The boy I spoke to in the presence of his parents is a resourceful, pleasant 11-year-old. I asked him to tell, in his own words, the story that ended with his desperate plea to his mother to take him out of Primary School No. 1. With the boy’s and his mother’s consent, we present the recording of the message below (we slightly altered the voice to protect the pupil from being recognized).
Sit your ass down and shut your mouth
The boy’s homeroom teacher in fourth grade, a teacher rewarded by the school principal, used expressions such as “sit your ass down” and “shut your mouth” toward the children. In class, she also used humiliating techniques against the 10-year-old, making children who did not like him raise their hands.
“It was so mean; I felt like crying,” the boy recalled the humiliation he experienced more than a year ago. “When the teacher handed out our report cards at the end of the year, she thanked and congratulated everyone and smiled, but she grabbed me by the arm, squeezed it and said I was lucky she had let me pass,” the boy complained about another incident.
A dark picture of the fourth-grade “integrated” class at Primary School No. 1 emerges from his account. According to what the boy and his mother say, the class did not have a permanent homeroom teacher, and the teachers changed starting from first grade. His mother speaks of five changes.
The class combined children with disability certificates and children who did not have such certificates, like our protagonist. From the boy’s account, it appears that the children were well informed about the disabilities their classmates faced. The boy most often said that the children were hyperactive, distracted during lessons, had difficulty maintaining attention, were hostile toward one another and often got into conflicts involving hitting, wrestling and pinching.
The class chatterbox
The mother says her son was the class chatterbox, meaning that he talked during lessons. The boy says it was difficult for him to sit still without moving for an entire lesson; he adopted various positions in his chair and supported his head, which displeased the homeroom teacher. It is easy to imagine that conducting a lesson and forcing the children in this class to sit silently and motionless for 45 minutes was impossible. And it seems the teacher was overwhelmed by it.
“At the beginning of fourth grade, the teacher was quite nice,” the boy says. “I don’t want to lie, but there was something unpleasant in her eyes. This teacher seemed strange. With each day, she became more confident in the class, making herself at home. I won’t hide the fact that I received many remarks for talking during lessons. Most often, it concerned my conflicts with a boy who was hyperactive. That was when the teacher began picking on minor things,” the boy adds, self-critically and subjectively.
The boy felt that the homeroom teacher did not like him and understood that she did not respect him. From what he said, one may conclude that the homeroom teacher had been assigned to a class she could not cope with and perhaps did not like teaching. She may also have had selected pupils whom she promoted, while the children judged her educational strategies to be unfair: picking on anyone she had labeled a “troublemaker” and did not like.
Anyone who doesn’t like him, raise your hand
The methods used by the teacher in this class came to light by accident. One day, a scandal broke out. One of the female pupils complained to the teacher that our protagonist had drawn a penis in her notebook. It turned out that the children were drawing this particular male body part in one another’s notebooks. The teacher concluded that the boy might have seen an erotic scene involving adults at home, and that this was why he had drawn a male organ in his classmate’s notebook, and she sent him to a psychologist. (It later emerged that there was another 10-year-old in the class who showed pornographic films to his classmates, which had started the children’s obscene drawings).
Our protagonist’s mother went to the psychologist, as the educational institution had demanded. However, during the appointment with the psychologist, it turned out that the serious problem was with the homeroom teacher, not the child.
“During the conversation with my son, it emerged that the homeroom teacher was putting pressure on him,” his mother explained. “The psychologist said she would go to the school to clarify the matter. She also said that the teacher should receive a reprimand for such behavior,” the mother said.
The school did not comment on the incident. We know that the teacher did not change her methods after the child met with the psychologist. In the pupil’s view, the homeroom teacher became even more spiteful toward him. The child cried after returning home and complained about the teacher. He did not feel safe around the adults at school. Eventually, his mother decided to transfer her son to another school.
“I transferred him according to our residential address; I did not say that I was transferring him because of the teacher,” the mother said. “At the new school, the child came back to life and has better grades. He still sometimes talks during lessons, but he goes to school smiling and comes back the same way. We have already been through our ordeal. We are victims of an abuser. The school knew about our situation, and I resent the way they treated us, especially my child,” the mother added.
The school does not comment… in accordance with professional ethics
The school principal, in consultation with the head of the Education Department, decided not to comment on the story. We sent a recording of the child asking to change schools and briefly described the story.
We requested an official comment from the school or the Education Department on whether the following provisions had been violated:
- Article 30 of the Constitution concerning the inviolability, respect and protection of the inherent and inalienable dignity of the human person?
- Article 40 of the Constitution prohibiting, among other things, degrading treatment and punishment?
- Articles 19 and 28(2) of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, under which Poland is obliged to take all appropriate measures to protect children from all forms of physical or mental violence, injury or abuse, neglect or negligent treatment or exploitation (…), as well as to ensure that school discipline is administered in a manner consistent with the child’s human dignity and with this Convention?
- Article 5 of the Education Law, which requires teachers, in their teaching, educational and caregiving activities, to be guided by the welfare of pupils and concern for their health and moral and civic development, while respecting the pupil’s personal dignity?
Another issue is who is responsible for running the integrated class in such a way that groups formed within it fought one another according to the law of the jungle, ultimately causing the children to feel unsafe in the class. Should the blame lie with the head of the Education Department, who did not inspect the situation at the institution under her authority? Or with the principal, who, perhaps while struggling with staff shortages, kept changing the teachers responsible for this difficult class? Or with the homeroom teachers, who lacked the competence or support to integrate the class?
The response from the principal of Primary School No. 1 is provided below (the bold formatting comes from the editorial staff):
In response to the journalistic inquiry dated November 16, 2023, we kindly inform you that, guided by the best-understood interests of the child, in accordance with professional ethics, educational law, and with regard to protecting information concerning our pupils and teachers, we cannot provide the press with information in this specific situation. The submitted excerpt of the recording does not take into account the circumstances of the incident or the full situational context of the 2022/2023 school year.
However, we wish to assure you that, in the case of every child concerning whom any educational, behavioral or other difficulties are reported, appropriate procedures are implemented—adapted to the specific situation and taking into account the needs of the minor, their family (legal guardians) and the teachers.
To the extent legally possible, the school examines the family and caregiving situation, the social situation, including peer relationships, and other circumstances specific to the given situation. If necessary, outside institutions are also invited to cooperate.
Teachers and specialists, in their work with children, are guided by the best-understood interests of the child, generally applicable laws and the internal procedures operating at the school on the basis of those laws. Accordingly, teachers comply, among other things, with the provisions of: 1. Article 6(1) of the Act of January 26, 1982—the Teachers’ Charter (consolidated text: Journal of Laws of 2023, item 984); 2. Article 5 of the Act of December 14, 2016—the Education Law (consolidated text: Journal of Laws of 2023, item 900); 3. § 2(1) of the Regulation of the Minister of National Education of August 9, 2017, on the principles for organizing and providing psychological and pedagogical assistance in public kindergartens, schools and institutions (consolidated text: Journal of Laws of 2023, item 1798); 4. the psychological and pedagogical assistance system at the School; 5. the School’s educational and preventive program; 6. procedures in situations involving threats and recommended preventive measures concerning pupils’ physical and digital safety.
Małgorzata Giedrojć-Sypień, principal of Primary School No. 1 in Bolesławiec