We opted to go with Act wanting to give teachers the legal power to remove seriously or persistently disruptive students from a classroom. Now in an election year with parties struggling to get airtime and oxygen, you have to wonder how much of this is serious policy, how much they seriously think they can get pushed through in a coalition, how much is just to generate headlines.

I'd venture to suggest this falls into that category, the headline grabbing one. The party's new policy would allow teachers to send disruptive students to a supervised space and staff would be protected when using a reasonable and proportionate intervention to prevent harm or destruction of property.

Corporal punishment wouldn't be allowed for all of you wanting and advocating a return to six of the best and it never did me any harm and look at me now. That's not what they're going back to. They're just saying that you'd be able to manhandle a child out of the class, shove them into a storage room with some poor underpaid teacher aide and there'd be no legal comeback.

Announcing the policy in Auckland yesterday, Paul Henry, the Act candidate, said the law would give teachers clear legal protections and the power to regain order in the classroom. Let's be honest, he said, there are a lot of little shits 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.

There are two things here. First, Paul Henry knew exactly what he was talking about when he called the kids LS's. No more of this woke wishy washy double speak when you vote for Act. No, no, no. Let's call a spade an effing shovel and a disruptive child a little shit.

Teachers know their pupils. What teachers need is support and you know today multiple journalists said to me, but what about this, but what about this, but what about if this child's, you know, autistic or got, teachers know that. Teachers know if this child is just being a little shit and is disturbing the class or if they genuinely can't control themselves. And so what we're doing with this policy is we're giving teachers another tool and we're saying to teachers and this to me is the most important part, we are supporting you in law to manage and control your class.

How humiliating must it be for teachers as they stand back and just helplessly watch people totally disturb their class and know that these good students are literally sitting by watching this nightmare happen. What are the messages being sent to those students?

Look, I'm sure he's right. There are some LS's in the classroom and it's really frustrating for the children and for parents to watch valuable time and resources being spent on manipulative LS's who play the system, who go on the school trips, cause maximum disruption and then get rewarded by being the first to do the fun stuff because you're trying, the poor teachers are trying to manage the behaviour of these LS's.

But the thing is when you have good teachers and principals, they know how to manage them. There were three known LS's at the grandkids' school who are no longer there. Where they've gone, no one's quite sure, but the stuffing of the uniforms and class books and reading books into the toilets, the bullying, the incredibly violent behaviour in the classroom has stopped. Not there anymore and hours and hours of teacher and classroom time has been regained every school year.

There are still neurodivergent children in the school. They fit in just fine. Allowances are madefor everybody with quirks and foibles. Quirks and foibles fine, LS's not so much. But the teachers tend to know how to manage them already.

And that brings me to the second point, is this something that teachers have asked for? Is Act's policy as articulated by Paul Henry something the teachers actually want? Have they demanded the right to be able to grapple an hysterical violent seven year old out of their classroom without fear of legal repercussion or do they simply want smaller classrooms, more teacher aides, more teacher training, more power to expel a child from their school, special classrooms set up to deal with children with really severe behavioural problems?

Big difference across the spectrum, huge difference across the spectrum and some of the LS's I believe are not neurodivergent at all but actually just like being bad. Not many. It's really hard this election campaign given some of the pronouncements that are coming from the different political parties to sort out whether they actually believe this or whether they're doing it in a dog whistling form of electioneering and campaigning.

Looking at New Zealand First and now looking at Act. Is this something the education system has been crying out for or is he just looking for headlines?

LISTEN ABOVE

We opted to go with Act wanting to give teachers the legal power to remove seriously or persistently disruptive students from a classroom. Now in an election year with parties struggling to get airtime and oxygen, you have to wonder how much of this is serious policy, how much they seriously think they can get pushed through in a coalition, how much is just to generate headlines.
I'd venture to suggest this falls into that category, the headline grabbing one. The party's new policy would allow teachers to send disruptive students to a supervised space and staff would be protected when using a reasonable and proportionate intervention to prevent harm or destruction of property.
Corporal punishment wouldn't be allowed for all of you wanting and advocating a return to six of the best and it never did me any harm and look at me now. That's not what they're going back to. They're just saying that you'd be able to manhandle a child out of the class, shove them into a storage room with some poor underpaid teacher aide and there'd be no legal comeback.
Announcing the policy in Auckland yesterday, Paul Henry, the Act candidate, said the law would give teachers clear legal protections and the power to regain order in the classroom. Let's be honest, he said, there are a lot of little shits 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.
There are two things here. First, Paul Henry knew exactly what he was talking about when he called the kids LS's. No more of this woke wishy washy double speak when you vote for Act. No, no, no. Let's call a spade an effing shovel and a disruptive child a little shit.
Teachers know their pupils. What teachers need is support and you know today multiple journalists said to me, but what about this, but what about this, but what about if this child's, you know, autistic or got, teachers know that. Teachers know if this child is just being a little shit and is disturbing the class or if they genuinely can't control themselves. And so what we're doing with this policy is we're giving teachers another tool and we're saying to teachers and this to me is the most important part, we are supporting you in law to manage and control your class.
How humiliating must it be for teachers as they stand back and just helplessly watch people totally disturb their class and know that these good students are literally sitting by watching this nightmare happen. What are the messages being sent to those students?
Look, I'm sure he's right. There are some LS's in the classroom and it's really frustrating for the children and for parents to watch valuable time and resources being spent on manipulative LS's who play the system, who go on the school trips, cause maximum disruption and then get rewarded by being the first to do the fun stuff because you're trying, the poor teachers are trying to manage the behaviour of these LS's.
But the thing is when you have good teachers and principals, they know how to manage them. There were three known LS's at the grandkids' school who are no longer there. Where they've gone, no one's quite sure, but the stuffing of the uniforms and class books and reading books into the toilets, the bullying, the incredibly violent behaviour in the classroom has stopped. Not there anymore and hours and hours of teacher and classroom time has been regained every school year.
There are still neurodivergent children in the school. They fit in just fine. Allowances are madefor everybody with quirks and foibles. Quirks and foibles fine, LS's not so much. But the teachers tend to know how to manage them already.
And that brings me to the second point, is this something that teachers have asked for? Is Act's policy as articulated by Paul Henry something the teachers actually want? Have they demanded the right to be able to grapple an hysterical violent seven year old out of their classroom without fear of legal repercussion or do they simply want smaller classrooms, more teacher aides, more teacher training, more power to expel a child from their school, special classrooms set up to deal with children with really severe behavioural problems?
Big difference across the spectrum, huge difference across the spectrum and some of the LS's I believe are not neurodivergent at all but actually just like being bad. Not many. It's really hard this election campaign given some of the pronouncements that are coming from the different political parties to sort out whether they actually believe this or whether they're doing it in a dog whistling form of electioneering and campaigning.
Looking at New Zealand First and now looking at Act. Is this something the education system has been crying out for or is he just looking for headlines?
LISTEN ABOVE

Join Kerre Woodham one of New Zealand’s best loved personalities as she dishes up a bold, sharp and energetic show Monday to Friday 9am-12md on Newstalk ZB. News, opinion, analysis, lifestyle and entertainment – we’ve got your morning listening covered.

Kerre Woodham Mornings Podcast

Kerre Woodham: Is ACT's policy needed? Or are they trying to generate headlines?

https://api.omny.fm/orgs/7784f840-c291-422a-924b-ad9000bbad71/clips/c70d4f45-06d9-4991-87a5-b49a01834d42/transcript