch: ECHR has become 'sword used to attack democratic decisions'
Kemi Badenoch has warned there is "no silver bullet" to tackle immigration, but said it is "likely" the UK should leave the ECHR. It comes as the Conservative Party leader launched a review into whether the UK should leave the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). In a landmark speech setting out her party's position on immigration, the Tory leader accused the body, which dates back to the 1950s, of becoming a "sword used to attack democratic decisions and common sense". She said the ECHR has been used to prevent foreign criminals, including convicted groomers, from being deported, as they have a right to family life under Article Eight of the convention. Ms Badenoch said: "Over and over again, we hear of cases like this, where the law is weak, or just a mess. "Right now, we are turning into a country that protects criminals and rewards their victims." She said "this can't go on" and described the use of the law in this way as "lawfare". 1:50 New immigration policy Ms Badenoch said she would like to see "a total end to asylum claims in this country by illegal immigrants". She also said the Conservatives want "all those who arrive illegally and try to claim asylum" to be deported immediately. The current asylum system is "broken", and the government has "lost control" of it - with the system now in the control of people traffickers, she alleged. 19:32 Ms Badenoch said she would like to see "fundamental reform", which is why she said she has launched a commission to review the ECHR. The commission will be chaired by Tory peer and former justice minister Lord Wolfson of Tredegar, who is now the shadow attorney general. She accused Labour of having "no interest" in reforming the ECHR, and said that they "quite like the way things are". Ms Badenoch also said the government "isn't interested" in solving problems such as how many immigrants should be allowed to stay in the UK. Badenoch's five tests The Conservative Party leader set out "five tests" she would like the review to judge the ECHR against: • The deportation test - whether parliament, rather than the courts, "decides who comes here and who stays" • The veterans test - this is about stopping "veterans being endlessly pursued by vexatious legal attacks" • The fairness test - whether British citizens can be prioritised for social housing and public services • The justice test - whether prison sentences can be made to actually reflect parliament's intentions • The prosperity test - whether parliament can "prevent endless legal challenges for our infrastructure projects" Ms Badenoch said that if these tests cannot be met and there is "no realistic prospect of changing them", then the UK must leave the ECHR - "no hesitation, no apology". She admitted "there is no silver bullet" - but added she believes this is the best course of action. The review will report back at the party's conference in the autumn. What are the other parties saying? Ms Badenoch's position goes less far than that of Reform UK, who she also attacked in her speech. 1:06 Nigel Farage has said he would leave the ECHR already. It also puts her out of step with some of her cabinet, including prominent Tory, Robert Jenrick. The shadow justice secretary warned Tories the party would "die" if they did not back exiting the ECHR. Labour has meanwhile said it would like to remain in the ECHR but will bring forward legislation to "ensure it is the government and not parliament that decides who should have the right to remain in the UK". Yvette Cooper, the home secretary, said compliance with international law has helped the government strike deals about cracking down on criminal gangs, such as with France and Germany. A Labour spokesperson accused Ms Badenoch of "booting [the issue] into the long grass". They said: "Kemi Badenoch bemoaned the broken immigration and asylum system, but failed to mention it was her party which broke it. The Tories had had 14 years to fix our immigration system."
The Sun
12 minutes ago
- The Sun
I got a fence to block out my neighbour's garden – there's so much mess the fence FELL & then they angered me even more
A WOMAN has declared a ''neighbour war'' after her neighbour's garden was so full of rubbish it caused her fence to collapse. Furious social media user @ hughesrachy took to TikTok to rant after the mess in the neighbour 's garden caused her wooden fence to crumble - and eventually fall down. According to the woman, the person living next door had accumulated a pile of items which the man stored outside. A recent video posted online also revealed ''the state'' of the garden, jampacked with full bin bags, plastic storage boxes, wires and even what appeared to be an old washing machine. There also seemed to be old tech, a canopy with no cover on top, a string of garden lights, a swing frame with no swings and more. The TikToker claimed that they ''had a fence in front of this'' - but that the neighbours ''had put all kinds of stuff inbetween the two fences''. This, she claimed in the video, caused her fence to fall down and the TikToker was left with a ''crumbled fence behind''. After approaching the neighbours and asking to go halves to cover the cost of a new fence, the woman said they ''refused'' to chip in. Eventually, the neighbour 's fence collapsed entirely and fell down into her garden, revealing a huge mess on the other side. The woman went on: ''So had it removed was it wasn't safe.'' Unfortunately for the TikTok user, it didn't end there. Not only is she now left with no fence and privacy whatsoever, she claimed the neighbour ''won't pay and is waiting for her ''to pay to get a new one''. I hate my new build garden being overlooked so found a 5 METRE privacy fence to block out nosy neighbours for under £30 ''How is this ok?'' she was outraged, declaring the start of '' neighbour wars '' in the caption. Since being posted online, the clip has taken the internet by storm, amassing close to 460k views in just 16 hours. It also has over 2,200 likes and 345 shares - however, the TikToker has turned commenting off. How to create privacy in your garden CREATING privacy in your garden can be achieved in a number of ways depending on your budget, and the size of your space. Here are some effective ways to enhance privacy in your garden: 1. Fencing Install a tall, solid wooden or vinyl fence. This is one of the most straightforward ways to gain immediate privacy. Or use lattice panels, trellis, or slatted fencing to add a decorative touch while still offering privacy. 2. Hedges and Plants Fast-growing evergreen shrubs or trees like Leylandii, Thuja, or Bamboo along the boundary of your garden can help with privacy. Grow a dense hedge using plants like Boxwood, Privet, or Laurel. It may take time to grow, but it provides a natural and green privacy screen. Use climbers like Ivy, Clematis, or Wisteria on fences or trellises to create a lush, green privacy barrier. 3. Outdoor Curtains Hang outdoor curtains around pergolas, gazebos, or patios for an easy-to-adjust privacy solution. 4. Sound Barriers A water fountain or small waterfall can help drown out noise, adding to the sense of privacy. Or install fencing designed to reduce noise if privacy from sound is also a concern. £20,000 garden fence fine UK boundary rules mean your humble garden fence could turn into a legal nightmare if you get it wrong. Whether you're upgrading panels or building from scratch, the regulations are clear and local councils aren't afraid to crack down. New rules which came in last week under the The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 outline what homeowners can build without needing full planning permission. Gurpreet Chhokar, Which? Legal Expert, said: "If you're thinking of putting up a new garden fence this summer, there are a few important things to bear in mind to make sure you don't break any laws and find yourself landed with a fine." Back garden fence For a back garden fence, you're allowed a fence up to two metres high (that's about six foot six) without needing planning permission. Gurpreet said: " if you don't have planning permission then your fence can't be any higher than two metres from the ground." Go any higher, even with a decorative trellis, and you'll need to get approval first. Skip this step and you could be forced to tear it down, or even worse – face enforcement action. Front fence At the front of your property, things get stricter. Fences can't go above one metre if you live next to a footpath, road or public space. That's just over three feet tall. It's designed to help visibility for drivers and pedestrians but plenty of homeowners are caught out. Breaching planning rules can lead to an enforcement notice and, in some cases, fines. If your fence causes a statutory nuisance, such as flooding or blocked drains, you could face penalties of up to £5,000 or £20,000 for a business under environmental regulations. Ignore it, and things can escalate to court. Neighbour disputes are the most common property complaint in the UK and they often boil down to where the boundary actually is. Before building, measure up carefully and chat things through with your neighbour. Snapping a few photos and getting a handshake agreement could save you a legal headache down the line.
Telegraph
12 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Sarah Vine's memoir is fascinating, embarrassing and fundamentally tragic
The 'misery memoir ' was a genre one thought peculiar to the early years of this century. However, with this strange book, Sarah Vine, formerly Mrs Michael Gove, has resurrected it. Its title, How Not to Be a Political Wife, seems flippant, and one expects, when beginning it, to experience some sort of extended stunt. What one gets is in turns interesting, embarrassing and, fundamentally, mildly tragic. Ms Vine's contention is that she married a journalist and ended up with a politician; that politics is horrible; and it ruined her marriage and, to a great extent, her life and her children's. How far this is true must be up to each reader to judge. Because of the detail into which the author chooses to go, it seems to this reader that certain factors had shaped her life and her character long before her husband arrived. But first, the interesting stuff. I must come clean: I have long been a friend of Michael Gove, admire his considerable political and intellectual talents, and feel he has had a deeply unfair press. The service this book does to history is to put the record about him straight. First, he was vilified by David Cameron and his cronies for supporting Brexit in the 2016 referendum. It was, as Ms Vine emphasises correctly, a battle between a man with principles and a group of careerists who hardly knew the meaning of the word. Second, he was reviled by much of the Conservative party for his so-called 'betrayal' of Boris Johnson just after the referendum, when Johnson, running for the leadership, was showing precious little loyalty to him. All Gove had done was realise, before it was too late, that Johnson was the incompetent liar, charlatan and trickster his grotesque premiership proved him to be. I and others who knew what went on have defended Gove for years for this reason; it is good that this book puts it all on the record. I hope Theresa May, whose apparently saintly personal reputation also gets the kicking it deserves for her outrageous treatment of Gove in sacking him for 'disloyalty', reads this part of the book at least: maybe she will find a belated sense of shame, though one doubts it. The book also, though, shows just what a cesspit our politics became in the 14 years of Conservative rule from 2010 to 2024. What fills cesspits filled a succession of administrations. Cameron, the first of a succession of unremittingly dire prime ministers, was the ultimate cronyist. He adopted this method of management because his political life was, as Ms Vine definitively shows, all about him and his survival in office; never about what he could do for the country. As some of us wrote at the time, Cameron's addiction to his yes-men and women prevented him from calling on some of the older, and wiser, members of his party who might have given him advice superior to that of his cronies. This, too, is made plain in this book. Cameron's narcissism also made it impossible for him to see a link between his disloyalty to Gove – whom he demoted from Education Secretary despite his being the most successful holder of that office in recent memory – and Gove's decision that his principles about the EU might override any personal loyalty from him that Cameron merited. The embarrassing aspect of this book is the detail into which Ms Vine goes about her background: her being loathed at school, her mental and physical health and the effect her ex-husband's career had on her and their children. Describing her upbringing she portrays her father as a monster. In her acknowledgements at the end of the work she begins with 'my father, for f------ me up so brilliantly'. If we haven't realised it by this stage, what we have just read turns out to be a book by the thinking man's Meghan Markle. It has taken 'courage' (as she says in another acknowledgement: and I am sure it did) to lay all this personal upset bare, and doubtless she has found it therapeutic. Will her own children thank her, in years to come, for going into such detail about what they unquestionably suffered because of their father's prominence, and all the unhappiness it brought them? Doubtless Ms Vine thought she was being cathartic on her own account, and vicariously on theirs. Only time will tell. And then there's the mildly tragic aspect. Ms Vine exposes a chip on her shoulder the size of Yorkshire. Wounded deeply by her dear friend Samantha Cameron – about whom, to her credit, she says no bad word – turning on her viciously at a dinner party around the time of Brexit, she harps on about the class differences between her and the Camerons and their pretty repulsive cast of chums. She should pull herself together: 'Dave's' father was a stockbroker, not the Duke of Devonshire. It's indicative of the lack of a sense of perspective in this book, and which one fears is typical of the Markle school of thought. Most tragic of all is Ms Vine's reference to a 'friendship group' that abandoned them when her husband stood up for himself and his beliefs. I am not sure I have ever met anyone over the age of 14 who has a 'friendship group': but it's just another way of saying that the Goves were sucked in to the bunch of cronies around Cameron, though never so deeply that they could not be expelled again, in what reads like an act of social projectile vomiting. The whole thing is repellently infantile, and it's depressing that impostors such as the Cameron clique were ever allowed near power. I suspect no man reading this book (and I must plead guilty on that front) will perceive all its nuances, because it is (again from its title) presumably aimed mostly at women. One certainly rarely senses that Ms Vine is writing with the idea that a man – other, perhaps, than her ex-husband, about whom also she says no bad word – is among her readership. Perhaps other wives who have suffered because of their husband's careers will obtain something valuable from it. It is not a particularly literary book (if you want that in this context, read Sasha Swire 's diaries about the same period) but it will prove undeniably useful to those unfortunate historians who have to write about this ghastly period in decades to come. Otherwise, Ms Vine might have been far better advised not to write it at all.
