Behaviour and Discipline in Schools€¦ · Professor Parsons: Behaviour and discipline should be linked with relationships. The problem is not just out there with the young people

HC 516-II Published on 3 February 2011

by authority of the House of Commons London: The Stationery Office Limited

£18.50

House of Commons

Education Committee

Behaviour and Discipline in Schools

First Report of Session 2010–11

Volume II

Oral and written evidence

Additional written evidence is contained in Volume III, available on the Committee website at www.parliament.uk/education-committee

Ordered by the House of Commons to be printed 26 January 2011

The Education Committee

The Education Committee is appointed by the House of Commons to examine the expenditure, administration and policy of the Department for Education and its associated public bodies.

Membership at time Report agreed:

Mr Graham Stuart MP (Conservative, Beverley & Holderness) (Chair) Neil Carmichael MP (Conservative, Stroud) Nic Dakin MP (Labour, Scunthorpe) Bill Esterson MP, (Labour, Sefton Central) Pat Glass MP (Labour, North West Durham) Damian Hinds MP (Conservative, East Hampshire) Charlotte Leslie MP (Conservative, Bristol North West) Ian Mearns MP (Labour, Gateshead) Tessa Munt MP (Liberal Democrat, Wells) Lisa Nandy MP (Labour, Wigan) Craig Whittaker MP (Conservative, Calder Valley)

Powers

The Committee is one of the departmental select committees, the powers of which are set out in House of Commons Standing Orders, principally in SO No 152. These are available on the Internet via www.parliament.uk

Publications

The Reports and evidence of the Committee are published by The Stationery Office by Order of the House. All publications of the Committee (including press notices) are on the Internet at www.parliament.uk/education-committee

Committee staff

The current staff of the Committee are Kenneth Fox (Clerk), Elisabeth Bates (Second Clerk), Emma Gordon (Committee Specialist), Benjamin Nicholls (Committee Specialist), Ameet Chudasama (Senior Committee Assistant), Kathryn Smith (Committee Assistant), Steven Price (Committee Support Assistant), and Brendan Greene (Office Support Assistant)

Contacts

All correspondence should be addressed to the Clerk of the Education Committee, House of Commons, 7 Millbank, London SW1P 3JA. The telephone number for general enquiries is 020 7219 6181; the Committee’s e-mail address is [email protected]

Witnesses

Wednesday 13 October 2010 Page

Tom Burkard, Visiting Fellow, University of Buckingham; Kate Fallon, General Secretary, Association of Educational Psychologists; Professor Pam Maras, Honorary General Secretary, British Psychological Society and Head of Department of Psychology and Counselling, University of Greenwich; David Moore CBE, Former HMI and Divisional Manager, Ofsted, and Professor Carl Parsons, University of Greenwich Ev 1

Christine Blower, General Secretary, National Union of Teachers; Dr Mary Bousted, General Secretary, Association of Teachers and Lecturers; Dr Patrick Roach, Deputy General Secretary, NASUWT, and Ian Toone, Senior Professional Officer (Education), Voice the Union Ev 9

Wednesday 20 October 2010

Sir Alan Steer, Chair and of the 2005 Practitioners’ Group on School Behaviour and Discipline Ev 20

Sue Bainbridge, Programme Lead for Behaviour and School Partnerships, National Strategies Ev 30


Gillian Allcroft, Policy Manager, National Governors’ Association; Mike Griffiths, Head of Northampton School for Boys and witness for the Association of School and College Leader; Russell Hobby, General Secretary, National Association of Head Teachers, and Charlie Taylor, Headteacher, Willows Primary Special School and Acting Headteacher of Chantry Secondary Special School, Hillingdon Ev 36

Virginia Beardshaw, Chief Executive, I CAN; John Dickinson-Lilley, Vice-Chair, Special Educational Consortium; Paula Lavis, Policy and Knowledge Manager, YoungMinds, and Jane Vaughan, Director of Education, National Autistic Society Ev 47

Wednesday 17 November 2010

Katharine Birbalsingh, ex-Deputy Head; Daisy Christodoulou, Teach First Ambassador; Sue Cowley, Educational Author, Trainer and Presenter; Paul Dix, Lead Trainer and Director, Pivotal Education, and Tom Trust, Former Elected Member for Secondary Sector, General Teaching Council for England Ev 56

Nick Gibb MP, Minister of State for Schools, Department for Education Ev 66

Wednesday 1 December 2010

Dr John Dunford, Education Consultant; Bill Gribble, Behaviour Management Trainer; Jacquie Nunn, Director of Improvement and Training, Training and Development Agency for Schools, and Andrew Winton, Manager, Voice of Young People, London Borough of Havering Ev 77

List of printed written evidence

1 Tom Burkard Ev 88

2 The Association of Education Psychologists Ev 93

3 The British Psychological Society Ev 97; Ev 104

4 Dr David L Moore CBE Ev 106

5 Carl Parsons, Visiting Professor of Educational and Social Inclusion, Centre for Children, Schools and Families, University of Greenwich Ev 108

6 National Union of Teachers Ev 114

7 Association of Teachers and Lecturers Ev 118

8 NASUWT Ev 122

9 Voice: The Union for Education Professionals Ev 126

10 Sir Alan Steer Ev 129

11 National Strategies Ev 130

12 National Governors’ Association Ev 136

13 Association of School and College Leaders Ev 137

14 National Association of Head Teachers Ev 141

15 I CAN Ev 144; 146

16 Special Educational Consortium Ev 148

17 YoungMinds Ev 152; 155

18 The National Autistic Society Ev 157; 163

19 Sue Cowley Ev 165

20 Department for Education Ev 166

21 Training and Development Agency for Schools Ev 171

22 National Association of Social Workers in Education (NASWE) Ev 174

23 Bill Gribble Ev 178

List of additional written evidence

(Published in Volume III on the Committee’s website www.parliament.uk/education-committee)

1 DEA Ev w1

2 John Bangs Ev w2

3 Zacchaeus Trust 2000 Ev w4

4 Alison Peacock, Cambridge Primary Review and the Wroxham Primary School, Potters Bar, Hertfordshire Ev w8

5 Professor Stephen Gorard Ev w11

6 Demos Ev w14

7 Jeff Hardman, Director, European Education Consultants Ltd Ev w18

8 Incorporated Society of Musicians Ev w19

9 Dr Sue Roffey Ev w19

10 Jackie Deasy Ev w23

11 Dr Simon Gibbs, Senior Lecturer in Educational Psychology, Newcastle University Ev w23

12 The Adolescent and Children’s Trust (TACT) Ev w26

13 Dr Jeremy Swinson, Principal Educational Psychologist, Witherslack Group of Schools Ev w29

14 Dominic Boddington, Respect4us Ev w31

15 John Corrigan, Director, Group 8 Education Ev w34

16 David Wright Ev w37

17 Professor David Foxcroft, Professor of Community Psychology and Public Health, Oxford Brookes University Ev w37

18 Helen Earl, Educational Psychology and Behaviour Support Team Children’s Services, Cumbria County Council Ev w38

19 Dr Richard Crombie, Specialist Senior Educational Psychologist: Social and Emotional Development Ev w40

20 Edison Learning Ev w41

21 Food for Life Partnerships Ev w44

22 Fiona Wallace, Head of Behaviour Support Service, Link Centre Ev w51

23 The National Association of Social Workers in Education (NASWE) Ev w52

24 Office of the Children’s Commissioner for England Ev w56

25 National Children’s Bureau Ev w60

26 Institute of Education, University of London Ev w62

27 Liz Vickerie, Head of Support for Learning, and Kerrigen Marriner, Head of Behaviour Support, London Borough of Tower Hamlets Ev w68

28 SHS Ev w70

29 Cornwall County Council Ev w74

30 Research in Practice Ev w78

31 Youth Justice Board for England and Wales Ev w81

32 Joint Epilepsy Council Ev w83

33 Croydon Department of Children, Young People and Learners Ev w86

34 British Association for Counselling and Psychotherapy Ev w89

35 TreeHouse Ev w90

36 Telford & Wrekin and Shropshire Educational Psychology Service Ev w94

37 The Association of Directors of Children’s Services Ev w97

38 Granada Learning Ev w99

39 Children’s Food Campaign Ev w103

40 Oxfordshire County Council Ev w106

41 The Runnymede Trust Ev w111

42 Marlborough Family Education Service Ev w113

43 School Food Trust Ev w116

44 Teacher Support Network Ev w117

45 Kent County Council Ev w120

46 Centre for Studies on Inclusive Education Ev w122

47 Buckinghamshire County Council Ev w125

48 West Sussex Educational Psychology Service Ev w130

49 Pearson Ev w132

50 Anti-Bullying Alliance Ev w133

51 Children’s Rights Alliance Ev w137

52 Southampton Psychology Service, Southampton City Council Ev w141

53 Barnardo’s Ev w142

54 Advisory Centre for Education Ev w145

55 Paul Bird Ev w149

56 NFER Ev w149

57 Birmingham Educational Psychology Service Ev w154

58 Ofsted Ev w156

59 Dr Heather Geddes, UKCP Reg Educational Psychotherapist, The Caspari Foundation Ev w161

60 Parentline Plus Ev w163

61 Catch22 Ev w164

62 ContinYou Ev w167

63 Youth Sport Trust Ev w169

64 Anita Kerwin-Nye, Director, The Communication Trust Ev w172

65 Incredible Years Wales (IYW) Team, Bangor University Ev w172

cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [SO] Processed: [20-01-2011 12:55] Job: 006766 Unit: PG01Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/006766/006766_EdC 13 Oct 10 Corrected.xml

Education Committee: Evidence Ev 1

Oral evidenceTaken before the Education Committee

on Wednesday 13 October 2010

Members present:

Mr Graham Stuart (Chair)

Nic DakinDamian HindsCharlotte Leslie

________________

Examination of Witnesses

Witnesses: Tom Burkard, Visiting Fellow, University of Buckingham, Kate Fallon, General Secretary,Association of Educational Psychologists, Professor Pam Maras, Honorary General Secretary, BritishPsychological Society and Head of Department of Psychology and Counselling, University of Greenwich,David Moore, CBE, Former HMI and Divisional Manager, Ofsted and Professor Carl Parsons, Universityof Greenwich, gave evidence.

Q1 Chair: Good morning. Thank you all very muchfor coming here this morning. I know that some ofyou travelled down last night, and I appreciate youreffort in attending and giving evidence to us today inthis session on behaviour and discipline. TheCommittee is holding this inquiry because of theimpact of behaviour and discipline not only oneducational outcomes within our schools, but thegeneral well-being of children within them. Will youstart by telling us why you think behaviour anddiscipline policies are important and say whether youare optimistic or pessimistic about the newGovernment in terms of where we are moving fromhere? We will refer to you all by your Christiannames, if you are happy with that. I shall start on myright with Professor Parsons—Carl.Professor Parsons: Behaviour and discipline shouldbe linked with relationships. The problem is not justout there with the young people. It is a relationshipthing. It is about how the adults are trained, and howthe professionals who teach or deal in other ways withyoung people can relate to them. Schools certainlyneed to think really hard about behaviour anddiscipline, and the response to it. I conclude by sayingthat too often we have escalating discipline policypractices, and if one step does not work, we get moreand more severe. We do not have to do that. Asparents, we do not necessarily do that with ourchildren. We work to contain it, and we expect youngpeople to develop and grow through some of theproblems that they exhibit at certain ages.Tom Burkard: I must admit that this is the first timethat I have participated in a consultation when I findmyself defending the Secretary of State. That is to alarge extent because of the fact that the Governmenthave taken on board the essential message. We believethat it really has to be considered, given theoverwhelming problems of school behaviour. We nowhave a situation when about 400 pupils a day returnto school after a temporary exclusion for assaultingeither a teacher or a fellow pupil. We have a quarterof a million children attending schools when Ofstedhad judged that the state of their behaviour wasunsatisfactory. The endemic problem that we have had

Tessa MuntLisa NandyCraig Whittaker

for far too long is that we are looking at the child andwhat is wrong with the child, not looking at what iswrong with the learning environment. I am speakingfrom the standpoint of someone who has been inprivate enterprise for the better part of my life.Anyone who ran a business by trying to decide whatwas wrong with their customers rather than what waswrong with their services would soon be out ofbusiness. In short, we have two problems to considerwhen looking at behaviour. One is the long-termproblem of what to do about the endemic, structuralfaults in our education system. I believe that theSecretary of State and the Schools Ministerunderstand the problems quite accurately, but doingsomething about them is another matter. We also haveto look at the current crisis—what we do now. Schoolsand education do not change overnight. It will take ageneration to effect the sort of structural and culturalchanges in schools that will make it suitable for allchildren to get the education that they need. In themeantime, we have to look at what kind of short-termalternatives must be enacted right now and, in thatrespect, I should like very much to commend theSecretary of State for having adopted our suggestionthat Skills Force and organisations train ex-servicepersonnel to work in schools. That has an excellentrecord in reducing the rate of NEETs and exclusions.They should be given a much more prominent role inthe running of pupil referral units and mainstreamschools.David Moore: It is important that the Committeeremembers that the majority of teachers manage mostchildren well most of the time. That is a fact. Thenumber of permanent exclusions averages about10,000 a year. Out of 8 million schoolchildren, it is0.25%. That is the extreme end. There are graduationsbetween all of that, but most teachers manageyoungsters well, despite the fact that in initial teachertraining, since Kenneth Baker was Secretary of Statefor Education, there has been no training in childdevelopment and child psychology. That isextraordinary. If you do a three-year course, you getfour to five hours if you are lucky, and if you are ona PGCE course—on which most teachers now come

cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [20-01-2011 12:55] Job: 006766 Unit: PG01Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/006766/006766_EdC 13 Oct 10 Corrected.xml

Ev 2 Education Committee: Evidence

13 October 2010 Tom Burkard, Kate Fallon, Professor Pam Maras, David Moore CBE and Professor Carl Parsons

into the profession—you are lucky if you get betweenan hour and two hours on classroom management andbehaviour. Marks and Spencer spends more money ontraining their staff to handle angry customers than weactually give teachers, which is extraordinary. Thebehaviour policies of a school are essential becausethey should be the expression of the value system ofthe institution and the ways of working that areexpected by all. What we do know is that whenbehaviour starts to break down, it is often triggeredby the inconsistency of the staff applying what havebeen agreed as the mechanisms for the well-being andrunning of the school. I also think that in terms of in-service training, which is now predominantly in thehands of the schools themselves, too often behaviouris not seen as being linked to quality teaching andlearning. As the quality of teaching and learningincreases, disruption reduces. The inspection evidenceover time has come up with that and it has been saidover and over again. Where teaching and learning isless well organised, the opportunities for buoyancy totake place in a classroom increase.Professor Maras: I agree with and echo David’scomments, especially that teachers manage behaviourvery well and that there is virtually no childdevelopment in any teacher training. Even in thethree-year course, it is at a very low level, and for theBritish Psychological Society, child development iscrucial in terms of developing this. It is important tothink about how we define this. The notion thatantisocial behaviour is a homogeneous kind of thingis problematic, because it talks about disturbance anddisturbing, and it makes it very difficult for schoolsand organisations to deal with it. A lot of the time, itis very emotional and schools are dealing with it interms of the effects rather than the implications forthe young person. It is important that we take accountof the complexity of behaviour—there are differentreasons why children might have behaviouraldifficulties—and the different types of behaviouraldifficulties, from the one-off incident that occurs inschool that has to be dealt with straight away, to thelow-level disturbance that seems to bother teachers themost, especially when it involves groups of children.The ways that you deal with that are very different,and that is the problem with these very generaldefinitions of behaviour and joining it with the notionof discipline. We are going to talk about specialeducational needs later, so I will leave that. Those aremy main points at this point.Kate Fallon: I’m Kate Fallon from the Association ofEducational Psychologists. Being fourth, I agree withquite a lot of what my colleagues have said. Thequestion was whether behaviour and discipline isimportant. Yes, it is immensely important, but it hasto be very closely linked to our overall approach to thenurture, care and development of children and youngpeople. We can’t have one without the other. Am Ipessimistic? I tend to agree with the colleagues to myleft that in many situations inside and outside schoolsyou see a lot of children and young people behavingappropriately, responding to adults around them, andtaking responsibility for their own behaviour andactions in the environment in which they operate. Sogenerally, I don’t think I am pessimistic, although I

accept that some behaviours are causing hugeconcern. We have to look at how we initially preventthose behaviours from occurring, how we preventthem from occurring later on, and at what treatmentand care need to be given to youngsters displaying thebehaviours that we don’t want to see anywhere. I thinkthat behaviour and discipline is something that weneed to focus on. One of the things we need to do isimprove adult skills. Pam and David have talked aboutchild development in teacher training courses.However, there seems to be a lack of knowledge ofchild development within the whole children’sworkforce training, not just in teacher trainingcourses. When I have contributed to training withinlocal authorities and we have looked at childdevelopment for nursery workers or teachers, they arethe ones that are the most popular and the ones thatpeople leave saying, “That was really useful andinteresting,” and, “I didn’t know that.” We have hadthat feedback from people, but it is about centringapproaches to behaviour and discipline within thatwhole-child approach of how you nurture and developour young. We have to be honest and say that weactually observe some of the behaviours that weobserve now in children and young people in olderpeople, too. We see within society less automaticrespect for professionals and elders among all of ussitting here, I suspect. I also think that we seebehaviours not terribly far from here that might bedescribed as low-level disruption, such as peopletalking over one another, interrupting and not showingrespect for the other speaker. We can’t say it is justchildren’s behaviour. We have to look at it in thecontext of the behaviour that we see around us—thereis lots of emoting and road rage and so on, and it’snot children’s fault that those things occur. One of thethings we have to look at is helping adults to haveconfidence to manage and bring up children. I thinkthat a lot of adults now lack that confidence. It is aboutdeveloping not an authoritarian approach to childrenbut an authoritative approach that helps them feelsecure—that the adults around them are in charge, notnecessarily in control, and that they will keep themsafe and meet their basic needs. I will leave it therebecause I am sure something else will be picked uplater.Chair: Excellent. Talking about authority is a perfectprompt to bring in the next question.

Q2 Nic Dakin: In 2009, Ofsted said that standards ofbehaviour were good or outstanding in 95% ofprimary schools and 80% of secondary schools, andit only identified 1% of primary schools and 1% ofsecondary schools where standards of behaviour werejudged to be inadequate. That would seem to pick upthe points that David and Pam were making aboutemphasising positive behaviour. Do you agree withthat? Sir Alan Steer’s recent conclusion is thatpublicised incidents are unrepresentative and rare. Doyou think that he is exaggerating that too much theother way?Professor Maras: I think that you have just indicatedthat it is not actually supported by the data. It’s anemotive subject, and it is good news. It is bad news,but good for news. It is my view that it is not

cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [20-01-2011 12:55] Job: 006766 Unit: PG01Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/006766/006766_EdC 13 Oct 10 Corrected.xml



supported by the data. There is a perception among allof us that there is an increase in antisocial behaviourgenerally, and as Kate has just said, that weighs intohow people view children.

Q3 Nic Dakin: Does anybody else want to commenton that? What circumstances do you think need to bepresent in a classroom or school to encouragepositive behaviour?David Moore: First of all, the adults have to modelthe behaviours that they want because otherwise howdoes the child learn? Children come from homeswhere they see a variety of types of parenting and theybring those models with them. It is called receivedbehaviour. The key for a youngster, particularly atsecondary level where you change the adult every 45to 50 minutes so their expectations may be slightlydifferent, is that you have to adapt your behaviour tothe new context. If you can’t adapt your behaviour tocontext, you are in difficulty. There is an increasingnumber of youngsters who find that difficult. The staffthen have to decide for their individual school what isinappropriate and unacceptable behaviour, so there isa common agreement about what it means in thatschool. You then have to explain that to youngsters sothat they know what it is rather than simply saying, “Ithink that your behaviour is unacceptable.” In thatcase, the child does not know what they have done.They are doing what they ordinarily do. The point thatone of my colleagues made is that if you go into anyshopping area on a Saturday and you watch parentsinteracting with their youngsters, you can see why theyoungsters behave in the way in which they do—theymodel the behaviour of the adults. There is a very bigtraining issue for teachers around how you all followagreed procedures and expectations. For example, inthe summer, the NASUWT runs a course on behaviourfor newly qualified teachers. I think that the courseruns for about a day or two. I have been in schoolswhere those newly qualified young teachers say thatwas some of the best training that they have had todate to help them to move into the classroom. It is leftto a particular organisation to do that for its membersand that is very worthy, but how does it happen foreveryone else?Kate Fallon: You asked about what needs to be in theclassroom. I very often used to use a checklist when Iworked with teachers. This is going back to the modelof the great paediatrician, Mia Kellmer Pringle, in“The Needs of Children”. The basic needs are loveand security, new experiences, praise and recognitionand responsibility. We used to unpick those and say,“Are those present in this classroom?” Love andsecurity does not necessarily mean hugging andkissing all the time; it is about the children feelingvalued and secure. Do they know what is expected ofthem and do they know that the adult is in charge andcan look after them? So, do they feel secure andvalued in there? The new experiences can relate towhether the curriculum is appropriate to the levels ofthe children in the classroom. If a particular child iscausing difficulties, have we checked out theircognitive abilities, reading and numerical skills? Havewe checked their hearing and their eyesight? There isa whole list of things that you go down to check

whether the experiences that are occurring in thisclassroom are appropriate for the children. Praise andrecognition are not always about saying, “Well done,you,” all the time, if that is not appropriate, butrecognising sometimes when something is difficult forsomebody and saying, “I know you tried really hardthere—let’s see how we can learn from that in thefuture.” On responsibility, are the children made tofeel participative members of the community? Do wetry and choose those who are not engagingparticularly well with tasks of responsibility? Do weengage in their own learning? I could go on, but ifyou go back to those four major needs—love andsecurity, new experiences, praise and recognition, andresponsibility—and unpick those, a lot of teachers andadults can start working out themselves how best todeliver a good classroom environment.Tom Burkard: One of the things that has beenneglected here is the importance of how children aretaught and what they learn. If you go back to 1998,there was a rather remarkable article written byMinette Marrin, who is now with The Sunday Times,but was at that time with the Telegraph. She visitedKobi Nazrul primary school in Whitechapel, where80% of its pupils were of Bangladeshi origin, ofwhich I think 60% were on free school meals.Essentially, it had virtually every disadvantage youcould possibly imagine. At that time, it had exactly3% of its pupils on the special needs register. Thereason why was that the headmistress at that time,Ruth Miskin, succeeded in teaching every single oneof her children to read, which was a remarkableaccomplishment. There was a lot of scepticism withinthe Tower Hamlets local authority about this. I testedher pupils independently, when they were up to aboutyear 4, at age 9, and every single one was there—there were no convenient absences, which you oftenfind on these occasions. It turned out that, on average,its pupils were 22 months ahead of norms in spelling.I was teaching at that time at a Norwich suburbancomprehensive—Kobi Nazrul’s spelling ability at year4 was almost as good as our pupils at year 7. Now thething is that that school had no discipline problems.Just two weeks ago, I visited another school that isexemplary, which is the Durand Academy inStockwell. It has 900 pupils in probably the biggestprimary school in England, of whom 95% are blackminority ethnic. Yet, in a period of two hours when Iwent through the school—looking at all theclassrooms and going into all the classrooms—everysingle pupil was very busily at work. Two things arereally striking about Durand’s policy. One, it does nothave mixed-ability teaching. In other words, its goalsare academic rather than social, but by achieving itsacademic goals it manages to achieve its social goalsat the same time. The other thing is that Durandrecruits and trains its own teachers under school-centred ITT programmes. This means that it is freedfrom a lot of the nonsense we have got about schoolsbeing all about social engineering as opposed tolearning. Once you take care of the learningdimension, the vast majority of social problems fallaway. This leaves room for the professional services,which we still need, to devote their attention to thechildren who have the most severe special needs—the




ones that have medical problems, the ones that comefrom severely abusive homes and this sort of thing. Itis sheer fantasy to pretend that any of our excellentservices that work with children who have behaviouralproblems can possibly even begin to touch themagnitude of the problem that we have right now.David Moore: In the initial survey that we did in 1996on exclusions from schools, two thirds of all thepupils who were in the disciplinary systems ofsecondary schools had reading ages between 8.5 and10 years. The average readability of textbooks givento children in year 7 in maths, science and geographyhad reading ages around 14 years. It is also interestingat the same time that Judge Stephen Tumim’s team,looking at prisons, found that three quarters of allprisoners on remand had reading ages below 10 years.If you cannot read, you cannot access the curriculum.If your vocabulary is not sufficiently developed, youcannot understand what the teachers are saying. Andif you cannot change your social mode of behaviouronce every 50 minutes, you really start to get intodifficulty. Tom’s right—once those youngsters start toachieve and to feel they are achieving, their attitudesshift significantly.

Q4 Damian Hinds: Tom, you have quite rightlymentioned that anybody who has worked in businesswould say that if you have a business problem, youdo not blame your customers, you look at changingyour services. However, we also segment ourcustomers to try to understand their differentmotivations and their different worth in business termsand, in those terms, their different behaviouralcharacteristics. If you had to take a class of childrenand predict which ones were going to be moredifficult—if you could know everything about theirbackground—what are the key predictors in terms ofsocio-economic background, family type, oldersiblings or younger siblings and birth month withinyear?Tom Burkard: A very interesting American study,which was financed by the United States Departmentof Education, discovered that reading failure was theonly one of all the various indicators which accuratelypredicted the later incidence of violent antisocialbehaviour. That study was conducted in 1974, whichmakes it fairly ancient, but to my knowledge no onehas ever disputed its findings. The reason that thatfactor was most important is not only the readingfailure per se, but the child’s frustration at thecontinual and repeated failure to achieve their aims.In other words, there is this feeling of failure thatcomes with not being able to read. For a number ofyears I was at the sharp end, working with children insocial work programmes, in schools and in themilitary. It is safe to say that the real MacGuffin whenyou are talking about antisocial behaviour—I am nottalking about a tiny minority of psychopaths who aregoing to be in trouble anyway—is that these kids havebeen so humiliated by their educational experiencethat they have developed a hostility to it. It wasaxiomatic in my work with the Suffolk probationservice that when we were dealing with kids who wereon probation or care orders, you never did anythingthat reminded them of school. When I was working

with the Territorials as a military instructor, we foundthat once those pupils with marginal literacy andnumeracy skills started succeeding in technicalsubjects such as map reading and signals—which waswhat I taught—their whole attitude changed. Youcould see them swelling with pride, because they wereable to sit in a classroom and learn. The point is thatwhen you have children who are failing all the time,it is hardly surprising that some of them go off thedeep end and start assaulting both teachers and fellowpupils. Although this does not excuse that behaviourby any means, most children who fail do not do that—that is something that we have to recognise. Youcannot carry on with an education system which is somanifestly failing to meet the needs of so manypupils. Some 17% of our 18-year-olds are NEETs.What does that say about the schooling that theyhave received?Professor Parsons: There is a hinterground behindnot being able to pick up reading between the ages ofsix and 10, which relates, statistically, to poverty andfree schools meals. The exclusion statistics year onyear show disproportionality, because white and blackCaribbean children, those on special needs and thoseon free school meals are much more likely to beexcluded. The background that those children bringwith them to school makes it more difficult for themto engage. On the other side, the schools do notsufficiently target those at risk of reading failure andall the other failures that follow it. The fact is thatearly intervention by a number of means—they arespread around the country, with projects here andinitiatives there—does work with children who cometo school with the fewest advantages, from worklesshouseholds, disruptive backgrounds and, in manycases, from sheer poverty. Those means can obviatethe later dangers and failures and underperformancethat often occur. I am in and out of schools that arelike that. One that I am spending a lot of time in wasin the press in 2003 as the worst school in England.It was a secondary school that was almostunmanageable—it was one of Nic’s 1% of horrorschools and it is not even in the middle of a city. Ithas turned around now and good work can do that.

Q5 Damian Hinds: Free school meals is such a bluntinstrument when we talk about any statistic. You couldbe out of work and poor, in work and poor—you getall sorts of family structures. Sometimes—I am notsaying that you are—as a country we get lazy and wesay that you can predict all these things by who is onfree school meals. Sadly, that does not tell you whatto do about it.Professor Parsons: May I give one quick response?It is a statistical likelihood; it is not that all who havefree school meals will go that way. Even when youget clever and bring in the index of educationaldeprivation it does not make a lot of difference, it stillgives you the same message.Professor Maras: We have been counting—wealways count, we are very good at that in this country.In 1988, when Warnock came in, we started to countand give money in terms of that. Behaviour has beena major concern for teachers and schools for an awfullong time. I absolutely agree with my colleague’s




comments about reading. However, we are really indanger of moving down a route where not being ableto read is a predictor of antisocial behaviour. One ofthe problems is the definition of antisocial behaviour,because there are many reasons why children behavebadly in school as well as feeling bad about not beingable to read. That is why early assessment is crucialin terms of defining what that reason is. What you dowill be different at the individual level. Of course,well-led schools have less disruptive behaviour, butwe have known that for quite a long time. What weneed to know is how to work with specific childrenwho have specific difficulties, who are really notlearning. It is not just that they are disturbing others;they are not intellectually gaining anything at all fromeducation. They will go into the prison system orother services, so there will be a cost, and they willlose out from that.

Q6 Chair: Is that about the child or about theinstitution? Tom’s point that I was picking up on wasthe sense that when you have the right policies inplace, children who could be seen in a weaker contextas having a particular problem may turn out not tohave a problem. If you run the institution properlythe child gets engaged, their behaviour improves andthey learn.Professor Maras: I think that it is both. We have donenumerous studies, which have all been published, thatshow that if you ask schools the cause of individualchildren’s behaviour, they very rarely say the school.It is mostly internalised or it is given to the child orgiven to the parents. It is both. There is a real dangerof moving down the path: we will find one really goodintervention and that will work. Carl is absolutelyright that the UK system relies on local managementof schools, which means that people have to manage,within a local area, the behaviour of those schools.They buy in really good interventions, but we do notknow what it is about those specific interventions thatworks. Until we do, we will keep adding on morereally good interventions without looking at the needsof the individual children and the different reasonswhy they might have behaviour problems.

Q7 Chair: Can I press you on that, Pam? Famously,the commitment of British Leyland in regard to thequality of its car was shown by how many people ithad at the end of the line fixing all the problems. TheJapanese approach was of getting it right the first timeand stopping the production line at any point. I wouldhate to turn children into manufactured cars, but I amsure that if you get it right the first time you do nothave to have brilliant interventions later.Professor Maras: I absolutely agree with you.

Q8 Chair: Most children’s behavioural difficultiesare anticipated and corrected by getting it right thefirst time rather than having ever more brilliantinterventions to pick up the cost of failure.Professor Maras: The two things merge. For someyoung people and children, an assessment when theycome into school would show that they have somedifficulties for various reasons. In other situations,being in school and the interaction between school

and family, and a child’s social background, mean thatthings go wrong and therefore the behaviour goeswrong. There is a danger that we come up with onlyone really good fix and we cannot do that, because alot of things have got to change. Schools that are wellled have low levels of low-level disturbance, but theywill still have within them children who need to havesome interventions. The two things converge and it isnot straightforward, which is one of the problems withthe very simple definitions of antisocial behaviour.David Moore: Can I comment?

Q9 Damian Hinds: I think that Kate is waitingpatiently to say something.Kate Fallon: You asked the question: if you kneweverything about the children in your classroom atquite a young age, would you be able to predict whichchildren are likely to be affected? You know there areparticular at-risk factors, which have been talkedabout. Boys are more at risk—summer-born boys,going to school just as they are turning four, forexample. Some summer-born boys have mums withlow educational achievement, which is another factor,along with poverty and the stresses and strains that gowith that. Poor attachment with early carers is one ofthe most crucial and reliable predictors of poorbehaviour later on, if a child has not had good, strongearly attachments—not necessarily with mum, butwith a good carer in those early days. You can look atall those and say those are risk factors, and you willfind some children who, despite all that, actually dookay. Because something happened to address one ofthose factors—by the teachers, staff or nurseryworkers—resilience has been built, which hasalleviated the possible effects of those others. But ifwe look at those particular factors, we know there area number of things you can do at different stages. Forexample, there has been a well researched project overa longitudinal period in Canada—the nurse-familypartnership—which highlighted young, single,pregnant girls aged 15 to 17. They started workingwith them during their pregnancy and getting themaware of the fact that they were going to takeresponsibility for a human being—how you build upattachment and love and care for a child. Followed up25 or 30 years later against a control group, it hasshown immense improvement on what you wouldexpect. I think the nurse-family partnership is beingpiloted in a couple of places in Britain at the moment.Clearly, it’s too soon to know what the effects are,because it is a longitudinal thing, but we haveconcrete research from a very good study in Canada.The trouble with a lot of the early years interventionsis that some of them are so short-term at the moment,you don’t know what the long-term effects are goingto be. We’ve had other early years interventions.There are schools with nurture groups, where a headhas looked specifically at children who come in withpoor relationships and poor attachments. They areoccurring all over Britain. If you were to go and lookat projects that are taking place, I would urge you tolook at schools and authorities that have nurturegroups and nurturing schools. That is a veryeducational, school-based short-term intervention thathas been shown to have an immense effect on




children’s social behaviour, and also on theirachievements and attainments as well. I set up acouple in Lancashire when I was working there. Wedid a reasonable research project with the Universityof Huddersfield. We expected the social and emotionalbehaviours to improve and we expected attainment toimprove. We didn’t expect quite the significantimprovement we got in achievements as well. That issomething I would urge you to go and have a look at.Look at the evaluations that have been done on those.That is when they have come into school and youhaven’t been able to do those things before school,but you can do it with a trained teacher and a trainednursery nurse—trained well in child development andknowing how to meet the needs of the children.

Q10 Damian Hinds: Chairman, I know time marcheson—you probably want me to skip on. I had a numberof things I wanted to ask about the schoolenvironment, which I suggest we skip and perhapscome back to if there is time in the second session.There is one thing I really want to ask while this panelis here—Tom brought it up. It won’t always bepossible, depending on the size of school and so on,but you were talking specifically about the role ofmixed ability teaching versus anything else. Nobodyelse mentioned it. In every single one of yoursubmissions, you’ve talked about the absoluteimportance of reading, having achievement and beingseen to have achievement and so on. I wonder whatyour comments are on mixed ability.Tom Burkard: I’ll start off if you want, becauseobviously I’m going to have the heterodox view here.I’d like to quote something from the TeachingBattleground blog. It says, “the movement for mixedability classes is indistinguishable from the movementagainst teaching. The mixed ability class teacher isnot a teacher at all. They are, often quite explicitly, afacilitator. They are a person who designs educationalactivities for children but doesn’t actually tell themwhat they need to know. They are a friend to the child,but not an expert on an academic subject.” This reallyresonated with me because when I worked for Suffolksocial services, if you asked kids what they thoughtabout their schools one thing they would always saywas, “They didn’t teach you nothing.” That wassomething that was repeated, right down to the doublenegative, with such accuracy that I think we have tolisten to it. We also have to think in terms of the studyon truancy that was done by my colleague ProfessorDennis O’Keeffe. He was commissioned by the DFE,or whatever it was back in 1994, to try to discoverwhat the reasons for truancy were. He took the novelstep of actually interviewing truants to find out whythey truanted and, lo and behold, it turned out that thevast majority of truancy was not their not registeringfor school, but what he called post-registrationtruancy, when they left because there was a class theydidn’t like or a teacher they couldn’t stand. So, whenwe are looking at these problems we do have to think,“Why is it that they can’t cope with this?” One of theproblems here is that if you are dealing with a mixed-ability class, you are dealing with children who areengaged in a lot of group work, project work andvarious independent activities, and a key thing that

has come up in recent years about children at the lowend of the ability range is that certain children who arequite frequently diagnosed as having attention deficitdisorder have, in fact, problems with workingmemory. Working memory is the facility we have thatholds all the words in a sentence together until we canform them into a meaningful whole. It is the sort ofthing that enables us to take a lot of relatedinformation and come up with a meaningfulconclusion. If you don’t have this ability and you’resitting in a mixed-ability class, which is relying to alarge extent upon your investigations—shall we say—you are going to find the whole procedure totally andutterly meaningless. If you’re lucky, the child will sitat the back of the class and do very little; if not,they’re going to act up. I think that one of the thingsthat we have to take into consideration is that thewhole edifice of modern pedagogy that was installedunder the terms of the Gilbert review under newLabour, almost guarantees that a very large percentageof children are so disengaged from the educationalprocess that this happens. Personalised learning wastheoretically supposed to engage this problem, butunfortunately it is an absolute fantasy to assume thatyou can take teachers and impose on them the burdenof trying to design learning programmes for each andevery child and think that each child is going to getan adequate amount of attention. The more duties youimpose on teachers, in terms of—Chair: Can I cut you off there, Tom? I think that yourpoint is clear. David was indicating.David Moore: This is just an observation frominspection. The issue isn’t whether it’s mixed-abilityor streamed teaching; the issue is whether it works forthose children. Does it deliver? Simply saying thatmixed ability is good or bad, or streaming is good orbad, is nonsense. The issue is: does it work? In exactlythe same way as when—

Q11 Damian Hinds: So, how is that a differentquestion? You said that it is not a question of whetherstreaming is good or bad but of whether it works.David Moore: For example, if you go into a schoolthat has streaming, and you sit through three lessonsin the same year group, by ability, does the teachingstrategy change for each of those groups or do theyget the same? If they’re getting the same, why arethey divided up? The thing is based on the outcomethat the children provide, not necessarily the teacher.There is a point on which I agree with Tom. In someof our inner-area schools they use mixed-abilityteaching but some of those schools have very highlevels of transience. So, at the beginning of the termthat group might be balanced in ability, but within sixto eight weeks it isn’t; it’s a random grouping, becausewhen the new children come they just have to be fittedinto a class. So the planning is thrown by thetransience.

Q12 Damian Hinds: With respect, these are differentarguments; they are about the operational simplicityand the doability. I think that the issue is morewhether it is done well. Presumably you can do mixedability well and you can do setting well, assumingyou’ve got a bright person doing it and doing it quite




well. I appreciate that there are many other argumentsand angles to this but today’s subject is discipline—compare and contrast: setting, streaming and mixedability.David Moore: If the teaching is good and the childrenare involved and motivated, it really doesn’t make thatmuch difference whether it is mixed ability orstreaming. That is by and large, but you will alwaysfind exceptions.

Q13 Chair: What is the evidence for that?David Moore: If you go back through Ofsted reports,you will see that they have never come down on oneparticular teaching strategy as being either the best orthe worst.

Q14 Damian Hinds: For discipline, specifically,because that is today’s subject. Ofsted is concernedwith lots of angles.David Moore: Looking at discipline as part of that, inwell organised classrooms, irrespective of whetherthey are mixed ability, streamed or any othergrouping, it is about the quality of the organisationand the engagement of the youngsters through theactions of the teacher.Kate Fallon: Most schools actually now have prettygood systems for assessing and evaluating bothachievement and behaviour. If a school decides that,in a particular situation, the behaviour of a group isnot as it should be, it will ask itself whether that isbecause it is a mixed ability group, whereby theschool is not getting the curriculum differentiationright for those children and, therefore, whether theyshould be put into ability or setting groups for thatsubject. Conversely, the school may have setting andstreaming that isn’t working well, because some of thechildren are not getting good models of behaviourfrom others, and that might be stretching. In somesituations, mixed ability teaching can work well, andit can produce a very disciplined and orderedenvironment, and so can streaming and setting. Itdepends on the particular context that you are lookingat. Sorry, you would expect that answer from apsychologist—it depends.

Q15 Damian Hinds: If you were a head teacher oron a board of governors and you had to make thatdecision, what contextual differences would you lookfor to help you make that decision? You say that itdepends on the context, will you explain how?Kate Fallon: The head teacher and the staff arelooking all the time at what they are achieving, on adaily basis, on a weekly basis and on a departmentalbasis. A school isn’t a static place, is it? A school hasto respond to its children.

Q16 Damian Hinds: I’m not seeing a decision treeemerge from that.Kate Fallon: The decision tree would be created bysitting down at a management meeting and, afterlooking at the data and observing that there seems tobe an issue with discipline and behaviour within agroup, asking why that is happening. If the disciplineproblem is within a mixed-ability group, is it becauseit is a mixed-ability group? If the problem is within a

high-flying set group, is it because, for example, theyare winding one another up about being too smart?Such questions will very clearly be asked within aschool’s decision-making management system.

Q17 Charlotte Leslie: I want to talk aboutpreventing and managing exclusions, but I will startoff with prevention. I have carried out some verymeagre work on that subject, and I want to run someideas and thoughts past the panel in order to gain fromyour expertise. First, I have interviewed a youngoffender who had truanted and had behaviouraldifficulties—I have interviewed quite a few suchpeople, and the same thing kept coming out—and,although one expects the problems to be just aboutkids, the tragic thing was that this chap said, “I wantedto be an electrician, but every time that I thought Iwas actually going to do some wiring of a plug or dosome electronics, I was just given a paper on how todo it. I can’t do paper, but I can do stuff.” To whatextent does the panel think that our practical andtechnical curriculum—I hesitate to call it vocational,because I don’t quite know what “vocational”means—has let down children, and to what extentdoes that contribute to behavioural difficulties?Professor Maras: I have done a lot of work on whatis now commonly known as the year 10 effect, whichis the developmental dip that our young people havein their attitude to most things that aren’t to do withother young people, music and stuff like that. Thatdevelopmental dip happens at a time when youngpeople are now making more and more decisions. Infact, they are making the decisions before the dipoccurs, so all young people become a bit morenegative. The options that they have at that time arenow so limited. If they are not supported and havesome reason for their behavioural difficulties—theymight be inclined to behave badly or have a historyof bad behaviour—that is the time when they are mostlikely to drop out of school. I absolutely agree withyou that opportunities and choices for young peopleoccur at the time when all young people are mostlikely to be a bit more negative about life other thanother young people.Charlotte Leslie: The tragedy there was that here wasa young man who had something positive that hewanted to do but the system just did not provide it:all it offered was paper.Professor Maras: May I add one point? Theinteresting thing is that the alternative curriculum,which is really brilliant in lots of instances, onlycomes in when you hit a really bad episode. It is notavailable to young people who have not reached thesituation where the school says, “What are we goingto do now because this is serious?” The problem isthat it comes in a little bit too late. The alternativecurriculum is probably something he would havetaken had he been offered it earlier.David Moore: The alternative curriculum has made asignificant difference to a lot of youngsters. The linksbetween schools and colleges increases at a very fastrate. However, there is an issue around year 9 becausethe colleges only take youngsters when they are inyear 10 and there is a whole group of youngsters inyear 9, and some stretching back to year 8, who are




totally switched off by the paper curriculum. Yet someschools have managed to do things with them and sotheir engagement is better. Their attendance increases.The incidence of them walking out of classrooms orbeing difficult decreases and they engage better. Theirattendance, particularly at the colleges, is very high.It pulls up their school attendance and so makes asignificant shift for a number of youngsters, but thereare some youngsters for whom it makes no differencein the end.Professor Maras: There is evidence from France andthe US that it is a very effective thing to do, but it hasa different status there.David Moore: It is breaking it away from the idea thatthe naughties get this and that if you are naughty yougo on a practical course. It is about how you make thething open to all youngsters.Professor Parsons: Can I build on that? It is not justthat we suddenly have a solution at year 10. What wedon’t do is design a system of education for the clientgroup that is coming in then. We certainly don’t do itcollectively as an educational community locally. It isa single school that gets the input. What we have beenrecommending to prevent exclusions is to look at it ascommunity-based inclusion. A collection of schoolsin an area will sort itself out so that it has the fullrange of provision necessary to accommodate all ofthose children. Attendance is a huge thing. Don’t letthem be out of school. Having them in is important.It is one of the things that bothers us about exclusion,whether it is fixed term or whether it is permanentwhere you wait for 15 days while the governors dealwith it and a further 15 days so that it can go to anindependent appeals panel. If you design locally—thisis a matter also of adjusting whether you have mixedability, setting or streaming—you have detailedinformation online on individual children and youknow what the needs of individual children are. I wasin a school last week in Cheshire that did withoutPRUs, but in this one school there were three differentbases. One was certainly for Key Stage 4 and kidswho would not work well in the ordinary classroom.There was a youth-based input there. These are kidswho struggle to get to bed before 2 am and so on. Butthere was provision for them. They were there. Theywere working with good adults and what I witnessedthere was good. But they had another sort of base forthose at Key Stage 3. There were practical things. Itwas a matter of sorting out things from which theywould learn, to which they would relate and fromwhich they would benefit. There were also good linksacross the schools so that if things get really tough inthe one school—the behaviour is astonishing and itbreaks down–then there are systems of in-year fairaccess where children are moved, although notnecessarily in a compulsory way as it can be mediatedand there is that agreement with parents and childrenthat things have broken down here. But the four thingswe talk about as managing exclusion are broadeningthe school in that way so that you have a range ofother bases. You also have off-site provision, whichcan include special schools, units and so on. You havemulti-agency provision, which has to work quickly;casework where people are in with difficult childrenand families and so on, building bridges so that there

can be movement of children, where things breakdown, without this quasi-legalistic exclusion process.

Q18 Charlotte Leslie: Two things follow on fromthat. First, the progress through school. I know thetransition from primary to secondary school is often arocky time for attendance and behaviour. Has thepanel evidence as to how all-through schools performon behaviour and attendance measures compared tostand-alone secondary schools? That is, schools thatstart from junior/primary and go right through to sixthform. Has the panel any experience or evidence onhow they perform, the differences?Professor Maras: I think it would be difficult tomonitor this to be sure enough. I have done work ontransitions for children with special educational needsand I agree that transitions are the most difficult time.The transitions within secondary are particularlydifficult, especially when you take account of childdevelopment. I know we keep banging on about that,but it is really important, because there is normal andthen there is what is out of the ordinary and what weshould worry about. I would say that they have notbeen around sufficiently long to be able to look atthem.

Q19 Charlotte Leslie: When tackling that gulf—from the nest to the jungle, to put it simply—fromprimary to secondary, does the panel think that thestructural change of putting primary and secondaryschools together for an all-through school mightalleviate some behaviour and attendance difficulties?Professor Maras: I think the transition isn’t justphysical; the style of teaching is very different. I can’tcite evidence. David might have some.David Moore: No. The point is about the change frombeing with one teacher and a number of other adultsin the room all day, to having to switch to the foiblesof up to six adults. That is what makes it difficult.Professor Maras: I have seen some very good worklocally in London—in Bromley—on transitions forchildren who would find it particularly difficult. Thereare some excellent case studies of transitions betweenprimary and secondary, including following the busin a car, all the stuff—the different things—that youencounter. That was aimed at children who find thattransition particularly difficult, who will be deemedlikely to have some kind of behaviour difficulties.

Q20 Charlotte Leslie: Another thing also interestedme. A while ago I did some rudimentary work onchildren who fall out of the system altogether. I hadan estimate of about 7,000 per year who go missing.Do you think the current idea of excluding fromschool—and in a sense from education—iscontributory to that problem of invisible children?How do you think we can solve it, or is it inevitable?Professor Parsons: Can I say it does contribute? Thenumber who disappear from education is much greaterthan those who experience permanent exclusion. It iseasier for a parent just to remove their child, kid thesystem that it is home-educating, say, “She’s gone tolive with her dad in Leicester,” and so on. We needmuch better tracking of these children.




Q21 Charlotte Leslie: Finally, there are twoideologies—I am always a bit worried aboutideologies—zero tolerance and zero exclusion. Is oneof those ideologies wrong or can and how should theywork together?Professor Parsons: There are 17 local authorities inthe country that operate zero exclusion. There areclusters of schools that use zero exclusion. There isalso zero tolerance of disruptive behaviour. There iszero tolerance of neglect of needy individuals. I don’tsee the clash. I leave it with a plea: places are doingit, places are managing, and they are designing theirsystems to accommodate all but without thedamaging, punitive, rejecting experience of exclusion.Professor Maras: Then we have an overridingideology of doing the best for young people in theirschool, making sure they are stimulated. The other bitis probably a result of that I would imagine.Charlotte Leslie: I am going to annoy the Chairmanand come in with one final thing.Chair: No, I don’t think you are actually, Charlotte.There really isn’t the time. I’m terribly sorry. I amgoing to cut you off and bring in Lisa on specialeducational needs.

Q22 Lisa Nandy: We have received two types ofwritten evidence about children with specialeducational need. On the one hand, it seems that SENclassifications are being used to cover up schools’own failings. Some of you have touched on that. Onthe other hand, we have been told that there arechildren with special educational needs—often factorssuch as autism—who are overlooked and seen purelyas having behavioural problems, rather than theserious issues they are. Which of those views iscorrect and what can be done about it?Tom Burkard: I think that you have to bear in mindthat there is a spectrum of problems. I would not, fora moment, doubt that there are some children who, forthe lack of a better word, are psychopaths and areextremely difficult to contain, even with the mosthighly skilled professional help. On the other hand, ofthe approximately 18 to 20% of children who getlabelled as special needs, probably only 3 or 4% ofthose actually have the problems that arepredominantly or individually part of the child, as

Witnesses: Christine Blower, General Secretary, National Union of Teachers, Dr Mary Bousted, GeneralSecretary, Association of Teachers and Lecturers, Dr Patrick Roach, Deputy General Secretary, NASUWT,and Ian Toone, Senior Professional Officer (Education), Voice the Union, gave evidence.

Q24 Chair: Thank you very much for joining us thismorning for this important session on behaviour anddiscipline. I think you were all here and heard the firstpanel session. We have limited time, but perhaps eachof you can start with a brief comment on what youhave heard.Ian Toone: Discipline and behaviour are obviouslyvery important in schools, because learning cannottake place without them. We did a survey of ourmembers recently and I would not say that it isrepresentative in every way, but I think that it givesus some indications. We found that 25% of memberswho responded actually believed that behaviour was

opposed to the school environment. In other words,there are 3 or 4% of the children who would havedifficulty no matter how good their educationalenvironment is.

Q23 Lisa Nandy: I suppose I am really interested inwhat the solution to that is. I do not think that thosetwo things necessarily conflict. It may well be thatboth are happening concurrently, but what can be doneto deal with that?Kate Fallon: Both are potentially true, depending onwhat your approach is. We may have to get away—and some would say, controversially—from the termspecial educational needs, and actually start lookingat what the individual needs of the individual childrenwho are coming into our schools are. You are right;some children with autism are perceived as childrenwith behavioural difficulties. Having said that, if themanifestations of their autism are behaviours that aredisrupting the learning of others, it is about managingtheir behaviour, as well as improving some of theirparticular skills and teaching them to manage theirbehaviour in a classroom situation so that it does notaffect other children. Boringly, I would go back tothose points I was making at the beginning about whatthe needs of children are. We can have children whohave particular inherent difficulties—if you like, somecognitive difficulties—or difficulties that they havebrought into school because of environmental factors.It is about saying, “Okay, here is this child, what aretheir strengths, challenges and difficulties? How canwe make sure that the classroom environment, schoolenvironment and wider environment are best suited tohelp that child grow, develop and learn within thissetting?” I will stop there, and keep my answer short.Professor Maras: Schools find it very difficult tointerpret SEN policies in relation to behaviour,because, of course, behaviour is also dealt withthrough disciplinary action and, unless you have alabel of ADHD, or autism, or Asperger’s, or one ofthe spectrums, that is also difficult for parents. Iabsolutely agree with what Kate said. There is,however, an issue about the label of SEN and the wayit has been conceptualised.Chair: Thank you all very much indeed for givingevidence this morning.

improving. It is important to bear in mind that 95%of children are reasonably well behaved most of thetime. With the number of initiatives to improvebehaviour that we have seen over recent years wewould expect improvement to have been made,certainly in some settings and in some schools.

Q25 Chair: But Ian, 75% of your members from thatsurvey obviously do not think that behaviour isimproving.Ian Toone: Yes, another 25% believe that there is nochange. Now, it can be difficult to interpret that.



13 October 2010 Christine Blower, Dr Mary Bousted, Dr Patrick Roach and Ian Toone

Q26 Chair: I would have thought it was fairly easy;75% say that there has not been any improvement,and only 25% say that there has been.Ian Toone: 50% think that there is a decline. We needto put that into a context, because what I suspect ishappening—certainly, what I pick up from caseworkwith members—is that the persistent low-leveldisruption that is the bane of many teachers’ lives isan ongoing concern. It is probably not getting anyworse, but what is getting worse is more extremeaggression and violence. Although extreme incidentsare still quite rare, they are increasing in number.Also, disability-related behaviour problems—the kindof disabilities that I am thinking about are psychiatricdisorders such as conduct disorder, oppositionaldefiant disorder and attention deficit disorder,particularly where hyperactivity is a feature of theattention deficit—are where we see a deterioration inbehaviour, rather than in the general low-leveldisruption.

Q27 Chair: Thank you. Patrick.Dr Roach: Good morning. From our point of viewas NASUWT, largely representing teachers who areteaching in classrooms as well as representing schoolleaders, our experience shows quite clearly thatschools continue to be relative safe havens of calmand security. That is backed up by Ofsted, and theprevious witnesses have given a high degree oftestimony to that. Teachers are actually doing afantastic job in our schools in terms not only ofmaintaining good order and discipline, but ofdelivering higher and higher levels of educationalstandards. They are often working with some childrenand young people whom perhaps the rest of societymight otherwise seek to avoid. We know from ourown research evidence that the vast majority ofschools—pretty much every school in the country—now have a behaviour management policy. Having apolicy and what happens in practice are two verydifferent things, however. Last year, and indeed for anumber of years prior to that, Sir Alan Steer chairedan expert group looking at behaviour and attendancein schools. That confirmed the point about theimportance not only of having policy but oftranslating it into practice. In other words, how doesbehaviour policy sit within the context of a school’spolicy and programme for teaching and learning?How is it given life? That is an issue that I want toreturn to during the course of the session.

Q28 Chair: Do you have any evidence over time ofhow satisfied teachers are with behaviour policieswithin the schools in which they work?Dr Roach: I was just going to come on to that.Despite the fact that across the board behaviour isseen as being good or outstanding in schools, there isa perception that behaviour is becoming morechallenging. When we have asked teachers about theirperceptions of behaviour, the feedback has been quitestark. According to a recent poll of teachers that weundertook as part of the review of special educationalneeds provision in schools in England, four fifths ofteachers said that behaviour is more challenging thanit was, say, five years ago. Two thirds of teachers saidthat they now have more pupils with complex

behavioural needs than perhaps they did five yearsago, and the nature of the behaviour challengespresenting themselves in schools and in classrooms isalso changing. We are seeing the phenomenon ofcyber-bullying, for example, in our schools, and weare seeing prejudice-related bullying, which requiresdifferent types of approaches. Where Ian, again, isabsolutely right is to highlight the issue of low-leveldisruption in schools, and that is an issue which iskeenly felt by our members in schools. It underminesteachers’ professionalism, and it undermines teacherconfidence, but it also contributes to a loss of teachingtime. A survey that we undertook last year sought tocalculate the amount of time that is lost to teachingas a result of low-level disruption—refusal to obeyinstructions, refusal to sit down, refusal to stopchattering and so on and so forth. We estimate that,on average, 30 minutes per teacher per day is lost interms of teaching time. That is quite significant andquite serious. Fundamentally, what we would bepointing to isn’t so much about the quality of thecurriculum or about what teachers themselves do inclassrooms, because, as I say, I think teachers aredoing a fantastic job, but rather the extent to whichteachers are actually supported in the doing ofteaching. That is to say the extent to which parentsand carers are actually supporting children andensuring that children and young people attend schoolready to learn, and the extent to which school leadersand school leadership teams within schools areactually delivering timely support to classroompractitioners.

Q29 Chair: That wasn’t the nature of my question,Patrick, which you didn’t touch on. You talked aboutthe incidence and perceptions of problems withbehaviour overall, but not specifically about thepolicies within schools. Teachers have told us thatwhere you have a school with excellent consistentbehaviour management policies, teachers feelsupported, and it is very different from being in aschool where they don’t have that. Over time, is it feltby your members that within the institution in whichthey work, behaviour and discipline policies are moreconsistently applied, and therefore they are bettersupported by the leaders within those schools?Dr Roach: Yes. There are two things about that. First,in terms of behaviour management policies, while allschools might have them, it is not always the casethat teachers are consulted about the design of thosebehaviour management policies, and thereforewhether indeed the workforce in general takesownership of those policies or those policies areimposed on the workforce is a significant issue andone that needs to be addressed. The second issue,however, is that where policies do exist and everybodyis familiar with what that policy happens to be, aroundhalf of classroom teachers are actually saying thatthose policies are not being applied consistently,largely by school managements where the judgmentof the classroom teacher isn’t always backed up interms of leadership and management decisions.Chair: Thank you. Christine.Christine Blower: I agree with much of what mycolleagues have said so I will try and say somethingnew, because it’s quite difficult at this stage of the




morning isn’t it? The NUT starts from the premisethat what we have to have in the education system isa continuum of provision to meet a continuum ofneed, and I think that actually sums up much of whatwe have been saying this morning. It says that if weare going to have children who have a wide range ofability, a wide range of background, and a wide rangeof aptitude and readiness to come in and learn, wehave to make sure that in those classrooms, we havethe personnel, the resources and the situation so thatall of those children can access the learning. Thatmeans that we have to have, for example, services onwhich the school can draw from outside and,critically, we have to have behaviour and disciplinepolicies that, as Patrick has said, have been drawn upin consultation with the staff. But I must say that theNUT would also say that they should be drawn upin consultation with the children and young people,because while I accept what Michael Gove said at theConservative party conference about stopping treatingadults like children and children like adults, this is notabout treating children like adults. It is about sayingthat they must be engaged in their learning. Therefore,it is perfectly reasonable for them at least to have aview of how the behaviour and discipline structureworks. The point is that colleagues who gave evidenceearlier talked about definitions of “inappropriate” and“unacceptable”. It frankly isn’t very clever just to sayto a child, “Your behaviour is unacceptable”, if theydon’t really know what you mean. So going from firstprinciples, it is important that the whole schoolcommunity is involved in making sure that the policyis drawn up, implemented on a proper and consistentbasis and, before implementation, drawn up andunderstood by everyone. I want to say one brief thingabout the colleague earlier who mentioned childdevelopment. It is absolutely critical that those whogo into teaching understand what the normal processof child development is. They are not going to bepsychologists or child development professionals, butif we are not training our teachers in that basicunderstanding of how things would develop in, if youlike, the most normal of circumstances, it is moredifficult for them to spot difficulties and decidewhether they are serious difficulties that might needreferral to an additional and specialist service, orwhether it is just something that can be easilymanaged in the classroom. The other thing I want topoint to is that Lord Elton did a report into behaviourin schools in 1989. One of the critical things that cameout of that was that it was, as two colleagues herehave said, persistent and repeated low level behaviour,in particular out-of-seat behaviour and talking out ofturn—oos and toot1—that people talked about allthe time. If those things are not well managed inclassrooms, children have a tendency to see that thisis not a well-managed situation. A previous colleaguegave evidence before Patrick arrived and talked aboutthe NASUWT’s intervention in doing behaviourmanagement CPD with their members. I think that issomething that all of the teachers unions probably do.Certainly, the NUT has a very big programme, notjust with beginner teachers, but with other teachers,1 Note by witness: oos is an acronym for ‘out of seat’ and toot

is an acronym for ‘talking out of turn.’

because we see this as absolutely critical. Teachingcan essentially be quite an isolated activity, and it isimportant that you get out and discuss with peoplehow behaviour can be best managed. That isn’tsomething that ends at the end of your initial training;you need to do it and develop that repertoire, andrevisit bits of your repertoire throughout your career.Chair: Thank you. Mary.Dr Bousted: Well, I’d better put a plug in. All theteacher unions do behaviour courses like that. We doit for beginning teachers, and actually it is the coursethat goes most quickly. The brochure goes out inSeptember, and the behaviour management coursesare full to bursting within a week, so there is a realdemand for it. I agree with everything my previouscolleague said—I was at the previous session—so Iwould like to take just two things. The first is mixed-ability teaching, which you, Damian, were really keenon, and the other is ITT. Before I became generalsecretary of the association I was in higher educationin departments of teacher training for 11 years, so Ihave a bit of a mixed history. In terms of mixed-abilityteaching, I will give you a teacher’s tale, which ismine. When I became head of English at my highschool in Harrow, we had about 30% of the pupilspassing GCSE English language and about 25% doingEnglish literature. I instituted mixed-ability teachingthroughout the department to GSCE, and when I left,80% of the pupils were getting English language, andabout 85% English literature. So it is not the methodyou choose. I did that for the reason that the behaviourin sets 3 and 4 was appalling. That was because kidswere looking around and didn’t like themselvesbecause they weren’t achieving. I said to the teachersin my department, “We can do this”. To those whodidn’t like it, I said, “Do you want to teach set 3 or 4,because I don’t like them very much at the moment?I don’t like teaching them.” They were largelyinhabited by boys with poor reading, and it was poorreading and access to spoken and written standardEnglish that we focused on. We directly taught spokenand written standard English to a school where 63%of the children spoke a first language other thanEnglish. It doesn’t really matter what method youchoose; it is that the method works and you have theteaching techniques, and you ensure the curriculummeets the needs of the pupils. That is what I think waskey about the previous session—the importance of thelink between curriculum and behaviour. I think that isessential, and if you don’t get the curriculum right,the incidence of bad behaviour will increase. There isno doubt in my mind about that. In terms of ITT, Ithink there was something misleading said in theprevious session, which was that only about two hoursis devoted to behaviour management on ITT courses.That is just simply not true. In a 36-week PGCEcourse, 12 weeks will be spent at the university and24 weeks in school. An awful lot of the school-basedtraining will be on issues around behaviourmanagement. In fact, that is the best place to do it.You can teach behaviour management in a theoreticalway. You can touch on it in the course. There aretechniques and things you can learn, but the vastmajority of that will be done in the school. Rememberthat initial teacher training is a partnership between




schools and universities—it has to be, by law. Thefinal thing about child psychology is that it is not thatteacher trainers decided not to do child psychology.That was a political decision. It was a politicaldecision by Kenneth Baker, through Kenneth Clarkeetc, and not repealed by new Labour—essentially, thatbeginning teachers did not need to understand howchildren developed, how the mind developed and howtheir behaviour developed. It was a political decisionthat what was needed in primary was literacy andnumeracy and in secondary it was subject-basedteaching. We have not moved away from that yet. Iknow the Government are announcing a review ofinitial teacher training and in my view that reviewshould tackle that question head-on. I believe thatteachers today and teacher trainers, through no faultof their own, have been stopped by a political decisionabout doing something that is really important.Chair: Thank you very much indeed. Tessa.

Q30 Tessa Munt: I am interested in having a look,in the historical context, at the situation perhaps 40years ago, the situation 20 years ago and the situationnow. The context I would like to place that in is thevarious statements that I have picked up on thismorning: that behaviour in schools is in the top threequoted reasons for leaving teaching, the question ofwhat is acceptable behaviour and what is appropriatebehaviour, and the comments about low-leveldisruption. I am interested to know what you thinkabout the interaction with parents. Christine said thatyou need to sign children up to what is acceptablebehaviour and what is appropriate behaviour. It has tobe a contract between school and pupils. But I wouldbe interested to know what role you see parentshaving and whether they are accountable for theirchildren’s behaviour. I do not want to pre-empt yourresponse in any way, but what strikes me is that in thecontext of exclusions, when we say to young people,“Okay, now you’re excluded”, they go back, oneassumes, to a place where there may not be anunderstanding of what is acceptable and appropriatebehaviour—back to their parents.Chair: Who would like to pick up on that vast rangeof issues?Christine Blower: I’ll start if you like, but there islikely to be, I hope, a reasonable level of agreementabout this. The rearing and education of children hasto be a joint endeavour between the education serviceand parents. Teachers are not necessarily the parentsof the children they teach and the parents are not inthere every day being teachers, so it is important thatthere is a common understanding between parents andteachers as to what is acceptable and what isn’tacceptable. The classic thing is that a child hitsanother child in the playground. The child who hasbeen hit goes home and the parent says, “Well, youjust hit him back next time”. Of course, that will not,for the most part, be the discipline and behaviourpolicy that operates in schools. There are sometimesvery basic misunderstandings or differences of values.The difficulty for us, for teachers, school governorsand school management, is to make the bridge so thatthose parents, who might have values that would beat variance with what the school is trying to do, come

to buy into that. It is a difficult job. I do not think thatyou succeed in it by simply having something calleda home-school contract and expecting people to signit. You do it partly by making sure that there is properinteraction. For example, at the primary level one ofthe things that we in the National Union of Teacherswould categorically say is that we must, more oftenthan we sometimes do, communicate with parentsabout the good things, the positive things, the helpfulthings and so on that the children are doing in school.If there is an issue when there is a problem, it is notthat the parents feel that they can only get in touchwhen there is something wrong. For everyone, it iswork in progress; and it is a shared responsibility.However, I think that schools have to go out of theirway to say positive things about children and youngpeople, not just to them but to their parents and carers,so that everyone can see that it is a joint endeavourand that we are trying to make sure that everyoneunderstands everything that is going on for theyoung person.Ian Toone: It is very important to have a positiveengagement with parents from the time that the childis admittable—or before the child is admitted—toschool. What is often lacking is the building up of apositive dialogue with parents. If the only time wecontact the parents is to give a negative message, it isnot the best way of gaining their support. If we areinvolved in an ongoing dialogue and sharinginformation about the child, we are more likely tohave the parents on board when we need to saysomething negative. Tessa, you mentioned earlier theaccountability of parents. It is always better to supportparents rather than punishing them. It is somethinglike a parenting contract, a voluntary arrangement aslong as it is supportive. That could enable the parentsto go on a parenting course to learn some valuableskills. That could work. If the parent refuses to dothat, we might want to apply for a parenting order, butthe objective would be to put support in place tochange the situation rather than just to punish theparent.

Q31 Tessa Munt: I have a note saying that by August2008 no parenting order for behaviour had beenissued. Is that wrong?Ian Toone: Only for attendance.

Q32 Tessa Munt: Yes. That’s different isn’t?Ian Toone: Yes. They are being used in a punitiveway rather than a supportive way.Dr Roach: I absolutely concur with much of whatcolleagues have said, but the key—

Q33 Chair: To what extent do you agree? Would youtease that out?Dr Roach: I would like to tease out the issue aboutdialogue, which has not had much of an airing interms of how we ensure that dialogue can take placein a sustained way.

Q34 Tessa Munt: May I ask how it happens? I ama parent.Dr Roach: For example, we tended to talk thismorning about the role of teachers. It is important that




we do so, in terms of the dialogue between school andhome, but it often cannot be left simply to teachers todo all that on top of everything else that they are beingasked to do. How we model our schools, how weorganise them and how we build into the equation therelationship between school and home, as part andparcel of how we deliver a modern education service,is absolutely critical. One of the areas that we couldlook at, for example, is the role of parental supportadvisers, who can act almost as interlocutors betweenthe school and the home—in other words, setting outthe school’s aspirations and expectations on behaviourand attendance, trying to identify and explore withparents some of the issues, what the challenges andbarriers to attendance and non-attendance might be,what the issues are around behaviour and what theneeds of the child might be, and playing that back intowhat actually happens within everyday school life.That is really important. When we have seen parentalsupport advisers in practice, they have had a massiveimpact in terms of transforming parental confidencein what happens in schools. We should not forget thatsome of the parents that we are talking about mayhave had poor experiences of school. They maythemselves have been non-attenders at school, and theprospect of coming back into school and talking toteachers about their child’s behaviour and attendancewould simply send them into fits of panic. We need tofind solutions to that, recognising and building on theteam around the child so that we can begin to bridgethat gap between home and school.

Q35 Craig Whittaker: One quick question. Thecomments about the joint endeavour between parentsand teachers—the interaction—are absolutely spot on.It was something that you said, Patrick—that teacherscan’t be held responsible for that on top of everythingelse they do. It is good to hear about the parentsupport offers, but what about the children when thereis no interaction with parents? Who takes ultimateresponsibility for the small element of children whoseparents you cannot break through to at all? Surely, wejust don’t let them go off into the wilderness. Whotakes responsibility for those children?Dr Bousted: The school does. We did a survey aboutbehaviour in March, and that was one of the thingsthat came through most strongly. It is a really keyquestion—what do you do about the most hard toengage parents? Where does the responsibility lie forthose children? Actually, in the end it is the school,because they come to school. The difficulty thatteachers have is that their experience of the supportservices, which should be provided to help themengage with the most hard to reach, are very varied.Frankly, there is not enough of CAMHS—child andadolescent mental health services—and it is too slow.We know that there is a rising incidence of mentalhealth problems with children and adolescents.Getting help for adolescents who display verydisturbed behaviour can be difficult. Local authoritiesare already making significant cuts in central servicesand support, and what is coming through very stronglyis that teachers are very worried about the mostdifficult children, who display the most disturbedbehaviour. Teachers do a lot and have a good

understanding of many issues but they are not expertsin child and adolescent mental health, ordevelopmental issues and what might be the causes ofthem, nor can they be expected to be expert in thewide range of special educational needs that they willcome across in the classroom. What they need is thesupport of experts to inform them about what theyshould do. I am talking about low-incident specialeducational needs—the sort of issue that you mightcome across twice, once or never in your career. It isthat targeted and supported help that teachers needmore than anything else. The other thing that I shouldlike to say about parents is that if you can get theengagement with parents right, you will often find thatthe parents of the most disturbed and disturbingchildren are run ragged themselves. If you can get aproper dialogue between those parents and teachers inthe school and a joint approach, parents can start tofeel supported. If you can get it right, it could be usedas a vehicle. For example, a child is staying out until2 in the morning. They are not learning at schoolbecause they are exhausted, so how are we jointlygoing to deal with this? Parents can stop feeling soisolated and feel that there is some support. We needto get that interaction right. Schools that haveremodelled do that very well. You don’t just haveteachers doing that. Sometimes, parents can find itmuch easier to talk to a member of support staff whois a parent and a member of the local community, andcan act like an intermediary. Remodelled schools cando that job very well. As Patrick says, it doesn’t allhave to be teachers.

Q36 Chair: Children’s centres have a remitspecifically to reach out to the hard to reach, engagewith parents in a supportive and voluntary way andbuild exactly that relationship and trust with them.When children arrive at primary school, are youseeing any evidence that that has had a positive effectand made parents more likely to engage, thus makingit easier to create a sense of co-operation?Dr Bousted: We did a survey on that very recently.Our members are finding that Sure Start is beginningto have a real effect in many deprived areas in inner-city locations. Evidence shows that one of the reasonsfor that is that Sure Start is universal. You’re not beinginvited to go to a Sure Start centre because you’re abad parent; you’re being invited to go there becauseit’s in the area. I know that those services are beingused by the middle-class—perhaps privileged parentswho don’t need them so much—but just as the mostsuccessful school has a mixed social intake, part ofSure Start’s success is that it’s not a stigmatisingservice. It’s there for everybody.

Q37 Lisa Nandy: You’ve talked a lot about whatteachers need to be able to deal with behaviour anddiscipline. One of the things that this Government arevery keen on pursuing is reducing bureaucracy, whichI would imagine is quite welcome, although I’dwelcome some views on that. One of the possibilitiesthat strikes me, though, is that bureaucracy canactually protect teachers. A recent example thatsprings to mind is the scrapping of the requirement to




record significant incidents of restraint against pupils.Can I ask the panel to express some views on that?Dr Roach: From our point of view, bureaucracy isn’ta dirty word. There’s good bureaucracy and there’sbad bureaucracy. Stripping away unnecessarybureaucracy is certainly something which is a veryvaluable activity, but in the context of this particularevidence session, which focuses on behaviour, ondiscipline and indeed on the allied issue aroundattendance and non-attendance, we do need tounderstand the problem. I talked earlier in mycomments to the Committee about the perception thatbehaviour, or at least the challenge around managingbehaviour, is getting more difficult, but what is thereality in schools? What do the data actually tell usabout the nature of behaviour incidents that are takingplace, the types of incidents and who the victims ofbehaviour incidents and bullying are within schools?We need to understand that far better. It does worrymy union that there may be any moves afoot to rollback on an expectation, or indeed a requirement onschools, to record and report incidents of bullying andviolent assault—pupil on pupil as well as pupil onstaff—simply because there tends to be, withinschools, an under-reporting and an underestimate ofthe extent and scale of those issues, which is thereason why so many of our classroom teachermembers feel that school leadership is out of touchwith what is actually happening in terms of the realityin classrooms and in delivering the kind of supportthat teachers feel they need. So we do need to have aproper barometer of what is actually happening interms of behaviour and serious incidents withinschools, but we need to have an approach to thatwhich makes the recording and reporting reasonablymanageable for schools themselves.Christine Blower: I think the critical point here is thatthis should be a proper dialogue with the professionthrough associations. Somebody looking at it from theoutside might think it’s bureaucratic, but as Patricksaid, there are some things which the Governmentmight decide to do away with that we actually thinkare very important. Bureaucracy has an entirelyappropriate place, in terms of being able to see whatit is that schools are doing, and making sure that thewhole school community understands why it is we’redoing things. That type of reporting would be onesuch.

Q38 Lisa Nandy: Christine, you also touched in youropening session on the support that’s available toteachers to deal with pupils who perhaps haveunderlying problems that cause behaviouraldifficulties. Do you have any concerns about theacademies programme—in particular, the resourcesavailable at the moment to deal with, for example,pupils with special educational needs or behaviouraldifficulties—or do you think that could be managedin another way under the academies programme?Christine Blower: Those teachers who have foundthemselves in the academies that have existed hithertoare doing their very best to make sure that theymanage the behaviour of everyone who comesthrough their door. It’s not in the interests of any ofthe unions that any school that chooses that route

should fail; we all want all schools to be successful.However, certainly in the National Union of Teachers,we have been robust defenders of local authorities,because we believe that it is through that localdemocratic structure that you can best provideeverything that is needed to ensure that all schools canaccess those kinds of services. Mary mentioned herprofessional background. My own professionalbackground, before I came to work as Deputy GeneralSecretary of the National Union of Teachers, was asthe member of a behaviour support team, focusingparticularly on behaviour in primary schools and,specifically, in order to prevent the likelihood of anychild getting on to a trajectory on which they mightend up being excluded from primary school. We werevery fortunate to have a number of teachers, a playtherapist and an art therapist. You can very well seethat if a number of schools can draw on that kind offacility and professional support, if there is a childwho risks exclusion, we can usually manage to nip itin the bud. The more schools there are that leave thelocal authority, the less there is at the centre in orderto be able to do that. We think that that is clearly aloss for the schools that remain with the localauthority, but it is also something we don’t think theacademies will be able to do as effectively. If theyneed to buy in services, they will not be doing it onthe same basis as local authorities. My own team wascentrally funded and the schools didn’t have to payfor the service, because it was important that it couldbe accessed immediately without schools having toworry how they would find the money to pay for it.That is really critical. May I say one thing, briefly,about parenting? If we talk to parents who are havingdifficulty with parenting about wanting to improvetheir parenting skills, the chances are that they willnot engage. Schools in the authority in which Iworked when I was doing that work advertised aterm’s work, coming to school on Thursday mornings,on “Improve your parenting skills.” Nobody came.The very next term, we advertised exactly the samecontent as “How can I best help my children to makethe most of school?” Of course, lots of people came.Being able to have someone from outside who canfacilitate that is very helpful and, of course, academieswon’t be in a position to be able to do that so directly.Apart from any ideological concern that one mighthave about the academies programme, I think thatthere are critical problems with what remains by wayof the local authority.Dr Bousted: There are real issues around behaviourand attendance partnerships. Academies are notrequired, or are less likely, to be part of thosepartnerships. There are real issues around admissionspolicies. The Secretary of State repeatedly says thatacademies and free schools have to abide by theadmissions code, but my question back to him all thetime is, “Who will enforce it?” If it is not enforced,schools will play by other rules in order to get anintake that maximises their position in the leaguetables. No pupil premium will ever be large enoughto stop that perverse incentive. We know thatoutstanding schools—the schools Ofsted calls“outstanding”—have hugely disproportionatelyprivileged intakes, in terms of social class and




prosperity, and that feeds directly into very goodoutcomes. The potential is for the hardest-to-teachchildren to end up in particular schools, and that isthe greatest indicator of those schools being failed byOfsted. I have not yet seen the checks and balancesin the system that would mean that hard-to-educatechildren or children with special needs will not endup disproportionately in schools that already have adisproportionate number of such children.

Q39 Nic Dakin: Are you suggesting that changessuch as the taking away of the need to be in abehaviour and attendance partnership run the risk ofletting behaviour per se getting worse in schools?Dr Bousted: Yes.

Q40 Chair: The number of permanent exclusions hasbeen coming down in recent years. Do you expect thatto be reversed under this new Government?Dr Bousted: I think the Government have put leversin place. The levers have been put in so thatpermanent exclusions go down—not least the schoolbeing responsible for the pupil’s education on thesixth day. That is another example of how importantit is to have a local authority answer, because if itis one school being responsible after six days, theneconomies of scale are just not there. Neither do youhave funding for specialist help or tuition. Exclusionis the last thing a school wants. Schools work veryhard not to exclude children. All the evidence shows,and teachers and school leaders know, what it will doto the child’s life chances if they are excluded, so youwork very hard not to exclude them. Unfortunately,for some children and young people it is the only thingthat you can do. But if that child is excluded, it’s notgood enough to just exclude them and then put themaway; they’ve got to have somewhere to go. For thatyou need central planning and provision. It’s very hardfor individual schools to just do it themselves.

Q41 Craig Whittaker: How many have opted out ofthe behaviour and attendance partnerships?Dr Bousted: We don’t know yet. We’re looking atthat. I think the picture is mixed. It’s somethingwe’re pursuing.Dr Roach: Irrespective of the fact that the picture ismixed, the fact of the matter is that there is norequirement for any school to enter into a behaviourand attendance partnership, and that’s particularlyregrettable and an extremely retrograde step.

Q42 Craig Whittaker: Tom Burkard, who was hereearlier, said that Marks and Spencer spend moremoney on teaching their staff about how to deal withangry customers than we do on teaching our newteachers how to deal with behaviour in classrooms.Being a retailer for 30 years, I can tell you there area lot of angry customers out there. Nevertheless, Iwant to touch on what Patrick said earlier about theincidence of bullying—or its recording—and schoolleaders being out of touch with what’s going on outthere. Voice has said that it has had reports that manyof the teachers feel unsupported when they aresubjected to challenging behaviour by pupils. Whenbehavioural issues arise, what form of support from

senior staff is most needed and do teachers receive thenecessary level of support as a rule?Dr Roach: We have done a lot of research in this area,as I know other unions and associations have as well.Take the issue, for example, of new and recentlyqualified teachers. Our research, “Sink or Swim”,which was undertaken for us by the University ofLeicester and published last year, examined over afive-year period the experiences of new and recentlyqualified teachers and the extent to which they werebeing supported in terms of their professionaldevelopment and growth, and also in terms of dealingwith issues around poor and challenging behaviourwithin their classrooms. What that report found quiteemphatically was that teachers were very consistentlyreporting that they were being left to their owndevices. Where senior management were coming inwas to monitor and critique the quality of theirpractice within a classroom, not necessarily to offerdevelopment support, leadership and professionalguidance about how to do things differently or how todo things better. That is just one piece of research. Allthe research that we have commissioned and that weare familiar with points to the importance of schoolleaders being able to demonstrate the qualities of goodclassroom practice. The OECD concluded last year inits report on improving school leadership that schoolleaders need to master new forms of pedagogy. Whatthe OECD was really pointing to was that schoolleaders need to put themselves in touch with therealities of classroom life. That might include havinga teaching timetable, at least in part, for senior leadersin schools. That might sound as if it’s going a littletoo far for some school leaders, but it is important toengender confidence among the profession as a wholeand to ensure that leaders understand the modern-daychallenges of classroom life. We see the phenomenonof, for example, teachers who might be calling onleadership for support when there is a behaviourincident in the classroom and that support not beingavailable, or where classroom teachers expect to haveteaching assistant support in their classrooms and atvery short notice that TA support being withdrawn andthen behaviour issues beginning to intensify.

Q43 Chair: How common is that, Patrick?Dr Roach: It seems to be quite common. Towardsthe end of this calendar year, we are going to publishresearch on SEN in schools, and just over half ofteachers reported not only the importance of havingsupport staff in class to aid teaching and learning andthe management of behaviour, but that that supportcould not be relied upon consistently within schools.It is about how schools organise themselves.

Q44 Chair: What percentage?Dr Roach: I think the figure was 61%.Chair: You said earlier that 50% felt that there wasn’ta consistent—Dr Roach: No. About 61% said that they could notconsistently rely on support staff being available intheir classrooms to support teaching and learning andthe management of behaviour.Christine Blower: The 2005 Ofsted report, ManagingChallenging Behaviour, found that where school




leaders were supportive of staff, that was the best setof circumstances. I don’t demur at all from whatPatrick says. It is critical to us that people whobecome school leaders should be qualified teachers.Frankly, we see that as obvious. They are the leadingprofessionals in the school and they can’t provide thatsupport if they are unaware of the classroom context.I don’t think it is heretical at all to suggest that headsand deputy heads should have classroom experience,and the way that they do that is by having a teachingtimetable. They won’t then put teaching year 10 to thebottom of their priority list when they could be outdoing something else.

Q45 Chair: Aren’t they doing all this commendablebureaucracy, so they don’t have the time?Christine Blower: Members of the leadership groupare entitled to dedicated leadership time—it says thatin the “School Teacher’s Pay and ConditionsDocument”—and they have to make sure that theyfind time to do that. But in primary schools, forexample, you would expect to see the head teacherand the deputy in the playground at playtime. Youwould expect them to be there in the morning so thatthey were engaging with parents and you wouldexpect them to be there at the end of the day. Even if,in a given week, they don’t manage to do anyteaching, you would expect them to engage with thestudent body. You don’t get that parent interaction ina secondary school, but you would expect them to bearound the building.

Q46 Chair: Christine, we all agree with that. Wewould have agreed with it 10 or 20 years ago. Onething that I am struggling to get a feel for is whetherlongitudinally things are getting better or worse. Whatare the reasons for that? Have mistakes been made?Most importantly, are we going in the right directionin terms of school leadership and support forbehaviour and discipline and front-line teachers? I amnot clear that we have had an answer from you.Christine Blower: I think that the mistakes are thatover a period of time, heads have become semi-detached, if not detached, from the classroom practiceof the people whom they are supposed to be managingand the children whose education is entrusted to them.I think that is partly a problem of bureaucracy.Dr Bousted: We surveyed 1,000 members and thereare certain things that school leaders need to do ifbehaviour is going to be good in their schools. First,they have to have a behaviour policy. Secondly, theyhave to implement it. Thirdly, they have to implementit consistently.

Q47 Craig Whittaker: I get all that, but do teachingstaff, as a rule, receive the necessary support thatthey need?Dr Bousted: No, they don’t. Actually, our latestsurvey was counter-intuitive, because it found that—this is really counter-intuitive—teachers in primaryschools feel that they get that less than teachers insecondary schools. Our survey recently found thatteachers in primary schools are more likely to bephysically hit than teachers in secondary schools, andthat primary schools are less likely to deal with that

properly, so there is something counter-intuitive goingon. It is about school leaders being supportive of theirstaff and ensuring that when an incident happens, thefirst thing that isn’t asked is, “Why did that happen inyour classroom? What was going wrong?” You haveto deal with the incident. It is about ensuring that bothpupils and teachers know that when incidents happen,particularly serious ones, they will be dealt withseriously, and that there will be consequences of thoseincidents. I read the ASCL response to thisCommittee, which made exactly the same points.There is recognition, but it is just that some schoolsdo it particularly well and others don’t. It is interestingthat secondary schools seem to be getting their acttogether better on behaviour policies than theirprimary counterparts.

Q48 Craig Whittaker: If that support is not there,which seems to be a generic opinion, does that meanthat intervention for behavioural support when neededis coming in early enough?Dr Bousted: No, our members say it is not. They sayit takes too long to get the specialist support; it is toobureaucratic to get it and when you do get it, youoften don’t get enough.

Q49 Craig Whittaker: Is this one of the instanceswhere getting rid of bureaucracy would help?Dr Bousted: Recording the incidence of seriousinstances would help. The issue about getting the helpis whether it is there and whether there is enough ofit. Children’s social workers are in very short supply.Child and adolescent mental health services are beingrun down, and are going to be further decimated. Thedanger is that schools and teachers will be much moreisolated in their dealing with and treatment ofcomplex cases of very dysfunctional children andyoung people. The level of young people in oursociety who either self-harm or try to commit suicideis far too high. There is rising incidence of severemental health issues with children and young people.We need those services in order to deal with that,particularly in an era when the very young people whoare likely to have severe mental health issues will belooking to a future where they are probably not goingto achieve. They will be very worried about theirfuture—their ability to get a job and their ability totake an adult role in society. If we are looking forfairness, we need to ensure that the most vulnerableare not disproportionately on the receiving end ofwhat will not be there for them.

Q50 Tessa Munt: If we take the complex cases outof the frame slightly, I want to go back a little bit towhat I said earlier. If you go back 20, maybe 40 years,what is happening is that the background low-leveldisruption is becoming the norm. We are only lookingat the cases that come off the top of that as beingextreme. The complex cases come out of that. Whatis happening is that we have a general acceptance thatthere will be low-level disruption. It’s there, it’shappening. I want to ask you about that. I think thatwhat happens is that with less support in theclassroom, as you’re saying, less control—maybethat’s the word—less broad discipline and the fact that




we are talking about primary, such as the things Marywas saying about primary problems.Chair: Question, please.

Q51 Tessa Munt: How do we actually stop thatbecoming the norm, and therefore setting a problem insecondary schools, where we only look at the peaks?Christine Blower: There are two things. A lot of theprevious witnesses talked about quality of teaching. Itis obviously critical that you have to have goodteaching going on because that way there will be lessdisruption. The other thing is that behaviour itself isto some extent taught. That has to be made clearthrough the initial teacher training of people cominginto teaching—we talk all the time about how we havethe best generation of teachers we’ve ever had—because unless they understand that, the interactions,the relationships that people also talked about, will notbe as good. It is not true that in the vast majorityof our classrooms there is an acceptance of low-leveldisruption. That isn’t the case. Most classrooms arevery well ordered and most teachers are developingthe techniques for being able to deal with that. In asense, what we are doing is looking at these veryserious incidents because they are very difficult todeal with. As Mary was saying, there are somechildren and young people who present withsomething that you might only see once or twice inyour career. You might never have heard of it until achild or young person arrives in your classroom with,for example, fragile X. It is critical that we haveservices to provide support for those more seriousdifficulties. What is critical in a school is that youhave a good behaviour policy, well implemented, andwell understood by everybody. Then the amount oflow-level disruption will be absolutely minimal.Dr Bousted: On ITT and continuing professionaldevelopment, there are techniques you can learnwhich will help you, with a good curriculum, to dealwith low-level disruption. One question I thoughtwould be asked was, have Strategies2 helped in this?I don’t think they have. The access to CPD thatteachers want includes a key thing. There are certaintechniques that, if applied well, can be used to keepvery good order in the classroom, such as: if you havea disruptive class or a class that will be difficult,making sure that when you start the lesson there issomething for them to do when they walk through thedoor of the classroom; making sure that thecurriculum is properly differentiated and ensuring thatthey do not shout out over each other. One counter-intuitive thing is not to repeat the answer that everychild gives, but actually get them listening to oneanother. If you repeat the answer that every childgives all the time, why should they listen to eachother? They will listen to you. Things can be donethat will help teachers, which could be much moreclearly disseminated throughout the system. I went onone such course, and it was immensely beneficial. Ido not think that we want to make a sort of PhD outof managing bad behaviour. I think it is complex. It isto do with the curriculum. It is to do with effectiveteaching, and I think much more can be done withinCPD and ITT to ensure that there are certain tricks of2 Note by witness: The National Stratagies.

the trade and certain tools of the classroom that canbe applied. We need to get better at doing that.Christine Blower: They include things such astactically ignoring; if someone is doing something,and they do it because they get your attention everytime they do so, you just choose not to respond everytime they do it.Dr Bousted: Which is the hardest thing, and it isreally counter-intuitive. You have to be taught how todo it.

Q52 Chair: We were told earlier in the first sessionabout the limited time spent on this, and it was saidthat most of it goes on in the classroom. Is it yourcollective view that insufficient communication ofthose classroom skills is given to trainee teachers?Dr Bousted: And beyond. I think there is more we cando to generate within the system very good behaviourmanagement techniques. The unions are doing it andour courses are absolutely sold out, but it needs to bemore systematised within the system.

Q53 Nic Dakin: One of the things that came throughin the first session was a view that there was acorrelation between literacy, or lack of literacy, andbehaviour issues. Do you agree with that, and is itimportant for the current provision for one-to-onesupport, and programmes such as reading recovery inprimary and early secondary, to remain in place aspart of the strategies to deal with behaviour?Dr Bousted: I am an English teacher, and I think thatin the past we have insufficiently targeted and directedresources at literacy, and we continue to do so. Thereis no doubt that the biggest regression in year 6 toyear 7 is children who go from primary, where theuses of literacy may be more limited, into a subject-based curriculum at secondary maybe taking eight,nine or 10 subjects. The thing that bars them in thosesubjects is not a lack of interest or of willingness todo well, but the fact that the uses of literacy in thosesubjects are too hard for them, because they have notdeveloped sufficient reading skills. I think that isabsolutely key. I was very struck by that. It remindedme that if you are in prison you are highly likely tohave very poor literacy skills. It is a curse that followsyou through life, and whatever happens we have tokeep our eye and focus on literacy skills. Theapproach we have had to literacy, while it has raisedstandards—apparently, through test scores—I thinkhas been a very didactic approach that has not lookedat the uses of literacy. The focus on literacy in primaryhas been too much about the uses of literacy in theyear 6, Key Stage 2 SATs exam. It has not been aboutmore general uses of literacy, which is one of thereasons why those children who find they arestruggling at Level 3 or just meeting Level 4 inprimary fall behind when they go to secondary. Wereally have to look again at literacy. If the Governmentare going to do a literacy test in year 6, and I thinkthat is an interesting concept, it has to be a good one.It has to be not only the narrow uses of literacy, butwhether these children are literate in order that theywill be able to access a wider subject-basedcurriculum at secondary school. If we get more focuson reading, rather than literacy—literacy is a very




technical term—reading for pleasure, and reading fordifferent uses, that will be very good. ATL willcertainly be arguing in its submission to the review onthe curriculum that we have to refocus on what wemean by literacy, because I think our current focus isfar too narrow.Christine Blower: I was going to pick up preciselyone of the points that Mary just made. At the NationalUnion of Teachers conference last Easter we passed amotion on reading for pleasure. Sometimes, there isn’tsufficient concentration on the fact that reading is anenjoyable activity, and on the promotion of readingfor its own sake, as opposed to the mechanistic usesof literacy. A prison is, I believe, required by statuteto have a library but a school is not, which seemsextraordinary. Of course it is important that if peoplefind themselves in prison they should develop theirliteracy skills if they have not done so hitherto, but itseems extraordinary that a school is not required tohave a library. Of course, the premise of your questionis right, Nic. If children are not able to read at theappropriate level to access the secondary curriculum,it is a very big problem and we need to address it. Butthe very mechanistic approach to literacy that hasbeen embedded in primary schools has not alwayshelped with that, so there is a need to reconsider it.

Q54 Nic Dakin: The Government have announcedchanges to some of the powers of discipline forteachers to use in schools, such as search powers,powers of restraint, the ability to detain peoplewithout giving 24 hours’ notice and getting rid ofappeals panels. Will such changes make behaviour inschools better, or are they not of value?Ian Toone: I think the current powers are largelysufficient.

Q55 Chair: Are they understood?Ian Toone: They may not be fully understood but theyare sufficient. Certainly Voice would be very cautiousabout abolishing the 24 hours’ notice for detention. Itmay be that very few schools would take up thatoption because it can lead to other difficulties.

Q56 Chair: Do you welcome it? It is not mandatory,so if a school feels that it is appropriate they can doit and if they don’t, they don’t. Are you welcoming itor opposing it?Ian Toone: We would be very cautious aboutintroducing it.Nic Dakin: It doesn’t sound like a welcome to me.Ian Toone: It’s not an unbridled welcome.Dr Roach: We broadly welcome the extension ofdiscipline powers to schools but we would want tosound a few notes of caution around that. Ondetention, I suspect that it will be a power that willexist but it may not be invoked by schools. Manyschools will use detention during the course of theschool day. In other words, it is how you manage theschool day and whether you detain pupils in lunchtimes or whenever. No notice is required currentlywithin the system, as I understand it. I think schoolswill look to how they manage that themselves. Myreal note of caution is this: let’s look at the wealth ofdiscipline powers that currently exist within the

system. First, how well are they known? When we dida survey of teachers in the early part of last year, wefound that by and large the majority of teachers wereunaware of the extended discipline powers that wereavailable to them or to their schools. That is one ofthe factors that prompted us to press the Departmentto issue a leaflet to schools, which was widelydistributed to teachers, setting out what those powersto discipline included. Will schools invoke the powersthat are available to them? We can keep adding to thelist of discipline powers, but if individual headteachers decide that these are not going to be invokedin their school, for whatever reason, we have a bit ofa problem. Things can be centrally mandated, but it isdown to local implementation. We have to begin tounpick why heads are choosing not to use the powersthat are available to them. I would want to point tothe way in which the accountability system currentlyoperates within schools. That might not actually bemuch of an incentive for schools to be using, forexample, powers available to them. Coupled withcompetition between schools, it might lead to areluctance on the part of some school managementsto invoke particular powers, as if somehow usingweapons searches, for example, as part and parcel ofthe way in which you organise access to the schoolbuilding, might be off-putting to future generations ofparents when exercising their right to choose aschool place.Dr Bousted: Can I just say something about appealspanels? You may be quite surprised by this, but we donot think appeals panels should be abolished. Lookat the bureaucracies around them and stop perversedecisions where a perfectly legitimate decision toexclude or permanently exclude are overturned on atechnicality—for example, not enough notice wasgiven—but to exclude a pupil permanently is a very,very serious act, and schools should be heldaccountable for those decisions. It is not enough tosay, “Well, schools can just make those decisions”,because if you don’t do it through an appeals panel,parents will go through the courts. Thinking aboutrestraint, most teachers will never, or very rarely, haveto restrain someone. I have to say that I as a teacherwould think very hard about restraining a 15-year-old6-foot boy, because I don’t think it would be of muchuse. I don’t think I’d be very good at it, and I don’tthink I would achieve anything, if they were inabsolute fury, and they were going to walk out of myclassroom.Chair: None of you offers martial arts courses.Dr Bousted: I don’t think my restraining them isgoing to stop them, but it might hurt me very much. Iwould restrain if need be, or try to, if I saw them goto hurt somebody else. I think that the powers torestrain are going to be used only in the mostextreme circumstances.Christine Blower: The only thing is that whenteachers, in extremis, have to restrain, it is an issuethe teacher needs to be supported through. It is a verydifficult and, I would imagine, a very unpleasant thingto have to do. Clearly, school managements have todeal with that. Of the cases that went to independentappeals panels last year, only 60 pupils were everreturned to the schools, and of 8,110 exclusions, only




710—one in 11—went anywhere. They were very lownumbers, and it means that parents won’t have to takerecourse to the courts. We think they should stay.Dr Roach: One of the key challenges still is about theway in which governing bodies overturn head teacherdecisions in the first instance, which leads headteachers to adopt an extremely cautious approachwhen exercising the right to discipline. It is not just

about independent appeals panels, but also the role ofgoverning bodies in terms of reinforcing the disciplinecode within the school.Chair: That brings us to a close. Thank you all verymuch. If you have any other points that you want tomake—you might want to explore Ofsted’s rolemore—and if anyone wants to make any additionalsubmissions to us, we would be very grateful.

cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [SE] Processed: [20-01-2011 12:55] Job: 006766 Unit: PG02Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/006766/006766_EdC 20 Oct 10 CORRECTED.xml



Members present:


Nic DakinPat GlassDamian HindsCharlotte Leslie

________________

Examination of Witness

Witness: Sir Alan Steer, Chair of the 2005 Practitioners’ Group on School Behaviour and Discipline, gaveevidence.

Q57 Chair: Good morning, Sir Alan. Thank you verymuch for joining us today to give evidence to ourbehaviour and discipline inquiry. Are you happy forus to call you Alan?Sir Alan Steer: As you wish. I am entirely happy andvery relaxed.

Q58 Chair: Excellent. In your last report for theprevious Government for whom you were obviouslythe “behaviour tsar”—Sir Alan Steer: I am not quite so happy to be calledthat.

Q59 Chair: You were a highly distinguished adviserto the last Government. You suggested that, generallyspeaking, from a behaviour and discipline point ofview, things were getting better. Will you tell uswhether you stick by that and give us evidence foryour decision?Sir Alan Steer: I think that I do stick by that. I knowthat the topic is right at the centre of discussion. Therewas a range of conflicting evidence, which I put inmy report. You will see that in the section on reality,etc. My judgment puts a lot of emphasis on Ofsted.One has to have very, very strong grounds fordisregarding Ofsted evidence. If you are going to saythat the national inspection service, which goes intolarge numbers of school and focuses on this topic hasgot it wrong, you must have good grounds to saythat—and I haven’t got those good grounds. I alsothink that there is other supporting evidence. I wrotein my report about a survey that I think the NUT didin 2007 when members reported that circumstanceshad improved since the last survey in 2001. In aninteresting report by Brian Apter in 2008 on primaryeducation he, too, commented on that. The difficultywhen I make those comments is that the audienceoften feels, “Ah, you are saying, Alan, that there isnot a problem.” I have never said that. I would hardlyhave spent five years—much of it on a voluntarybasis—working on this topic if I did not think thatthere was a problem. I think that our analysis of thesituation is often poor and, because our analysis ispoor, we then do not hit the bull’s-eye in terms of theactions we want to take. So most schools, as I thinkDr Patrick Roach said last week, and you do want tofeel that if the NAS, who’ve made a big point aboutbehaviour and discipline are actually saying that inmost schools and for most teachers the standards aregood, that has a weight. It has been quite a major

Ian MearnsTessa MuntCraig Whittaker

plank of NAS policy over recent years and I thinkthat’s true and I stand by it. In some schools, thereare significant problems. In other schools, you haveproblems with some teachers for some periods. Weneed to have that at the front of our minds when weare looking for solutions. One of the big issues thatwe do not talk sufficiently about in this country’seducation system is the variation. We have superbschools and superb practice. What we have notcracked yet is the consistency within and betweenschools. It is not that we do not have good practiceand excellent school systems, but we do notsufficiently yet have it everywhere.

Q60 Chair: Yes. You said in your report that noschool policy is of any value if it is not understoodand applied consistently by all staff. That is quite astark statement. People tend to talk about goodschools and bad schools or less good schools, and theytend to talk very much about the institution. If youread an Ofsted report, it is always talking about “theschool”. Are you saying that there is insufficient focuson individual practitioners and on ensuring thatconsistency in performance is managed, and indeedperhaps inspected, within institutions?Sir Alan Steer: That is an interesting question.Consistency is an absolutely essential point. There is adanger when one talks about consistency. Sometimeswhen I am doing a conference, to wake the audienceup I will say, “We ought to think of consistency as asexy word”, because in fact it is a slightly dull word.It does not exactly excite, particularly early in themorning. But it is actually very sexy. Consistency iswhat makes the difference. We know that. Researchindicates, and we know it in our bones and from ourexperience, that particularly with vulnerable childrenwho are finding life difficult, a consistent approachover a period of time makes a huge difference. To putit crudely, children from my family could cope witha mixed experience. They have very strong parentalsupport, interests and all the sort of things that youwould say of your own children, too. Vulnerablechildren do not have those strengths. Really highquality classroom experience is, in my book, one ofthe biggest equal opportunities issues that you couldever find, because those are the children who are themost vulnerable if they get a weak experience. It isthe biggest way in which to raise that standard.

cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [20-01-2011 12:55] Job: 006766 Unit: PG02Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/006766/006766_EdC 20 Oct 10 CORRECTED.xml


20 October 2010 Sir Alan Steer

Q61 Chair: Do you think that the most vulnerablechildren are more likely to be subjected to poorclassroom practice? Do you have any evidence forthat?Sir Alan Steer: That point is worth unpicking. Youtalked last week about setting and how you arrangechildren. I am a setting man; I am not a streamingman, and you can pick up that point with me later. Iwould have resigned on the spot if there had been amove to have streaming in my school. I taught at aschool that had streaming in the 1970s and regardedit as an absolute abomination. I am very much asetting man. The issue with that is that simplearrangements, as David Moore said last week, canoften mask the issue. The question is, does it workand how do you do it? If you are setting with theresult that all of your best teachers are teaching themost able children and all your least experiencedteachers, or the ones who you have just appointed, areteaching the least able children, the answer to yourquestion could be yes. It is a question of how youapproach that and where you devote your resources,which reflects the moral ethos and principles of theschool. You asked me just now whether I thoughtthere was too much of a focus on schools and notenough on children. I do think that.

Q62 Chair: My question was whether there was toomuch emphasis on the institution and not enough onthe individual practitioners within it. By practitionersI meant the teachers. You said that it was aboutconsistency not only between schools but withinschools.Sir Alan Steer: I come from a position, so thatmembers of the Committee know, of being verysympathetic towards schools. You will probably say,“Well, he would, wouldn’t he?”. I see schools asproviding solutions to society’s problems and rarelycausing them. You will think of some examples inwhich that would not be true, and I accept that. In anyorganisation, you will find some situations in whichthe school causes the problem. That is not usual.Schools generally solve society’s problems, and theyjolly well ought to; that is what they are there for. Weshould have the highest expectations that they do. Myfeeling, as a head teacher and subsequently, has beenthat schools are not always the sum of their parts.In other words, it is not that teachers are lacking inmotivation, commitment or skills. If you don’t pullpeople together into a cohesive unit, it can be veryfrustrating and leave the teacher discontented becausethey are not getting the outcomes from their effortsthat they ought to get. That can also lead toineffectiveness. As a secondary head teacher, I findthat that can be particularly true at moments oftransition—for instance, the early years of secondaryschool. Those of us who have children haveexperienced this. A child from a primary school hashad one teacher, or not much more than that, and theycome into a secondary school where they haveperhaps 11. Unless you manage that carefully, and youhave everyone singing from the same song sheet—orwhatever language you want to use—it can become amagical mystery tour for children. Those who are lessmotivated because of their home background or

difficulties with language learning, or whatever thereasons might be, are much more likely to fall off theachievement ladder. We need to focus on individualskills, and ensure that we are the sum of our parts.That is one of the challenges for the schools system.

Q63 Chair: You didn’t answer my question. I askedwhether you had any evidence that the morevulnerable children are more likely to receive poorerteaching. You said that it could happen, and if it didit reflected on the ethos. You didn’t tell us whether itwas happening.Sir Alan Steer: I don’t think that I could say that. Ican only speculate. Later on, I would very much liketo raise with you the issue of alternative provision.

Q64 Chair: We will indeed come to that. You haveno evidence to suggest that more vulnerable childrenare subject to worse teaching?Sir Alan Steer: No, that would be putting it far toostrongly.

Q65 Chair: You were talking about individualschools and teachers. Ofsted is now saying that it isgoing to focus its efforts more on lower performingschools, which would again suggest an institutionalbias—that it is all about the institution, and whether itis poor—and will not be inspecting higher performingschools. You said that one of the issues within schools,even in better or higher performing ones, is that theremay be practice that needs to be challenged. Is therea danger that Ofsted’s new lighter touch approach willmake it less likely that underperforming teachers orunderperforming practice will be challenged?Sir Alan Steer: As you may know, I am on the boardof Ofsted, so I probably ought to declare that before Ianswer the question. Ofsted acts as it is required to doby government. We need to say that right from thestart. I, personally, am a supporter of inspection and Iwould not be reducing the amount of inspection ofschools. We should see inspection far more as anagent for change and school improvement than wetend to. Schools—I, too, I probably would have toadmit—do not leap with joy when a brown envelopecomes through the letterbox saying that they are goingto be inspected. But, as a head teacher in the periodbefore Ofsted, who witnessed the lack of externalaccountability, I have always been a total supporter ofOfsted. We should see the impact of Ofsted as it is—as a major focus for school improvement. The answerto your question is that I would not have gone in thedirection that Ofsted has been instructed to take. Iwould have maintained much more of an Ofstedinspection system for all schools.

Q66 Chair: Right. That could have an impact onbehaviour as a result.Sir Alan Steer: I don’t understand how one can judgeon day one that a school is outstanding and just doesnot need to be inspected. I would argue that, if youreally buy into the culture of school improvement, thatis negative to that. There is no organisation in theworld that is not capable of further improvement anddoes not need external scrutiny. The danger forschools, and for other organisations that you may be

cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [20-01-2011 12:55] Job: 006766 Unit: PG02Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/006766/006766_EdC 20 Oct 10 CORRECTED.xml



familiar with, is that you get enclosed—you begin tofeel that what you do is the only way it can be done.You need external challenge and, to me, that is Ofsted.Chair: Thank you very much. I hand over to Damianto continue the questioning.

Q67 Damian Hinds: Everything you say in your ’09report about the primacy of the quality of teaching,and everything you have said today about thevariability you can get within a single school,certainly chimes with me from my childhood. I guessit would with most people, and intuitively it is correct.I wanted to ask about other factors, which we havenot heard so much about in our evidence sessions,although some of them came up once or twice in avisit we did yesterday. The first is about what I wouldcall standards of behaviour. These are the sort ofthings that you often hear teachers who have taught,or do teach, in very successful schools talking about—the role of uniform, the role of zero tolerance of litter,graffiti or general deterioration, rules on what happenswhen a teacher walks into a room and how names areused, and how strictly those rules are applied. Couldyou comment on that area first?Sir Alan Steer: It is absolutely essential in a schoolthat you have a very clear statement of values andpractice. I imagine that you might want to ask meabout leadership, because in a sense I am heading intothat. One of the key roles of school leaders is to setthe tone—the ethos—of the school. I see children notas unruly, and all the rest of it; actually, I quite likethem, and I also see schoolchildren as conformist,which they are. The sadness, often, is that childrenwant to be proud of their school; they want all thethings that we want for them. When it does nothappen—this really rocks one as a teacher or aneducational person—the word “disappointment” isused. Children should not be disappointed. So, Iabsolutely agree with you. We had a school uniform—we imposed it but I did not send children home, asthat seemed to be silly. If you imposed it properly,you took children with you, and you had a schooluniform that was not silly and did not make themembarrassed.

Q68 Damian Hinds: What counts as silly for aschool uniform?Sir Alan Steer: I shouldn’t have said that because Ican’t think of an example. Well, I was a creature ofthe ’60s and I had to wear a cap when I was goingback and forth on the bus. The girls I knew had towear straw boaters and those silly felt things. I thinkthey felt very silly and they were very pleased whenthey didn’t have to do so.

Q69 Damian Hinds: But, for example, a tie and ablazer?Sir Alan Steer: Absolutely. A tie and a blazer, butwithout it looking like a Henley regatta is what I hadin mind. It should be something that you can buyreasonably cheaply—schools have to be reasonablewith their parent body—and something that won’tstand out like a Belisha beacon.

Q70 Damian Hinds: Sure. And rudimentary use ofnames?Sir Alan Steer: Absolutely. Sometimes it doesn’tmatter about particular things—often they suit thecircumstances—but classroom management was anobsession of mine as a head teacher. I can give anexample—I hope I’m not getting off the point—between primary and secondary transition. In myopinion, in the secondary sector we do not put enoughimportance on basic issues of classroom management.When you visit a primary school and ask a teacher,“Are the children allowed to sit where they like in theclassroom?”, they look at you as though you’re beingslightly rude, because of course they’re not. Anyprimary teacher manages their classroom. In largenumbers of secondary schools, that is dropped at theage of 11, and it’s dropped without thinking. Iremember hearing David Reynolds talking two yearsago. He said that the single most effective thing youcan do to improve behaviour standards in secondaryschools is to have a good classroom seating policy.That’s what we did. You then as the leader have tofollow that through. Why? Just to be awkward? No.If you don’t, you have sub-climates in the classroom.It is really interesting—I hope I’m making itinteresting for you. When you see a classroom, youcan see it is rowdy or quiet. If you a look a bit deeper,you will find sub-climates. You will find, for instance,that when a class is quiet, a group of children—let usstereotype and say that it is boys at the back—are notparticipating and they’re being left quietly to amusethemselves. They are not going to annoy the teacherand the teacher is not going to annoy them. You don’twant that, so you arrange your classroom for learningpurposes—you should do everything in the classroomfor learning purposes—but you are also making a veryclear statement to the children that the teacher is incharge of that classroom. It’s not to be authoritarian—someone used that expression last week—but to beauthoritative. There is a huge difference. You exerciseauthority and children respond to it. I am very self-conscious about coming across as simplistic, but it isan article of faith that we know what works. The issueis that we do not do it consistently. Pursuing endless—forgive me—education Bills or new policies oranything else is often an avoidance tactic. We knowwhat works. We just don’t do it.

Q71 Damian Hinds: The second of the three groupsthat I want to ask about is what I call schoolcommunity factors, and in particular the differencebetween schools that have regular assemblies andthose that don’t. I want to know what happens atlunchtime—whether everyone sits down and haslunch or whether there is general mayhem. There isalso the size of the school and whether it is possiblefor teachers to know every pupil and to walk aroundwithout security identification badges. Finally, I wantto touch on something that you mentioned a momentago—streaming versus setting, although I wouldframe it slightly differently—in terms of class size andwhether classes stay together. You could stay togetheras a class either by being streamed or by being amixed ability class, but not by being setted. Can youcomment on those?




Sir Alan Steer: Tell me if I miss any of those. It is achallenge in a big school—in my school there were1,500. Could I recognise every child? The answerwould probably be no. Would they be able torecognise me? The answer would definitely be yes. Ikeep going back to leadership. It is a key role forschool leaders—sorry for the jargon—to walk thewalk. For example, for 23 years I and my deputieswelcomed children at the school gate. Rain, snow orsunshine, you’re there at the school gate. Part of itwas discipline originally. You wanted to set the ethos,but it rapidly became less of an issue. It was actuallysetting the tone. You’re welcoming kids in. You’remaking them laugh about how West Ham got on orwhatever else it might be. School facilities don’talways allow for the sort of things you implied. Theimage of everyone sitting down at lunchtime is not so,and the same with assemblies. Most schools have towork around some system.

Q72 Damian Hinds: You can have year groupassemblies.Sir Alan Steer: Quite right. But if you are askingwhether we use those measures as a means of settingthe school identity, the answer is very much so.Absolutely so. The eating matter is interesting. I cameto that quite late in my career, when I realised what arubbish experience we were providing. It was not thatkids were creating mayhem—that is not always thealternative—but we were not treating the childrenwith the respect that we demanded from them. Weinvested a large sum of money in turning a grotty oldcanteen into a proper restaurant. We did not allowchildren off the school site at lunch time—no childwas allowed off the site. Was that because they werecreating mayhem? No, but lunch time was part of theschool experience. Also, we did not want to exposethem to risks. In an okay urban area there are risks inthe neighbourhood, such as traffic, and other things. Itis about imposing a school culture. In all things thatwe do in schools, we have to recognise that if youleave a vacuum, it is filled. The skill is in beingauthoritative, not authoritarian—not being the pettydespot, which is silly. You want children to grow, tobe creative and to explore their own personalities. Ifyou leave a vacuum—in moral terms, or if there is noethos—it may be filled by things that you do not want.That is particularly true in difficult, challenging areas.I referred to children as being conformist—they willconform to things that we do not like if we do notpresent alternatives. If your status is about conformingto negative groups outside the school, you willconform. We then have a job in challenging that andpresenting alternative models of behaviour andconformity.

Q73 Damian Hinds: And on classes staying togetherversus being split?Sir Alan Steer: I described streaming as anabomination. Perhaps I sometimes get trapped intousing over-the-top language, but I regarded it as suchbecause children never moved. In the years that Iworked at that school I could not remember a childever moving stream, so it was a self-fulfillingprophecy. Children were placed in a stream on the

basis of quite dodgy analysis and evidence and theynever moved. It is also true that streaming does notrecognise that children will have all sorts of differenttalents. A setting arrangement allows for differentabilities in different subjects, which is perfectlypossible. A child who is good at maths is in the rightset for that, or they might be good in French orsomething else.

Q74 Damian Hinds: But what about from adiscipline point of view? I am trying to isolatewhether the factor of a class staying together or notmakes a difference.Sir Alan Steer: I do not think that that is the issue. Igo back to what I said: if you get the learning and thelearning culture right, the discipline follows, which Ithink was shown by the evidence that you receivedlast week. It is so obvious that you feel it is almosttoo simplistic, but it is true: if children are engaged,and if they understand what they are doing and whythey are doing it, they are far less likely to play up.All of us around this table can think back to our ownschool days, when we either participated in orwitnessed low-level disruption. I would be surprisedif we could not remember instances of that. We knowthat, from our own experience, we did not do that withall teachers; we would do it with some and not others.You could probably analyse why that was so. Theclassroom experience is paramount. But I want to saybefore I am judged by outsiders—as well as you—asbeing too simplistic, that that applies to the majorityof the discipline issues that we have in schools, whichinvolve low-level disruption. Low level does not meanunimportant; it means things like cheek, talking andbeing silly. There are other discipline issues, whichare different. As you know, and as Elton said 20-oddyears ago, this is a highly complex issue. The troublewith discussing behaviour is that people sometimesarrive with a fixed view in their minds and it is morecomplex than that. We must ask, what are we talkingabout?Chair: Let Charlotte come in quickly and then wewill come back to that.

Q75 Charlotte Leslie: Thank you very much forcoming to see us. I was struck by what you said aboutbeing simplistic. I wonder whether sometimes it is nota question of being too simplistic, but that the answeris quite simple and what is not simple is doing it. Itreminds me of Tolstoy saying that every happy familyis happy in the same way, and every unhappy familyis unhappy in its own unique way. It seems to be thesame with schools—successful behaviour in everyschool is good in the same way. From my amateurpoint of view, I think that there are things that alwayswork: kids standing up when you come into theclassroom, and certain forms of teaching. You couldwrite a list of things that work. It strikes me that inmedicine, if an operation is performed in a way thatworks, that is the way you do it, and every singlehospital and every single surgeon does it in that way.I remain perplexed as to why, if we have a list ofthings that work, such as ways in which childrenlearn, we are still talking about the abstract methodsof delivery of various things. We are not just saying,




“Here is a list of things. Let’s get them right—let’sjust do it.” I know it is simplistic.Sir Alan Steer: I am not going to agree with all theexamples you gave, but I agree with the thrust of whatyou are saying. I think that your comparison withmedicine is interesting, because I do not think wewould have said that was true 30 years ago. One thingthat has happened in health is that there has been moreof a challenge about professional individuality. Thecase of the Bristol heart babies is one that comes tomind. I have two sons in the medical profession, so Isee it from their point of view too. You gave theexample of children standing up when you come intothe classroom. We did not do that, partly because wewould see it as sometimes disruptive. If I were goinginto a classroom and the class was engaged in a reallygood experience with the teacher, I would not actuallywant to break that up by everybody leaping to theirfeet. Different examples are appropriate. I absolutelyagree with the thrust of what you are saying. It is notthat teachers are not committed, or that they do notwork hard, but we do not always get the sum of ourparts. I am being repetitive. I have brought in one ortwo things that may or may not be of interest toCommittee members. This booklet is a learning andteaching policy from my school. Over recent years,under both Conservative and Labour Governments,schools have been required to have policies oneverything under the sun. If the head teacher piledthem up, they would be higher than the level of thisdesk. I find it amazing that the one thing schools arenot required to have is a policy on the sole purpose forwhich they are built, which is learning and teaching. Iargued very strongly in here that we should review thepolicy requirements for schools because, as I havesaid, if everything is a target nothing is a target.

Q76 Chair: Could you read out the title of thedocument for Hansard?Sir Alan Steer: I beg your pardon; it is “Learning andTeaching”. It is the learning and teaching policy, andI am happy to give it to you.

Q77 Chair: From which school?Sir Alan Steer: From my old school, which is SevenKings high school.

Q78 Charlotte Leslie: Sorry to interrupt, but itstrikes me that it all seems terribly morally relative.People talk about the importance of a school havingvalues, but no-one actually says, “These are the valuesa school should have and this is how it should bedelivered.”Sir Alan Steer: I do not think that schools are likethat. Good schools are absolutely up front with moralvalues. Again, I am going to sound very soft onchildren, but children are actually very moral. I getvery cross at the demonisation of youngsters, and forevery child who appears in the media doing somethingghastly we do not think of the hundred who are solecarers for their family at home, or those who are doingthe Princess Diana awards or voluntary activity intheir community. So children are highly moral, theyneed leadership, and they need that expression.Schools do not just have to say it—I think most do—

they have to do it. When the practitioners’ group didthe first report, back in 2005, we were very keen thatit was based on what we called core values. We hadsix of them, and I will not read them out again, butone was related to the word “respect”, which was verymuch the word of the year in 2005. It seemed to comeup in everything. It said that respect had to go twoways, and none of us would disagree with that. Whatis interesting is to say, “What does it look like?”,which is an expression that we should use constantlyas policy makers, either as head teachers or as theGovernment. When you talk about respect, theinstinctive reaction from the audience is to see it aschildren being respectful to teachers. What does itlook like if you are a child? My son’s Englishhomework from his first day at school—it was alovely comprehensive school with good academicresults, and with a nice white shirt, good uniform andeverything else—took two and a half hours, becausehe wanted to do it well, and was marked in the middleof November. How is that respect? How is thatteaching children anything other than bad behaviour?We need someone to ask, “What does respect looklike, and how does it work?” How do we respectparents? We command respect from parents, but arewe actually respecting parents? I did not agree—I amgoing to be controversial here—with the proposal thatparents were not required to have 24 hours’ notice ofdetention. I think that is disrespectful. I think that therequirement that they did have notice came in underthe previous Conservative Government, in 1996. It isnot an issue—I have never heard anybody complainabout the 24 hours’ notice requirement. It is reallyDon Quixote politics to me—a problem doesn’t exist,but you charge at it. Why do it? It is disrespectful.You do not teach good behaviour by behaving badly.You teach good behaviour by people seeing youbehave well and doing it every moment of the day—today, tomorrow, next week, next year. When youdon’t, you undermine a huge amount of what youhave achieved.Chair: Thank you very much. On the subject ofleadership, I will come over to Nic.

Q79 Nic Dakin: You said earlier that we know whatworks, but that we just don’t do it. You have just saidthat we want to know what it looks like. Onleadership, what is good leadership—I think you havesaid a few things on that—and how do we get thatconsistency across the whole of the country?Sir Alan Steer: We mentioned a number of thingsabout good leadership: setting a tone, certainly, andacting as a whole, so that you get the sum of the parts,as I was saying, so that you don’t get disparateexperiences, which can so often happen. What does itlook like in terms of classroom practice? Do childrenunderstand, when they are working, what they havegot to do in order to meet teachers’ ambitions? Whenyou say that to an audience of perhaps our age range,you generally get a nod from people that they didn’t. Iwent through a highly academic direct grant grammarschool education and spent seven years withoutanybody ever saying to me, “Alan, if you’d done thisdifferently, you would have got that, not that.” Yet itis so obvious that it is almost not worth saying. As a




young head teacher, you make mistakes. I canremember leaping around as a young head mastersaying, “Expectations are all.” I would probably stillstick to that, to a degree. But equally, it is a stupidexpression. What is the point of having expectationsif the recipients do not know how to meet them?Whether they are adults or children, you need to goto the next layer down. I have described childrenhaving a magical mystery tour, which children oftendo. If we don’t actually clearly explain, so that whenthe work comes back they understand what it was thatcaused them to get grade A, or whatever it may be,how are they going to improve in the future? So youengage with children, teach in such a way and havean atmosphere in the school that is orientated towardschildren’s progress. We didn’t always have that. The’70s was not a golden age of educational progress; itwas an age when, in fact, there was far too little focus,in my book, on learning and children. There was toomuch focus on organisation and control, and veryoften not very effective control. So I am much moreof an optimist about the education system than I everam a pessimist. Why I brought that booklet in—youare welcome to have a copy, if it is of any interest tothe Committee—is that it is a “must do” document.We identified core things that we said must happen inall lessons. Now, that can be controversial. People say,“Alan, you’re challenging individualprofessionalism.” Yes, I am. I would argue that weneed to move from individual professionalism to aconcept of collegiate professionalism, which is muchmore powerful and much more supportive forteachers. People such as Patrick Roach and othersrightly get upset when they think that there isn’t acommunal support for their members in what they aredoing, and that people are left on their own.

Q80 Nic Dakin: So do you think that there is notsufficient investment in training teachers inbehaviour management?Sir Alan Steer: I didn’t answer your question on that,did I? I put a recommendation in here. I thinkteacher training—Chair: Can I push you?Sir Alan Steer: To get a move on?Chair: Sorry if I’m being unfair. As briefly as youcan manage.Sir Alan Steer: I put as a recommendation that weshould look at initial teacher training and that weshould always do that. It should never be static. Weshould always be looking at it and tweaking it, but wemust be realistic. We have a got a system where, forsecondary-trained teachers—I think I am correct—two thirds of their time is spent in school. So theamount of time in a one-year training course that isactually based in the initial teacher training institutionis pretty small. I think in primary it is 50%. In myopinion, it is the right issue to raise, but it misses thebull’s-eye. We need to look at training over an initialperiod of time. You train as your experience develops.We need in schools to focus much more on how wedevelop people not just over that first year, whichgenerally schools do okay, but over subsequent years.Something which you asked me and I did not answeris this: it is absolute nonsense to say that we are going

to transform our educational system by looking atinitial teacher training. You can train somebodybrilliantly, but if they go into an environment that isnot receptive to their skills, what will their skill levelbe after three years? If, like me, they have to wait 15years to become a head teacher, it’s not going to betransformed quickly. It strikes me as absolutenonsense—I know that I have used that expressionalready—that somebody like me could be a headteacher for 23 years without any requirement toundergo training. That is not professional. I know wehave things like NPQH now, but once you become ahead teacher, where is the requirement to maintainyour skill level? It depends on individual desire, andthat is not good enough.

Q81 Nic Dakin: May I pick up one other area ofleadership? You gave the example of the schoolrestaurant in relation to buildings. Is there anyevidence that leadership and building design has animpact on student behaviour?Sir Alan Steer: There is. I think it is—I’m tempted touse the word “flaky”. When we did our report in 2005,we were extremely strong on the school environmentand the impact of that. It is one of those things whereyou know in your heart that it is a truth, and it isdepressing when you sometimes visit places wherechildren are in uninspiring surroundings. We knowourselves how our behaviour alters according tocircumstances. We have only just finished a report,and a piece of work came out of Newcastle universitywhich drew a link between children’s progress andthe physical environment. I don’t think there has beenanything like enough research on that connection. Ifyou ask me what I believe, I absolutely believe that ifyou put children in pleasant surroundings you get abetter response.

Q82 Nic Dakin: That is a belief rather than evidence.Sir Alan Steer: There is some evidence, but it is nota topic on which sufficient work has been done. Myview is that there is a connection between behaviourand the physical environment that children go into. Ithink that school organisation follows on from thatline of thought, not just the physical environment, buthow you use it.

Q83 Craig Whittaker: Just a quick question. Yousaid that you had not had any training for 23 years asa head teacher, albeit that there is provision now. Inschools where there are good examples or goodleadership teams, how good are they at disseminatinggood practice out to poor performing schools withinthe community?Sir Alan Steer: I didn’t say I hadn’t; I said that Ihadn’t been required to—I did undergo training, but itwas off my own bat. It varies, like so much in oursystem. You get wonderful examples. I visited a groupof schools in east Leeds 18 months ago, where themost stunning work was being done on a collaborativebasis between schools led by an inspiring headteacher. He was the catalyst that got that going. It wasvery impressive. One of my concerns about policydirection is over this issue of getting the autonomybalance right. I need to be quick here before I’m




judged as a conservative in this respect. I was a headteacher from the generation who worked on thedevelopment of local management of schools. I wouldno more want to go back to a pre-autonomy worldthan fly in the air, but it seems to me that we have notyet done sufficient thinking about what autonomylooks like and what the context for it is. You wouldbe horrified if I said to you that the best way to teachwas to go into a classroom and tell children that therewas to be little central direction and that they had fullautonomy. I think my credibility would go through thefloor. Why is that different with our schools? We needto have baselines. This policy is a baseline document.As a head, you are an idiot if you get your baselinestoo high, because you take away individual flexibilityand creativity. Having no baselines at all is daft andcan lead to anarchy. To go back to your question, inthis report I had a recommendation that all schoolsshould be members of behaviour and attendancepartnerships and that everybody should because to meit empowers the front line. When I worked on thechildren’s plan, we were extremely strong on servicesbeing in the control of the school. As a head teacherI would have loved to have had access to a psychiatricsocial worker—somebody with the skills that I did nothave and with which I was not confident. I couldn’thave occupied such a person full time—it would havebeen ridiculous. Working with another secondaryschool and, perhaps, our four partner primary schoolswould have been fantastic, and we could have donethat. For the primary sector in particular, so muchpolicy from the centre—if you will forgive me—always has a secondary image in it. We are notthinking sufficiently when we talk about things suchas school autonomy. What does that look like in theone-form entry Hertfordshire primary school wheremy wife is a governor with 200 children? It looks verydifferent from a 1,500 secondary school with all itsstructures and strength. I absolutely support theautonomy concept, but I think that you would havefar more effective autonomy with schools workingcollectively in groups without losing that creativity ofindividuality. Look at the academy chains, which arereally interesting. I attended a conference organisedby the current Ministers last December and listened toone of the academy chief executives talk about whatwas standard in all the academy schools. It was veryimpressive and excellent practice. A wicked thoughtwent through my mind that, as an academy head, Iwould have less autonomy than I had as a communitycomprehensive head. It is a very good brand. To me,this is the future: empower the front line, absolutely,and be radical—that’s where the skills are—butschools need to work collaboratively in order to sharetraining and resources, and to have the continualchallenge that Ofsted provides once however manyyears.

Q84 Chair: May I push you on the issue ofgovernance? Somebody recently said that youwouldn’t have a board for every little electricity sub-station; you have a central board so that you havestrategic governance throughout the organisation, andthen you have local information groups. Have we gotgovernance wrong? We struggle to find enough great

leaders for our schools. Is it even more impossible tofind fantastic sets of governors who can provide thestrategic challenge? Do we need more of what theacademy chains have, namely a board that setsstandards across a number of institutions?Sir Alan Steer: That is a difficult to get into, and onethat I don’t particularly want to get into, because Idon’t know the answer. I would be tempted to leaveit alone, because I don’t think that is a key changeagent for driving a situation forward.

Q85 Chair: You don’t think that governance isimportant to the way in which schools are run?Sir Alan Steer: No, I didn’t say that. I said thattransforming the governance system may not be a keychange aid. Of course governors are important to howthe schools are run, but the absolutely key thing is theschool leader. Volunteers and governors do anincredibly valuable job, and we should be hugelygrateful to them, but they cannot and should notreplace the leadership of the school leader. Their jobis to make sure that the school leader leads, not toreplace the school leader. It would not be a primeobjective of mine to transform the nation’s governancesystem. I would be much more interested in Craig’squestion.

Q86 Chair: A bit of small “c” conservatism fromyou there, Sir Alan.Sir Alan Steer: There is no small “c” conservatism—I am a radical, Mr Stuart!Chair: With a capital “R”! We may try to challengeothers to have provision to look at improvements togovernance.

Q87 Ian Mearns: Good morning, Sir Alan. As aschool governor myself, I have been around longenough to remember the time before school exclusionappeals panels at governor level and at authority level.I remember some bad experiences as a relatively newschool governor in the ’80s, when head teacherswould sit in on an exclusion hearing with the parentsand the child. The parents and the child would thenretire and the head teacher would revisit the wholeissue with the governors, who would then make adecision. That seemed to me to be very much againstthe rules of natural justice, inasmuch as the personwho was prosecuting the exclusion did it all overagain while the governors made their decision. I wroteto my LEA at the time and we got some clearguidance from it on how to manage these things, andthat was set up very much like discipline appealspanels and so on within the local authority’s humanresources framework. I understand that the larger ofthe coalition parties, prior to coming to power, had apolicy to abolish recourse to independent appealspanels for children who have been excluded. Iunderstand that that is still the policy. How do youfeel about that, given that the levels of support forchildren who are exhibiting problematic behaviourcan vary dramatically between schools and given thatthe capacity within schools to work effectively withchildren who have difficult behaviour problems canalso vary dramatically? If we do not have thatrecourse to an independent appeals panel, is it not the




case that we could potentially have a race to thebottom for some youngsters.Sir Alan Steer: I do not approve of the proposal toabolish independent appeal panels, and I have beenvery clear on that both in my reports and in otherstatements. In saying that, I am expressing the viewof both, as I understand it, of the professionalassociations of head teachers. I agree with you; I thinkthat it is wrong. You are speaking to somebody whosometimes had to sit in appeals panels—it is not anice experience; it is actually very stressful. It ismorally wrong to have a decision made by the stateabout an individual without having the right of appeal.That seems to me to be quite contrary to ourtraditions. I hope that there will be a rethink on that,and that people will see it differently. On a practicalbasis, and I think that this view is shared by the headteacher associations, there is the risk that you will turnthis into much more of a legal, judicial problem andthat those head teachers—I do not think that mostactually think this—who say, “Oh good, we won’thave an independent appeals panel”, will learn toregret that when they find themselves being taken tothe courts. I do not support that; I think that it iswrong. Schools and organisations need to model goodbehaviour if they expect good behaviour. Taking awaythe right to appeal is not good behaviour.

Q88 Ian Mearns: As a chair of governors myselfuntil recently, I have had to go along to educationappeals panels to defend the school’s position, havingmade the ultimate decision to exclude a pupil myself.I have to say that you are right—it is not pleasant, butfrankly, I think that it is entirely fair.Sir Alan Steer: The other thing that you could say isthat it is also not true that vast numbers of childrenare being reinstated in schools. I have maderecommendations in reports, and I stand by them, thatwe need to ensure that appeal panels are of quality.There should be a training element and people, wherethey can, should come from the same sector. Weshould do everything that we can to ensure that thoseappeals panels are of a decent quality. My view is thatthey are absolutely essential and that they aremorally right.

Q89 Pat Glass: I agree with you entirely about theethos and the culture within schools and its effectupon behaviour, but can we look at the impact thatthe curriculum has on behaviour. We probably havethe highest identification levels of SEN in Europe. Interms of behaviour, we tend to lump togetherdisaffected children with those children who have gotneurological issues and in some cases mental healthissues—autism being a collection of behaviours.Within that identification of SEN, almost the biggestgroup are the children with behavioural problems.How far does the curriculum impact on that? There isa very strong argument that, in primary particularly,we become far too formal far too soon, and thesechildren are thrown up and are identified as SEN veryquickly, when, in fact, changes and flexibilities withinthe curriculum are all that is needed.Sir Alan Steer: There are a range of issues within thatquestion. When you mentioned SEN, I did wonder

whether you were going to ask about the item that Isaw on the BBC website this morning before I set off,which claimed that one in four boys in primaries haveSEN. I worry about our SEN identification, and I havetalked about that in the report. I thought that the recentreport by Ofsted was excellent. I know that itprovoked reaction, but after measured thought peoplesubsequently concluded, “Yup, it hits the button; it isright.” We rightly tend to get concerned when schoolsdon’t recognise children’s special needs and don’trespond, as we should. The obvious examples that Ihave seen are children having hearing aids, hearingdifficulties or eyesight problems. It is ludicrous andshouldn’t happen, and generally it doesn’t. We shouldbe equally concerned about wrong identification ofspecial needs. Schools doing a fantastic job doesn’tmean that we cannot improve. The debate ought notto be about schools failing, which isn’t true, but abouthow we take school improvement further and whetherit has improved faster. That is the intelligent debate.In the area of SEN, we have major work to do. It isnot credible that a summer-born child is twice aslikely to be on the SEN register as an autumn-bornchild—that is ludicrous. What does that say aboutour work?

Q90 Pat Glass: But in a sense, Sir Alan, I am moreconcerned about the curriculum and how that impactson throwing off children with SEN and children withbehavioural issues.Sir Alan Steer: I am not going to get deeply intoprimary curriculum, because it is an area where youneed to talk to others who have expertise. I amhesitating because I am going to say something thatwill sound very simplistic. I have quite an article offaith that it isn’t always about the content, but how itis taught. All through my professional career, we’vehad brand new ideas about new courses to beoffered—this, that and something else—particularly inthe secondary sector. I can name, by heart, a dozen ofthem by all sorts of letters that have come and gone—CPVE and all sorts of things. They do not alwaysaddress the issue because we don’t address the issueabout the means of teaching those courses. I thinkthere is more flexibility in school curricula, whichschools have taken advantage of. It goes back to theissues of leadership and confidence. We don’t have todo things that way. Good, effective school leaderslook at what is required and interpret it, and take it inthe interest of their children. That isn’t answering yourquestion; I know that partly because I am not goingto go down the path that I don’t feel qualified to godown. I think you need to talk to curriculum experts.Chair: Okay, thank you.

Q91 Pat Glass: Can I move on quickly then toCAMH services? Certainly, my experience withCAMH services—I am perhaps being more critical—is that there are too few, and the quality is variable.I am particularly critical when children with seriousdifficulties who don’t turn up to appointments aresimply taken off the list. What is your view aboutCAMH services across the country? Are there too fewand is the quality variable? Or is it simply aboutaccess?




Sir Alan Steer: I regard that as a balanced and mildviewpoint, as I would be far more critical. I think thishovers around—I don’t want to use intemperatelanguage and question my credibility—a nationalscandal on the issues of children’s mental health. Wehave come to this issue quite belatedly. As a youngheadteacher I found it extremely difficult to getmedical acceptance that children had mental healthproblems. I understood why that was, but when youhad extreme cases, it was pretty disastrous. You areabsolutely right in terms of variation. You wantcentres of excellence, and you have them, but youhave other places where it is dire. I was working at aconference last week when I heard the record in termsof the waiting time between a referral and a childgetting the appointment. It was a record for me—itmay be worse. In this area there were 18 monthsbetween referring a child and the child being seen andhaving an appointment; it is normal for it to be ninemonths. If that child genuinely has mental illness, thatis a scandal. What would we say if we had a childwith appendicitis, or some physical illness? We wouldbe absolutely shocked. The variation, nationally, isenormous. The only way I can answer your question,from the knowledge that I have, which isn’t deeperthan that, is that when I do conferences in variousparts of the country, I have yet to have people puttheir hands up and say, “Our CAMH service is great,”and that is depressing. It is variations of discontent,and it is generally quite severe.

Q92 Pat Glass: So you agree with me that it isn’t acase of lack of awareness of what’s available, but itis, in many cases, far too few and far too variable?Sir Alan Steer: That is probably true. Again, I don’twant to be trapped into displaying knowledge I don’thave. I suspect that that’s true. I think it can also beabout working practices. I think it’s about beingproactive. We haven’t got on to certain things, becausethere are time limits, but one of the keyrecommendations in 2005 related to parent supportadvisers, which then came in. A lot of our thinkingwas that schools needed to have the capacity toprovide support for these sorts of families, becauseyou reacted when I talked about the length of timewaiting for an appointment. What used to incense meas a head teacher—a red mist would come over myeyes—is when you would find out, having workedyour socks off to get an appointment, that the familyhadn’t kept it. It had been lost, and you then hadanother six months’ delay or whatever it was. Whatwe wanted, with our parent support workers, was tohave the capacity in schools to phone up the nightbefore and say, “Hello, Mrs Steer. Do you rememberthe appointment tomorrow? Do you want me to comeand fetch you and take you down? Are you okay?” Ihave mentioned psychiatric social workers. You needto have the skills at the front line to be able to giveadvice and say, “We don’t think that’s a mental healthproblem.” That needs to be championed. I know thepeople and the buttons to press to get that child rapidlythrough the system and not hung up in thebureaucracy, which, in education and in health, all toooften stops things from happening.

Q93 Chair: Yesterday, we visited New Woodlandsschool in Lewisham. What is your assessment of theprovision for children who are either at risk ofexclusion or who have been excluded, and theconsistency and quality thereof?Sir Alan Steer: Again, it is extremely varied. I reallywanted you to ask me about alternative provision, andI would have raised it otherwise.Chair: I try to keep you happy.Sir Alan Steer: I am very grateful for your concern.Again, in some areas, we have a situation that is hardto describe as anything but scandalous. We haveexcellent provision in certain places—you may haveseen it yesterday. In other parts of the country, wehave children who are out of school, receiving as littleas one hour a week of home tuition, week after week,month after month. I am accepting part of the blamefor this. I think the blame for this situation is to beshared by the education world, by policymakers andby everybody. If we had the same focus on the well-being of those children, as we have—rightly so—when we are horrified by ill treatment of toddlers, wewould see things very differently. I do not have theevidence for this, and this is speculation, but I wouldbet that some of those 11, 12, 13 and 14-year-olds gointo drugs, crime and prostitution. I would be amazedif that wasn’t true. It would be inconceivable that thatwasn’t true. Yet, despite the Education Act 1996putting a requirement on local authorities to meet theneeds of children, as it did, we still have a situationwhere some children are either getting as little hometuition as that or, in some cases, nothing. That, to me,is a scandal. It is also stupid, because what on earthdo we think is happening to those children? What istheir impact on society? If we back pick—mylanguage is going—from, say, the prison population, Ibet we could trace back a number of those people tothat. Alternative provision actually became quite anemotional and moral issue, and that is from somebodywho didn’t know much about it until asked by theSecretary of State to look at it. I put it into my reportthat national minimum standards should beestablished—not by me, I don’t have the expertise, butthey should be. I would have thought that the mostbasic one is that there should be a minimum amountof education, training and experience that a childshould have in a week. That appears to me to be fairlyobvious, and that was accepted in the wash-up, and Iam grateful. All parties accepted that, but it seems tohave got stuck on the funding issue, on which, I amafraid, I will be very robust and say that someauthorities are doing it, which indicates to me thatthere has been money allocated to it. If others aren’t,it is because they have chosen to spend the moneyelsewhere, but it is not negotiable. I understand theproblem, but it is not negotiable. These childrencannot be left on the streets in the way that they arebeing. It is actually scandalous.

Q94 Chair: Indeed, and left to themselves, as yousay, the vacuum will be filled, and they will providethe model alternative to any other child who gets intotrouble and is excluded temporarily or for a longertime.




Sir Alan Steer: It is wrong, and it is stupid, which isa combination of things that you definitely don’t want.Chair: Quickly, Tessa. Then we must bring this partof the sitting to a close.

Q95 Tessa Munt: I am interested in your statementthat said, admittedly with an air of frustration,“Schools should solve society’s problems.” I want tolook at the other part of that deal, which is the parentalinput. I want to put that in the context that we havevery large schools, certainly in the secondary sector,where there are 1,200 to 1,500 pupils. I come from arural area where travel distances are extreme—easilyeight, 10 or 12 miles. There are many distractionswhere often both parents or carers are working, andthey may have other caring responsibilities. My ownexperience is that parents’ evenings are 10 minuteshere, 10 minutes here, and, by the way, you can’t seethem because there is not enough time left in theevening. Those happen once a year. I wondered whatyou thought was the best approach to involvingparents and constructing school and parentrelationships.Sir Alan Steer: My starting point is absolutely thatparents are responsible for their children; I have madethat comment. I was that sort of parent. The idea thatthe state was going to nationalise my children—underno circumstances. Parental responsibility isparamount. One needs to say that. Teachers sometimesthink, “Hang on. The entire responsibility is givenover to us. It shouldn’t be; that is not right.” What isright is that schools do accept that responsibility, as Isaid before, to try to solve society’s problems—andgenerally, I would argue, they are very good at it andoften not given credit for it. On the subject ofinvolvement of parents, you mentioned the example ofparents’ evenings. Many schools, slightly under cover,have days when they are open to parents. They are notactually supposed to, because you are not supposed toclose the school for that and it would count asunauthorised closure. It actually makes it far easier forparents to come in during the course of the day andhave an in-depth conversation with teachers. That isone tactic schools use. I think schools need to beproactive. I mentioned the parent support advisers.That is a significant development. When I have seenthose people in operation, they always seem to me tobe members of the local community, so they have arapport with the parent body. They are not very wellpaid but they are highly committed and making a bigimpact. That is something that I hope survives all theissues that we are thinking about today and everythingelse. Communication between school and parents isimportant. Kindliness to parents is important. Earlier

I raised the issue of respect and asked what it lookslike to a parent. How are you greeted when youapproach a school? How are your concerns seen? Howaccessible are the people that you want to beaccessible, accepting that a school must run? Whatis the quality of the information that you get? Whensomething difficult happens and a school makes amistake—my school made tonnes of mistakes—youneed to be able to phone up and have that difficultconversation, not hide behind things. You need towork constantly. If I’m waffling slightly it’s becauseit is hard to have an individual thing. You need topractise what you preach in terms of your relations toparents, and you need to do it all the time.

Q96 Tessa Munt: May I ask you a small sub-question? What do you feel about teachers’ e-mailaddresses being available to parents?Sir Alan Steer: I would not have had it.

Q97 Tessa Munt: How accessible do you want staffto be?Sir Alan Steer: I would not have done that. I mighthave had it for key people. The world moves on sorapidly in its thinking. In a secondary school, we hada team of highly skilled people. It is a skill, becausesometimes parents come into school emotional,upset—all sorts of things like that. I would not havewanted open access. I don’t think that is fair on theparent or the teacher. I would be perfectly happy tohave an e-mail contact with key members of staff, butI would have managed the situation; I would not havehad open access.

Q98 Chair: Sir Alan, thank you very much. It hasbeen an extremely stimulating session and very useful.Please do stay in touch with the Committee if youhave anything you would like to add. We could havetalked to you more about children with SEN beingeight times more likely to be suspended from school,and about early intervention in speech and languagewhen so many children with communication, speechand language difficulties tend to be seen astroublesome rather than having a need to beaddressed. On those issues or others we would bedelighted to hear from you again if you wish.Sir Alan Steer: Would you like these documents? Arethey of use to you? There is something on schoolteaching and learning in class, and a copy of the lastreport, which I imagine you have. There is also asection on principles and practice.Chair: Yes, thank you very much.



20 October 2010 Sue Bainbridge

Witness: Sue Bainbridge, Programme Lead for Behaviour and School Partnerships, National Strategies, gaveevidence.

Q99 Chair: I am delighted to welcome SueBainbridge, the programme lead for behaviour andschool partnerships at National Strategies, to thesecond part of this morning’s session, on the historicday of the comprehensive spending review. Can youtalk us through the types of challenging behaviour thatteachers encounter in schools and give some examplesof how National Strategies is helping to tackle those?Sue Bainbridge: First, I thought I would very quicklygive you an overview of what the National Strategiesprogramme is about, to ensure that we are all startingfrom the same place. The National Strategiesbehaviour and attendance programme actuallysupports all local authorities to improve behaviour in153 local authorities. We are working in andsupporting all primary schools, secondary schools,special schools and all PRUs. In more recent times,we have been supporting the developing and growingarea of alternative provision. In terms of the types ofbehaviour that we see in schools, we start from threedifferent areas. In the majority of schools, we havevery good behaviour, but in terms of the types ofbehaviour that we support, we are largely talkingabout low-level disruption within schools—the typesof behaviour that present themselves to teachers andniggle at them. That can be chattering classes, orpupils coming into the classroom without theirmaterials and things that make them ready to learn.Perhaps they are actually not listening to the teacher,or interfering with each other while the lessons aregoing on. On the types of behaviour that we see atthat level, as a national strategy, we have looked atour consultant field force, who work in localauthorities, to see how they can work with schoolteachers to look at different strategies and build,importantly, the confidence and skills of the staff. Wework with leaders in schools. When it comes to thebehaviours that we see at low levels and the morechallenging behaviours that we see in schools, it isimportant, as Alan has already said, that the leadershipin the school takes responsibility. Whether it is thelow-level disruption that we see in many schools, orthe more challenging incidents of behaviour—suchincidents might have been brought about by tensionsoutside in the community from different gangs, orthey may be verbal and physical threats that occur inschools from time to time—part of our role is toensure that the school has a consistent approach todealing with that behaviour. First and foremost, theschool should have really high expectations ofbehaviour within their school and from that point, itshould ensure that it takes on board the views of theparents, all the staff and the views of young people.

Q100 Chair: How do you do that exactly?Sue Bainbridge: It is one of the things that we haveworked hard at in a lot of our schools. In 2005, wehad 72 schools that had inadequate behaviour, and atthe end of 2009, that figure was down to 18 schools.Working with those schools with inadequatebehaviour, we found it effective to go in as a regionalteam and work with our consultants and with the

senior leadership team. It is absolutely crucial that partof the National Strategies behaviour programme hashad an opportunity to work at that level. If we don’twork at the senior team level, we are not going tomake a difference across the school to improvebehaviour. With the senior team, we get them tounpick what their principles, values and beliefs aroundbehaviour are, and we get them to bring the staff onboard through a number of different strategies andthrough training materials that we have. Thosestrategies and materials engage all staff on their basicbeliefs and feelings on behaviour. The views of pupilsshould also be taken on board, so that the wholeschool takes responsibility and ownership. I think thatthe way we have moved that forward is by workingwith those teams. For instance, I have worked for thelast year with a school where there is inadequatebehaviour. I don’t just go in and advise them; I go inand sit in on their senior leadership team meetings, Ireview what they’re doing, and I actually follow theminto the classroom.

Q101 Chair: I assume that it’s a school that used tohave inadequate behaviour.Sue Bainbridge: I am absolutely certain that it’s justabout to be told, at its next HMI visit, that it has gotsatisfactory behaviour. But it had some otherentrenched difficulties.

Q102 Chair: I assume you’re sort of the Steerimplementation team, aren’t you? He had the grandthoughts and the knighthood, and you go in and dowhat he used to do on the ground, delivering day today in the most difficult circumstances.Sue Bainbridge: What we have done as a nationalstrategy is to take forward the advice that we have hadfrom the practitioners’ group and the advice thatwe’ve had from Steer, but what we have really basedour practice on is the best practice in schools. Partof what we’re about is not only going into schools,parachuting in and supporting them—

Q103 Chair: You are there, you’ve been doing ityourself for the last year, in one of the small numberof schools with particularly poor behaviour, ordifficult behaviour issues. Take us through it. Whathave you been doing? How do you work? At whatlevel? Do you start with the head and then thedepartment heads? Or do you start with eachclassroom teacher? Do you start with the youngestteachers in the school, or the most experiencedteachers? Where do you go? Who do you work withthe most?Sue Bainbridge: We started with the head teacher firstof all and her senior leadership team, getting them toidentify two or three things that they wanted to do.First, we identified how they wanted to get togethersome very simple rules that everybody could agreeto, that everybody could put into the classroom, thateverybody would remember and that everyone woulddeliver on.




Q104 Chair: Can you rattle some off for us?Sue Bainbridge: It is things like—and again, it isabout the ownership of them—“We will go intoclassrooms ready and prepared to learn,” “We will gointo classrooms and we will listen to each other whenwe talk,” “We will go into classrooms and”—verysimply—“we will keep our hands and feet toourselves.” That actually covers so many things.When conflict arises in the class, you’ve got thoserules that everybody has agreed to—pupils, teachersand the senior leadership team. Therefore, theconversation’s very simple. “Did we keep in line withthese rules?” “No, we didn’t.” “What do we do afterthat point?” And we know what is going to happen,in terms of the kinds of consequences that there mightbe. So it is very, very simplistic, as Alan was sayingbefore. It is keeping things as easy as possible foryoung people to remember. If they’ve got 40 schoolrules, they won’t remember them. So that’s how wefocus on it. In terms of then working with that school,we have tried to identify good practice in adepartment, because what you want to do is to buildon strengths. In this particular school that I amreferring to, the humanities department was verygood, with some very strong, skilled teachers. So weworked with them to start looking at how they couldshare the strategies that they use with otherdepartments. And then we work department bydepartment, building their skills, including their skillsto coach other teachers, and then we move on throughthe school.

Q105 Chair: So how much training have individualteachers had?Sue Bainbridge: Within the school, over the last yearindividuals have probably had five or six veryintensive sessions on looking at behaviour strategies.But to be perfectly frank, because of what the otherschools got to develop, they have been totally alignedto the quality of teaching and learning. The wholefocus has been on engagement of pupils anddeveloping positive attitudes to learning, as opposedto the behaviour management side of things.

Q106 Chair: Has it led to the departure of some ofthe teachers? Sir Alan said that the biggest link is thatgood teaching—best practice—leads to goodbehaviour. If you’ve got a school that’s got inadequatebehaviour, it’s probably because there’s a lot of lousyteaching. Some of that needs to be challenged andimproved, and in some cases people perhaps need tofind some more useful thing to do with their time.Sue Bainbridge: What we find when we are workingin a school that has got inadequate behaviour is thatquite often some teachers will move on, or will beencouraged to move on by head teachers.

Q107 Chair: To another school?Sue Bainbridge: Yes, to another school or anotherpost, or to retire from the profession, given their age.In other cases, we work very hard with consultants tosupport and develop skills and, most importantly, onthe confidence of those staff to work with youngpeople. We also look at things like ensuring that, whenan incident occurs, the young person is not taken away

and then the teacher has to face them again anotherday. Instead, at the end of the day teachers are taughtto have a conversation with that young person andthey are brought back together to resolve that conflict.Pat Glass: I want to clarify that. When you talk aboutconsultants, what you mean is specialists employed bythe authority. That’s the name that’s given to them.They’re not people who come in at huge cost fromthe private sector.

Q108 Chair: What evidence have you got thatNational Strategies interventions are effective?Sue Bainbridge: The data that we have are, as I saidbefore, that we’ve moved the number of inadequatebehaviour schools from 72 to 18. In 2006, weintroduced a new programme around securing goodbehaviour in all schools. In the inspection tranche lastyear, 80% of schools had moved to good oroutstanding, whereas in the inspection tranche theyear before, it was only 70% of schools. Those kindsof data are the hard data, obviously based on Ofstedfigures, but we’ve also got data around the impact ofgood behaviour on attendance. The SFR figures thatcame out yesterday showed the best possible PAfigures: we’re down to 4.3% in terms of persistentabsenteeism now. I think the strong link betweenimproving behaviour and getting young people intoschool is absolutely crucial, so that when they’re inschool, they can engage and start to learn. We’ve gotreally good figures on our social and emotional skillsprogramme and the types of things that are comingout there. We know that 90% of our primary schoolsare engaged in that programme. A primary school inWiltshire took on board the social and emotionalaspects of learning approach. It had very high levelsof exclusions. Straight away, a year into developingSEAL, they’re down to zero exclusions within thatschool. Nothing else had changed within the schoolother than taking on board that programme across allstaff. There’s a 65% take-up of the social andemotional programme within secondary schools.Again, we’re really starting to see the impact there.There are things like family SEAL, and there is theimpact on families engaging. I think the other areathat’s big within the behaviour programme is ournational programme for specialist leaders in behaviourand attendance. We currently have over 7,000participants in that programme, and 63% ofparticipants are focusing on the behavioural,emotional and social difficulties aspect of thattraining. That’s a training programme that is givenover to schools and individuals, where they actuallytake responsibility for their own continuingprofessional development. They lead the clustersessions, and they have opportunities to go back intoschool. As for the impact of that particularprogramme, through testimonies we’re getting,especially from the north-east, there is already reallystrong evidence of how those members of staff—they’re not always teachers—are really starting tohave career prospects. They’re getting that confidence.They’re more skilled and more able to address thosebehaviour issues.




Q109 Chair: Can I ask you about SEN? What doesNational Strategies do to help differentiate betweengeneral behaviour difficulties and early identificationof, and support for, children with special educationalneeds?Sue Bainbridge: We actually have a NationalStrategies programme that leads on SEN, and we workhand in hand with it. There’s an element there thatskills up staff in being aware of, and being able toidentify, such things as communication difficulties,BESD issues and autistic spectrum disorders as soonas possible. One of the things that we’ve done,working alongside those colleagues, is look verycarefully at how early we can help schools to identifyneed. One of the things within behaviourimprovement that we’re taking forward is looking atdata tracking. We’re very keen as early as possible toencourage schools and local authorities to look at aprofile of need, so that when we have issuesemerging—for instance, in year 9, if suddenlybehaviours are presenting—we track those youngpeople back to when those triggers first came about,and start to look at whether they were presentingearlier as having communication difficulties or mentalhealth difficulties.

Q110 Chair: Is it working? Anecdotally, it seemsfrom parents in my constituency with autistic children,from the National Autistic Society and from evidencefrom people I meet, that it is still a complete battlewith local authorities to get any recognition of thechild’s needs. Even if you can get it, there can be along delay and often non-implementation of thosethings that are specifically prescribed to help. Thewhole thing looks pretty disastrous at every stage.Sue Bainbridge: I think that we are only at one stagewithin that journey. Now we have encouraged schoolsto look very clearly at the needs of young people, asopposed to very quickly labelling young people witha special need. Once we look at the need, we canusually address the kinds of strategies andinterventions that are needed. With our data tracking,we have really encouraged schools not just to collectthe numbers, but to start looking at the quality of theintervention, and to start tracking the impact of theintervention; for example, with a young person witha communication difficulty, at what point would weintervene and see how effective that intervention was?Quite often, we find that we don’t actually measurethe impact of the intervention. We keep intervening,and then wonder why we are not getting anywhere. Ithink that that is really important. One of the thingsthat we have tried to do is encourage all staff, whenthey have a vulnerable young person with presentingneeds who is not engaging, to dig really deep and trydifferent things, and then see if that makes adifference to their engagement with a learningopportunity.

Q111 Chair: How important is local collaborationon, or between, education, social care and healthservices in identifying and addressing behaviouralissues related to SEN? How do you think that thatcollaboration can be fostered and improved in the

future? Are there any threats to it? Sorry to add tomy question.Sue Bainbridge: On types of support, six or sevenyears ago, when we had the BIP programme, therewere BEST teams—behaviour and education supportteams—wrapped around a number of schools thatwere in the programme. What has developed fromthose teams is that a number of schools have taken onthat model, and they have those teams within theirschool or wrapped around their school. Those teamswork largely within the school and the community,and also in some cases work across all ages. They getto know some of the family issues so, when they arecoming into support, they know the context of theschool. They know the context of the family and canactually intervene much more quickly. Where we seethose services in short supply—an example iscommunity mental health services, as Pat said earlier,and some speech and language services are often inquite short supply—we have seen schools and localauthorities being quite creative in the way that theyhave addressed some of the issues. Two years ago,Hammersmith and Fulham had a look at the numberof young people it was sending out of city. It realisedthe expense that that was costing and decided that itwould not do that any more, but that it would investsome money in providing CAMH services and speechand language services to its primary schools. That wasnot to every primary school, but there is a much-enhanced service within schools. It then put in placenurture groups in year 7 in secondary schools,focusing on speech and language. Those are the kindsof approaches where teams of specialist identifiedservices are really making a difference. Those schoolsare utilising those services to skill up othermainstream teaching staff. They are putting a speechand language therapist alongside a teacher to enablethem. What we are seeing now with partnershipworking is schools coming together creatively. Insteadof funding being top-sliced, and that money being inthe authority, schools are retaining some of thosefunds and starting to look at sharing their resources.Where one school in a partnership of five has a goodfacility—it might have a community mental healthbuilding on its site, while another has a youth centre—schools are using and swapping those services. Weeven have teachers and single-issue teams that arenow starting to think about how they can best makejoint appointments, as Sir Alan was saying earlier;they are starting to take that forward. For the future,there is real potential for schools to use their ownresources better to look at the services they need. Weneed to ensure that those services are there, and thatskilled professionals are there to fill the gaps.Chair: Thank you very much. It was a longintroduction from me. Nic?

Q112 Nic Dakin: We have had a vast amount ofevidence to the Committee already, and you havegiven a very positive picture of National Strategies,but in that evidence there was very little reference toNational Strategies. Why was that?Sue Bainbridge: Because it was evidence fromNational Strategies, we assumed that what wepresented was about National Strategies.




Q113 Nic Dakin: I was thinking of evidence fromother people. People aren’t pointing to NationalStrategies and saying that it has made a positiveimpact. They are not saying, “Look at NationalStrategies as part of the solution.”Sue Bainbridge: We have focused on gettingourselves into schools and on working to skill up aconsultant field force within local authorities. Thefeedback that we often get when we go into localauthorities is on the value of the behaviour andattendance consultants who work in those authoritiesand on the work that they do. It isn’t necessarily aboutour having a wider audience. To be perfectly honest,we offer a universal service to all schools, but, asoften happens, there are a number of outstandingschools. We support local authorities to makedecisions about whom they support, but it is entirelyup to them to use their knowledge of schools to decidewhere they take that support. On working closely withOfsted, Ofsted is very aware of the work that we doand of the number of organisations that we work within partnership.

Q114 Nic Dakin: The Secretary of State has said thatNational Strategies has wasted huge amounts ofmoney. What do you say to that? Have there been anycost-benefit analyses?Sue Bainbridge: In taking forward this particularprogramme, my focus has been on developing highquality materials and approaches and on providingquality training to people so that that training andthose materials can be cascaded. As a programme, weare contracted to the Department for Education, and,as such, the specification and any funding and costssit within the remit of the contract manager in theDepartment, Dave Sleep. So if you have any furtherquestions on costs, I would advise you to go to himand ask for more specific information about that.

Q115 Nic Dakin: So you would not agree that it wasa waste of money?Sue Bainbridge: I would not agree, because the datashow the improvements that we have made year onyear. If you were to go into a number of localauthorities, you would find that there are networks ofleads, especially from secondary schools, that cometogether on a termly basis to discuss and share goodpractice. If you were to go into the regions, you wouldfind that there are regional teams. We are looking atan exit strategy for ourselves from March onwards,but those local authorities are coming together of theirown accord to carry on sharing and promoting thekind of opportunities that we provided to them and towork together to share that good practice. We willleave a mark. We have left materials, which are beingused. The social and emotional aspects of learningprogramme is the most frequently downloadedprogramme on the Department for Education website.The fact that people are using the materials that areout there shows that we are making a mark.

Q116 Nic Dakin: Do you believe that there will be asustainable legacy from this programme as we moveforward and that schools can manage in the futurewithout national guidance?

Sue Bainbridge: From day one, our remit was to buildthe capacity of local authorities to work with schoolsby developing the skills and competence for them todeliver themselves. We were never building adependency on our role. The materials, which weknow are used regularly, will continue to be used byschools. Schools will develop the materials and theywill move them on. The future will be in partnershipworking, with schools coming together to adapt thosematerials and to develop their own materials. Therewill always be a need to drive, advise and guide. Forexample, last week I went into one of our 20 leadbehaviour schools, which is an outstanding schoolacross the board, and the message that I received was,“No one has ever come in, no one has ever helpedme, no one has ever challenged me and no one hascome in and had this conversation, from which wecould really benefit.” Schools will always need thatchallenge, drive and support, but we have done ourbest to provide them with the skills and the materialsto take forward.

Q117 Nic Dakin: Where will that capacity be in thefuture? Those consultants in local authorities arelikely to disappear, aren’t they? Where will thecapacity be to ensure that, five years down the line,we don’t slip back again?Sue Bainbridge: We have some very, very goodschools that are really addressing the issue ofbehaviour. We have 20 lead behaviour schools. Thatis only 20, I know, but they are already networkingwith other schools in their regions. We have schoolsthat have taken forward specific aspects ofprogrammes. On local authorities, Hull springs tomind in terms of taking forward things like restorativepractice and trying to drive forward and address thereally entrenched issues that they have in some oftheir schools. On those kinds of pockets of practice,local authorities will work together—they haveworked together in the past. But, more importantly,groups of schools will work together. What we willsee is champions within those schools really start totake forward the practice, develop the practice andmake it their own. That is what they need to do.

Q118 Craig Whittaker: Sue, I want to clarify acouple of things. You explained that the schools havegone from 72 inadequate down to 18, and you havedealt with that by addressing the skills gaps with alot of teachers within schools and, of course, localauthorities. We also know that a huge amount of datatracking and, indeed, profiling of needs is done. Areyou therefore suggesting that because of the skills gap,which you also spoke about, that perhaps this datatracking and profiling of needs is not quite as it shouldbe, because of the skills gap? If the answer is no—asI suspect that it is—is it not therefore down to thequality of the teachers and the leadership, more thananything else?Sue Bainbridge: At the end of the day, you cannotpull apart the quality of teaching and the types ofbehaviour that you see within school. We know thatthe two are inextricably linked. What we find as wellis that if you don’t have a strong leader and a strongleadership team that has a vision and high




expectations regarding where they want the school tobe, which everybody buys into and takesresponsibility for, it isn’t going to work in terms ofdriving that forward. All teachers—all staff—need tomodel good behaviour at any point. I think Alantalked about meeting and greeting young people onthe way in and being around at lunch times and othertimes. All that is as important as the quality ofteaching and learning. But, fundamentally, what wefind is that if young people are not engaging in theirlearning, that is where we first and foremost mustaddress the skills needs of those teachers.

Q119 Craig Whittaker: I am particularly interestedin what I said about the data tracking and profiling ofneeds. If there is a skills gap there, particularly withthe teachers, does that bring a question mark over thequality of data tracking and the profiling of needs?Sue Bainbridge: It does. What we have found is thatwe have gone into schools where they have beencollecting numbers as opposed to really analysing thedata they have, not only on the basis of what thepupils are doing, but in terms of the timetable areaswhere those issues are emerging—having a look at thedifferent staff where those issues are emerging and thedifferent subject areas. That is where that datatracking is important. If people are collecting thatinformation but doing nothing with it, which is oftenthe case, that is the point at which we have to say,“Okay, you’ve got this information now. What is ittelling you, what are you going to do with it and howregularly and quickly are you going to address it?”One of the things we find is that where we have asystem—a consequent system or whatever—within aschool, if that’s addressed very regularly and staff andyoung people are flagged up, those issues can beaddressed before they become entrenched and thoseyoung people start to disengage and spend less timein the classroom.

Q120 Ian Mearns: Hi Sue. In 2005, Sir Alan’s reportsuggested that all secondary schools, includingacademies and foundation schools should be part of alocal partnership and that this should cease to be avoluntary option by 2008. However, since thisSeptember, the Government have taken the decisionto revoke the requirement for schools to work togetherin behaviour and attendance partnerships. So what arethe threats and the opportunities created by adiminution of the role of local authorities in relationto behaviour and discipline in schools? Will theremoval of the requirement to form behaviour andattendance partnerships have any meaningful impact,and does the prospect of local authority behavioursupport services being outsourced or disbandedconcern you at all?Sue Bainbridge: On schools working in partnership,the strongest partnerships that we have seen across thecountry are in places such as Bradford, where theyhave a really strong partnership and operate in threedifferent clusters. They have engaged in thosepartnerships because they wanted to and not becauseanyone told them to. They saw the benefits of workingin partnership. When I have been called tomanagement committee meetings across the country

to explain what it is they have to do to be in apartnership, you almost get the feeling that thatpartnership will not work until they have reallyengaged with the individuals and made them see thereason for being in a partnership. Revoking therequirement to be in partnership will have less impactif those partnerships are already formed and if theyare making a difference. What we found was that,historically, those partnerships were based on fairaccess and managed move protocols in localauthorities. Whether sustainability has anything to dowith being in partnership is to do with whether thosepartnerships have moved on—whether they aresharing the development of their policies, consideringsharing their continuing professional developmentopportunities, sharing staff and looking at resources.They know already what it is that they are doing andwhy they want to work together. One really goodexample of partnership working is in Tower Hamlets.No one told those schools to work together; theydecided to work together. They share their data now.They not only openly share data with heads and seniorleadership teams, but flag up the youngsters who arecausing them concern. They ask each other for helpwith strategies to address a problem. A youngsternever comes to that table for a managed move or anykind of support because they are at risk of exclusion.That is the sort of early intervention that those kindsof partnerships are now working towards. As forrevoking the requirement to be in partnerships, I don’tsee that as an enormous problem for thosepartnerships that are working already. Somepartnerships will use it as an excuse now for schoolsto drop out. At the end of the day, schools will workwith schools that they can benefit from. As for thefuture, it is only by working together in partnershipsthat schools can best afford the services that theyneed. Each individual school cannot buy in all theservices that it wants, but five or six schools workingtogether might be able to afford to share those servicesbetween them and use them more effectively. Theycan then start to influence what those services looklike for those young people in need. We did sometraining recently in the south-east. Schools were verykeen to start looking at how they could influence whattheir alternative and PRU provision looked like.Where there were gaps, they wanted to see how theycould ensure that those gaps did not exist in the future.

Q121 Ian Mearns: The problem is you have given usa couple of examples of effective partnership working.There are 150 or so local education authorities. I guessfrom the way in which you have phrased your answerthere are a number of education authorities wherethose partnerships don’t really exist in the way inwhich you want them to. Have you any concerns forthose areas?Sue Bainbridge: I have a concern when localauthorities are purely based on a managed move.What we might find is that if schools don’t have toengage in that fair access protocol—being part of thatsort of agreement between schools—some schoolswill find themselves with a higher level of excludedpupils, because they are willing to take those youngpeople in that move. We may find that others are not




as welcome into the partnership, because theynegatively contribute to the number of excluded pupilswithout doing their bit to contribute in a positiveway—to offer services and support to schools. That isdespite the fact that they are, quite often, outstandingschools with an awful lot of skills and expertise tooffer. One of the roles that we played in NationalStrategies was to facilitate some of the conversationsaround looking at the benefits that every school wouldhave in taking forward that partnership. In the future,some schools will opt out and be in it for them.Chair: Sorry, Ian, I must cut you off there.

Q122 Ian Mearns: This is important, because Sue’sanswer has elicited in my mind another question. It isthe question that I asked Sir Alan before. Youmentioned that some outstanding schools are notacting as part of a partnership. Those outstandingschools could well have the recourse for parents to anindependent appeals panel removed. If they are notplaying the game in terms of being in partnership withother local community schools, how will that workand where will those kids end up?Sue Bainbridge: At the moment, one of the thingsthat we are working very hard on—and will continueto work very hard on until the end of the contract—isencouraging those schools to look at the benefits ofworking in partnership. We’ve really got to makeoutstanding schools understand that they will not stayoutstanding as individual schools. We have to try tosell to them the fact that by working with otherschools, there will be a lot of benefits. To be honest,I’ve only been into the 20 lead behaviour schools—outstanding ones—in the last six months, so I haven’tgot a lot more knowledge than that. But in those 20,they are all willing to engage with other schools. Theyall want to be part of that partnership, and offer anddevelop their own skills. They are not complacent,and they want to carry on.Chair: We are coming to the end. Tessa would likequickly to ask about governance.

Q123 Tessa Munt: Quickly, I want to ask you whosejob you would cite as being to challenge schoolleaders.

Sue Bainbridge: At the moment, it is the localauthorities’ responsibility to intervene if they feel thatschool leaders are not taking forward their role andare falling down in terms of their responsibilities.

Q124 Tessa Munt: What access do governors haveto that work?Sue Bainbridge: The governing body’s role is also tochallenge the head. It has a very clear role in manyschools in taking forward certain aspects of theschool’s role, in terms of bringing in responsiblepolicies, overseeing the data and looking at what theissues are in the school. I think that a lot of ourgoverning bodies, currently, will challenge the data.We did some work in Sheffield, where there were highlevels of disproportionate exclusions. In that school,the governors were very challenging. They analysedthat data down to four teachers whose confidence andskills not only were lacking in terms of addressingfairness within some of the young people they wereteaching, but hadn’t changed in terms of the supportthey were being offered. The governors were verychallenging in terms of what they wanted that headteacher to do in order to take the school forward, sothat young people didn’t miss out on learning.

Q125 Tessa Munt: So is it primarily a localauthority role?Sue Bainbridge: In terms of local authorities, ourteam has worked with assistant directors who haveresponsibility for behaviour strategically within anauthority. What I am seeing is their role in going inand challenging head teachers on behaviour andexclusion levels, and I am seeing it very much as theirhaving a very strong role within schools. But that’sperhaps because I meet very few governing bodies. Ioperate more with local authorities and theirrelationships with heads than I do with governingbodies and their relationships.Chair: Tessa and Sue, thank you very much. Thankyou very much for giving evidence to us today. It hasbeen a fascinating morning.

cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [SE] Processed: [20-01-2011 12:57] Job: 006766 Unit: PG03Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/006766/006766_o0003_EdC 27 Oct 10 corrected.xml



Members present:


Nic DakinPat GlassDamian Hinds

________________


Witnesses: Gillian Allcroft, Policy Manager, National Governors’ Association, Mike Griffiths, Head ofNorthampton School for Boys and witness for the Association of School and College Leaders, Russell Hobby,General Secretary, National Association of Head Teachers, and Charlie Taylor, Headteacher, Willows PrimarySpecial School and Acting Headteacher of Chantry Secondary Special School, Hillingdon, gave evidence.

Q126 Chair: Good morning. Welcome to thismeeting of the Education Committee. We are gratefulthat the four of you have come to give evidence to ustoday. If you’re happy and comfortable with it, we’lluse your first names. Let’s crack on through thequestioning on the subject of behaviour and discipline.When we took evidence last week, we were told thatin general standards of behaviour and discipline areimproving and that, although there is work still to do,one could be happy with the general direction. Wouldyou all concur with that?Mike Griffiths: I’ll go first. The evidence collectedfrom groups such as Ofsted would seem to be that is.Clearly, it’s always been an issue ever since I startedteaching 34 years ago and, I suspect, ever sinceAristotle or whoever was writing about young peoplebeing disrespectful compared with the oldergeneration and so on. I suspect it is a bit of agenerational thing. My perception would be that inschools, yes, behaviour is improving.Gillian Allcroft: I would concur with that. It’s whatOfsted has reported. Clearly there is always room forimprovement—there are always behaviour issues—but generally it is getting better.Charlie Taylor: Yes, again, I’d agree. There hasalways been a sense that this is the worst generationwe’ve ever had and that things are getting worse andworse, but I don’t feel that’s the case at all. I thinkthere have been some significant improvements inbehaviour. A lot of that is linked to improvements inteaching as well.Russell Hobby: Yes, I would agree with that, butsmall incidences of bad behaviour cast quite a longshadow and have a disproportionate impact, so it isright to focus on the minority of cases where we dowant to improve it.

Q127 Chair: According to Sir Alan Steer in thevarious pieces of work that he has done—and almosteveryone else agrees—quality of teaching is the mostimportant thing in improving behaviour anddiscipline. I don’t know whether it’s just since wehave had the rarely cover provisions, but there seemsto be increasing evidence of TAs ending up takingclasses. Someone who is not even qualified as ateacher sometimes takes classes, which must surelyundermine the quality of the teaching and thus makeit less likely that people will experience consistent

Ian MearnsTessa MuntCraig Whittaker

behaviour and discipline in the classroom. Have youany comments to make on that, Russell?Russell Hobby: There are three things that drivebehaviour in schools, quality of teaching being one ofthem; the consistency of the behaviour policy acrossthe whole school and how well that is implementedis another and, of course, parental attitudes towardsschools—it is those three things together. Appropriateuse of teaching assistants within a good behaviourpolicy needn’t undermine behaviour at all, but theinappropriate use of people without the qualificationsto do it would have that impact. Of course, if you’renot being stimulated in your lessons, you’re morelikely to misbehave or to be alienated from school.

Q128 Chair: Is there any evidence that TAs are beingused inappropriately and that that is having an impact?Mike Griffiths: I don’t know whether inappropriate isthe right word. In secondary schools, it is not so muchteaching assistants as the new breed of coversupervisors that has evolved with the work forcereforms. In a school such as mine we need, when weappoint them, to make sure that they are trained,because they are not teachers; they supervise workthat has been set by teachers. Clearly, however, it canbe an issue. It is something that is worthy of furtherdebate and research about the impact of non-teacherssupervising classes at work. Certainly, if there is asignificant amount of absence in a school and ayoungster has several periods of cover supervisionduring the course of a day, then I would imagine thatbehaviour could become an issue.

Q129 Chair: Do you have any comment on that,Gillian?Gillian Allcroft: No, we have no evidence on that.Chair: Okay, with no further ado I will cede to Craig.

Q130 Craig Whittaker: Good morning everybody. Iwant to talk about the new powers, specifically powersof restraint; the permanent exclusions and theindependent appeals panels; and the removal of 24-hour notice of detention. Do you agree with the newproposals and do any of you wish to commentspecifically on any of those three issues?Russell Hobby: I suppose the most ringingendorsement I can give for them is that they are fine.The trouble is that it’s not the giving of new powers;it’s how we use powers at the moment, and there is a

cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [20-01-2011 12:57] Job: 006766 Unit: PG03Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/006766/006766_o0003_EdC 27 Oct 10 corrected.xml


27 October 2010 Gillian Allcroft, Mike Griffiths, Russell Hobby and Charlie Taylor

wide range of existing legislation that isn’t fullyexploited to make use of that. In specific terms, theproposals for anonymity are welcome, because arelatively small proportion of accusations actuallyresult in any action being taken and it causes immensetrauma. The powers for search are fine. I don’t thinkthe idea of removing notice for detention for outsideschool hours is a helpful suggestion. I think the impacton parents of not giving them notice would not helpthe relationship with the school.Mike Griffiths: At the risk of being rather boring, Ithink ASCL, too, would welcome the new powersfrom the point of view that at least they provide asignal to parents and youngsters that the Governmentwill be supporting schools and teachers in theirattempts to make sure that discipline is as good as itcan be in a school. Similarly, the search powers arefine, although it is strange that mobile devices such astelephones are lobbed in there at the same time asdrugs, knives and whatever else. There is a bit of aconfused message there, although I understand why ithas appeared. The search is common sense, I wouldhope, and not a whole series of rules and regulationsabout it. I share the welcome for anonymity,particularly because of the incidences of the use of IT,websites and so on as a way of spreading informationand, dare one say, malicious gossip. I think anonymityis important. I also share the notion that the item ondetention is unhelpful. Certainly, in my school, forsimply pragmatic reasons, I will not be allowingteachers to detain youngsters without giving notice.That is partly because there are transport issues foryoungsters—in some communities, where there areschool buses to catch, it’s just simply not pragmatic—but also because one only has to look forward to theNovember evenings and youngsters travelling homein the dark and so on when the parents haven’t beengiven notice. You only need the first instance ofsomething happening on the way home, and schoolswill very quickly not want to put themselves in thatposition.

Q131 Craig Whittaker: Is it fair to say, then, thatthese are just extra powers in the toolbox of thingsthat are available for schools to use and that it’sentirely down to the head and the leadership team asto whether they use them or not? If that is the case,why do you think that previous tools in that toolboxhave not been exercised by teachers?Mike Griffiths: I’m not sure that they haven’t beenexercised by teachers. I think teachers always haveused these powers. Detentions are not terribly useful.People tend to try and find a more creative way ofdealing with issues, because to get good discipline youneed to work with youngsters and get their co-operation. Simply penalising and depriving them oftime and so on isn’t always helpful. The only timewhen I think it can be useful is when that time isused by the teacher to constructively work with thatindividual child, in a way that they don’t normallyhave time to, to actually rebuild the relationship.Personally, I am completely against the notion of whatI think in some schools is called faculty detention,where somebody else runs it. As far as I can see, theonly reason for keeping a youngster behind is to

enable me, as the teacher, to improve relationshipswith that youngster, but that’s unlikely to occur if theyoungster perceives the detention as being a period ofalmost imprisonment. Even in such cases, detentionsare better held at breaks and lunchtimes than afterschool.Charlie Taylor: The thing that concerns me is thegoing of the independent panels. Having sat in aformer life as an LEA representative on those panels,the decisions that actually did get turned over mademe think, “Damn right,” because the school had runthe show appallingly, had failed to follow proceduresand things hadn’t been done right. In the 2% or 3%of decisions that do get turned over, I don’t have aproblem with that at all. The hands-on bit concernsme a little, because, as I have seen in primary andsecondary schools, you get circumstances whereteachers have been trained and therefore they thinkthat it’s okay to lay hands on a pupil. The danger isthat that can escalate, things get worse and you thenend up with a situation where a pupil gets permanentlyexcluded. So I agree, provided the training is of highenough quality and teachers really understand that it’sthe last resort. You don’t want situations where, assoon as there’s a bit of disruption, a bigger teacherjust bundles the child out of the room. You don’t wantthe message going out to any child, “Because I ambigger and stronger than you, I can get you to dostuff.” A lot of our children are coming into schoolswith that sort of message already and the last thingwe want to do is reinforce that message at school, aswell. I would add that a very positive bit that cameout of that, too, which was the positive touch that theSecretary of State mentioned in terms of being able tocomfort children and making that emphatically okayto do. Some schools appear to have a non-touchpolicy, so you have, say, a child of five, who’s cryingtheir eyes out because they’re missing their mother,and no one is allowed to put their arms around themand give him or her a cuddle. That seems ludicrous,and I am very glad that the Secretary of State hasclarified the law on that.

Q132 Craig Whittaker: Are you saying that theinitial teacher training is inadequate as it currentlystands?Charlie Taylor: In terms of managing behaviour?Craig Whittaker: Yes.Charlie Taylor: Yes, I think there should be more.When I was trained, I probably had about half a dayon that in the entire course. It might be a day now,but it’s not much more than that.

Q133 Craig Whittaker: Do you want to pick up onthat, Mike?Mike Griffiths: Yes. My school runs a school-centredinitial teacher training course. Where teacher trainingis based in schools, there is probably a greateremphasis on management of behaviour as a key issue.That is something that I would like to see expanded.Other than that, I entirely agree. My head teacher 30-odd years ago used to say, “Whatever you do—Iimplore you, I beseech you—don’t touch the children,whatever the provocation.” His view, and mine aswell, was that as soon as you do, you automatically

cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [20-01-2011 12:57] Job: 006766 Unit: PG03Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/006766/006766_o0003_EdC 27 Oct 10 corrected.xml



place yourself and the school on the back foot. Thefocus is then on the behaviour on the teacher, ratherthan on the behaviour the child, which led to thatresponse. My view is entirely that we should say tostaff, “Whatever you do, you still do not touch a childwhen you are angry with the child because of theirmisbehaviour.” However, I well remember runningunder-13 football teams and knowing which childwould need a consoling arm around their shouldersafter they missed a penalty in the dying minutes of acup game, and it is just as important to do the samefor a child who is missing their parent.

Q134 Craig Whittaker: Gillian, I will ask you myfinal question, which ties in with what we’ve beentalking about. If the Government do go ahead withremoving the right of appeal to an independent panelagainst permanent exclusions, for example, wouldschool governors be confident that they can providethe same level of safeguarding to parents asindependent panels?Gillian Allcroft: I think that the answer is probablyno, although not because governors wouldn’t try to doit properly. Governors already have to review certainexclusions, and we already advocate that any governordoing that should be properly trained. Even ifgovernors are confident and doing it properly, there ispotential for the perception by parents and pupils thatthe governors work hand in hand with the head, soeven if they’ve reviewed the head’s decision, they’rejust going to agree with what the head says. Even ifyou have agreed it and the head has done everythingmarvellously and it’s all fine, and you have ratified thedecision, there is still going to be that perception thatyou haven’t because you are just in the pocket of thehead. If you get rid of independent appeal panels, thedanger is that schools will end up in court. That isgoing to be a massive cost for schools.

Q135 Craig Whittaker: Do you think we are goingto see fewer exclusions on the back of this happening?Gillian Allcroft: It’s very difficult to say until a fewschools have ended up in that situation. Personally, Iwould keep independent appeal panels because I thinkthat they do a good job.Russell Hobby: Can I weigh in to reinforce that? Itputs schools in a difficult situation. Exclusions are ameasure of desperation anyway, so whether theywould influence the number of those—it is always thelast resort. In terms of natural justice and the way itappears, keeping independent appeal panels willprotect schools and make sure they use the rightprocess.Mike Griffiths: I agree. Although I’ve appeared infront of independent appeal panels and I didn’t like it,I think it is better that they remain because thealternative would be even more unpleasant for me asa head. Although they are not comfortable places tobe, my only concern about them is that sometimesthey are almost too focused on determining whetherevery last i has been dotted and every t crossed onprocedural items, rather than on the behaviour thatmight have led to that exclusion. I still think that weprobably need to retain them.

Q136 Ian Mearns: I have been a chair of governorsfor secondary schools for 20 years, and I have sat asa chair of governors at an appeal panel defending theschool’s position. I haven’t been turned over yet but Iagree with you, Mike, that quite often it isn’t pleasantfrom the school’s perspective. However, in thedifferent appeal panels that I’ve been to, the runningof the appeal panel has sometimes been very good,and at other times, it has been decidedly iffy in termsof the way that the chair has allowed the proceedingsto get out of hand. Do you think that there is a role forthe appeal panels to be much better trained in terms oftheir membership?Charlie Taylor: In the ones that I’ve sat on, I’ve beenimpressed by the expertise and generally they havegone very well—and I’ve sat on quite a few over theyears as an independent LEA rep.

Q137 Tessa Munt: I’d like to ask you a fewquestions about preventing and managing exclusion,concentrating on the prevention part first. Earlyidentification of risk factors seems to be one of thethings that we might concentrate on. What do youthink are the risk factors that we should be takinginto account?Russell Hobby: The most obvious risk factor isspecial educational needs. Children are eight timesmore likely to be excluded if they have a statement.I’m not saying that is something that justifies it, butclearly we are excluding more children in thosecircumstances and that is probably where we need tofocus a lot of attention. Equally, exclusions are notevenly distributed. Children on free school meals aremore likely to be excluded as well. I think we shouldfocus our attention on those points.

Q138 Tessa Munt: Does anyone have anything elseto add?Charlie Taylor: I would simply say, “Ask nurseryschool teachers.” Go to a nursery school and say tothe teacher, “Which pupils in your class are going tobe causing disruption further down the road?” Therewas a hideously depressing study—I am trying toremember where I saw it—that got nursery schoolteachers to predict which children would end up inprison and 15 years later, they were completely right.If we are spotting these problems in nursery school,why do we wait till the children have gone tosecondary school before we sling them out or dosomething about their behaviour? I would put in aplug for my early intervention nursery at my school,where we take eight pupils who have fallen out ofsome sort of permanent education, and they spend twoor three terms with us. Ninety-six have gone throughour unit and only seven have come back with astatement for behaviour further down the road. If youcompare that with the recidivism rate of somewherelike Feltham, which I guess is about 80%, it is a prettygood case for early intervention with young children.

Q139 Tessa Munt: Thank you. Now I want to drawyou on a little bit further from that, because it strikesme that some of the things that were identified for uswere: social and economic status, which is some ofthe stuff that Russell has actually raised; poor




attachment with early carers, which might be a naturalconclusion; reading failure; and pupils going throughschool transition. The education system can perhapsonly have an effect on the latter two of those. A 1974study stated that reading failure was the only one ofall the various indicators that accurately predicted thelater incidence of violent and antisocial behaviour. Ifwe look in our own country at the number of peoplewith a very poor reading age who end up in prison,something like 60% or 70% of our prison populationhave a reading age of less than 10. That is somethingthat we can have an effect on, and I wondered whatyour comments were about reading and the ability toteach reading to very young children.Charlie Taylor: I feel strongly about the teaching ofa specific reading scheme, and I happen to be verypassionate about synthetic phonics. In some ways it isnothing new, but it is about very focused teaching ofreading—it’s made a real focus. In both my schools,it’s a way of targeting the children, assessing wherethey are and moving them on in a very, very structuredway. The effects are dramatic and we get some realchange. I think a generation of children lost outbecause of the fancy sort of stuff that I was taught atteacher training college—real books, or letting themlook at the pictures and make it up as they went along.Actually, reading is one of those things that you haveto teach.Mike Griffiths: I wouldn’t disagree with any of that,but I think that we have to be careful about cause andeffect. Although significant numbers of people end uphaving a problem who were also poor readers, theywere probably also deprived in lots of other ways aswell. We have to be careful not to make too simplistica judgment that because you are not a reader, you willnot get on. In the 1950s, my father was deputy headof a secondary modern school and he remembers thedays when people left school at 14 or 15 and wentinto the army or manual labour. Vast numbers of themcould not read or write functionally, but that is not tosay that they all ended up in prison. I do not think thatit is a necessary consequence, so I think that we haveto be careful. You also mentioned transition. Schoolswork a lot harder than they used to on transition, butsometimes it is the art of the possible. I was a headteacher in relatively rural Oxfordshire where basicallythere were about five primary schools that fed into thesecondary school of which I was head. There, liaisonwas fairly straightforward, and you could work withthat. My current school’s 2010 intake came from 83different primary schools, which completely changesthe dynamic of how much transition work can go onbetween us and them. I am also aware of all-throughschools, which I think you’re interested in, and thereis one in our town. It is a bit of a misnomer, though,because although it is an all-through school in onesense, it is only an all-through school for about 30 ofthe students. They are still joined by about 180 otherstudents at year 7, so it’s not as though the wholeschool is all-through. I do not know of many caseswhere a school is actually all-through, with 90youngsters or whatever going right the way throughfrom age four to age 18. I think in most so-calledall-through schools, actually there is still quite a bigaddition of other youngsters from other places. That

might be worth looking at—comparing thoseyoungsters who were part of the all-through with theyoungsters who joined. Again, we have to be carefulwith the data because it is not always as simple asit seems.

Q140 Tessa Munt: I did not want to imply in anyway that if you cannot read you go to prison. What Iam saying is that the learning experience of readingcan perhaps alter people’s futures, and that seems tobe a factor so frequently.Mike Griffiths: Clearly, it is absolutely vital becauseif youngsters are not able to read well and effectively,they simply cannot access other parts of thecurriculum. Of course, if they cannot access thecurriculum and if their achievement gets lower analmost inevitable consequence is that they becomerelatively disaffected and relatively uninterested inlessons, and behaviour becomes a problem.

Q141 Tessa Munt: So what we are saying is that itis possible that instead of concentrating on managingexclusions we could prevent more, perhaps.Charlie Taylor indicated assent.

Q142 Tessa Munt: Charlie seems to agree, so thatwould be what I would suggest. May I quickly lookat interventions and managing exclusions throughrestorative justice, mediation, internal exclusion andmanaged moves? How often are managed moves andinternal exclusion used to prevent final exclusion?Gillian Allcroft: That varies enormously from schoolto school in terms of internal exclusion. It can dependon the individual school’s policy and how it ismanaged.

Q143 Tessa Munt: Are managed moves a goodthing?Gillian Allcroft: They can be. It is a balancing act.They can be a good thing, but on the other hand theycan be seen as a way of moving the problemelsewhere without dealing with it. They can be a goodthing, because sometimes the pupil needs to be in adifferent environment, which might help that pupiland move their education on.Russell Hobby: I think that managed moves are agood thing, because groups of heads and schools worktogether to take responsibility for a problem, ratherthan saying, “That child is not my problem anylonger.” If you are participating in it, you are alsoaccepting children from other schools. I think that, insome areas, they are often hung up by the bureaucraticdifficulty of organising it and by whether the localauthority is sufficiently stimulating it and helping toco-ordinate things. But as a principle, and as analternative to permanent exclusion and at the endpoint of an escalation of processes that include thingsgoing on purely within the school, it is a big stepforward.Mike Griffiths: Although I think that, in principle,they and partnership working are a good idea, I amafraid that, in my experience, the local authority hasnot been involved at all. It is individual head teachersworking together to resolve the problem. I have tosay that, in my experience, managed moves are rarely




successful. The danger is that they can be used todisguise or mask the problem. It is almost delaying theinevitable sometimes. There may be occasions when itis appropriate and it will work and has a good chanceof working, but not that many cases have beensuccessful in my relatively limited experience. Itdepends what is the reason for doing it. If it is justthat something has gone wrong in relation to aparticular school, it can work. But if the youngsterhas a deeper, underlying problem, simply shifting itelsewhere and having a trail of disruption around localschools doesn’t do that youngster any good, and itcertainly doesn’t do the youngsters and the staff at thereceiving school much good either.Charlie Taylor: I think that internal exclusion canwork well when it is well managed, but when itbecomes a sort of school sin bin it can be disastrous.I observed a school where pupils said to each other,“What have you got for second lesson? I’ll see you inthe sin bin at quarter past, then, because that’s boringand we’ll have a bit of fun there.” But in wellmanaged, well organised schools it works very welland it is very successful. To briefly go back to thepoint about transition, I have a very big concern aboutwhat happens to exclusion rates between 11-year-oldsand 12-year-olds—in other words, between year 6 andyear 7—when they dump them between the two. Dochildren get twice as bad between the last year ofprimary and the first year of secondary? No, theydon’t. We have a problem around that. When we getto 12-year-olds, I think that the exclusion rates areabout four or five times higher. I say to my secondaryschool colleagues that I think, as a primary head, thatthere are times when secondary schools could learnfrom the way in which primary schools run things.For example, there’s a fantastic school in my localauthority called Rosedale College, which has a high-level teaching assistant who goes around all theseparate classes with an individual class group foryear 7 and year 8. That means that when the pupilscome into the room, the teaching assistant knows allthose pupils and can tell the teacher, “So and so ishaving a bit of a twitch today. If he starts acting up,I’ll take him out. Leave it to me.” That differs fromthe very difficult situation that secondary schoolteachers are put in where they have 30 children andbarely know who they are, and they have to deliverthe curriculum. If someone starts acting up, itimmediately becomes a problem and it snowballs. Alittle bit of primary seeping into secondary would notdo any harm, particularly in schools that have verychallenging behaviour.

Q144 Chair: The number of permanent and short-term exclusions has been decreasing. Mike, in yourevidence to the Committee, you sat on the fence andsaid that “hopefully” this is because things are gettingbetter rather than because of pressure from theGovernment and so on. What is the truth here? It isgoing down. Is that a good thing or does it, in fact,mean that head teachers are just intimidated into notdoing it? We have had evidence from teaching unionsthat heads do not get to understand and feel the truepicture that is going on down below and are just ratherkeen to keep the numbers down and keep their noses

clean with the local authority. It is hard to tell fromyour evidence what you think is really happening.Mike Griffiths: That’s not a situation that I wouldrecognise at all. In my experience, head teachers knowonly too well exactly what’s happening in theirschools.

Q145 Chair: So Patrick Roach—I think it was—ofthe NASUWT was wrong to suggest that there was adisconnect between leadership and the front line?Mike Griffiths: Yes.Russell Hobby: Just to add to that: the majority ofhead teachers are also teachers, so they’re on the frontline as well as leading the school. So I wouldreinforce that.Chair: We move on to exclusions and partnerships.

Q146 Pat Glass: I want to ask a few questionsaround early intervention and alternative provision,but before I do, Charlie, can you give me the name ofthat school again?Charlie Taylor: Rosedale College in Hillingdon.

Q147 Pat Glass: Thank you. Looking at earlyintervention in both senses, around nurtureprovision—it was good to hear you talk about that—and intervening before the problem escalates, howimportant is that in what we have heard in yourevidence about a reduction in behaviour problems inschools?Russell Hobby: It’s vital. We weight our system toomuch towards the end of the education process, whenit’s too late to alter the things that have beenembedded beforehand. From universities on downthrough the system, we need to be paying as muchattention to nursery and pre-school activity. AsCharlie said, there are some quite strong predictors.There are various studies in the US as well, whichconnect lifetime income and happiness to the qualityof pre-school provision. It raises some interestingquestions about the pupil premium as well, whichstarts at five, as I understand it, rather than earlier. Itmight be that we could help disadvantaged childrenmore by focusing resources even earlier in theirschool career.

Q148 Pat Glass: In my experience, nurture provisionis very patchy across the piece; in some authoritiesmost schools have nurture provision and in others theyhave very little. What is the experience among yourhead teachers? If we think that this is important,should Government be sending out very strong signalsaround nurture provision?Russell Hobby: They could send out strong signalsabout what works and then leave it to schools in thearea to react to that evidence. I think that they havean interest in doing that. Particularly when youconnect Sure Start and children’s centres with theschools themselves and you manage that journey fromthree onwards throughout the school career, that isquite effective.Mike Griffiths: Early referral is important in changingbehaviours rather than simply punishing the badbehaviour at the end when it is much too late. I wouldsupport what Charlie said in terms of a school like




mine, where there are learning support assistants andbehavioural support assistants who know the classesand the youngsters, and do follow them or particulargroups, so they get to know them and can provide thecontinuity that perhaps a subject teacher wouldn’t beaware of, which helps. Even though we’re classed as“outstanding” with behaviour described in the pastthree Ofsted reports as “excellent,” at my schoolwe’ve appointed a behaviour support manager. Theidea of that is to identify as early as possible—in ourcase in years 7 and 8—for which youngstersbehaviour is an issue or may develop into one, so thatwe can target support, teacher training and ways ofdealing with those youngsters at as early a date aspossible, rather than doing the old finger-in-the-dikething for two or three years before they become fullygrown adolescents and become a major problem. Wewant to tackle the issue at an earlier stage. More andmore schools are trying to do that. Secondary schoolsare trying to tackle the issue when it first arises, ratherthan when it becomes a problem.

Q149 Pat Glass: There was an authority that Iworked with in a large city that had agreed with itssecondary head teachers that every time there was apermanent exclusion, they would have a formalserious case review where other heads would come inand look at, not the incident itself, but what led up toit, and would come out with written recommendationsfor governors, saying, “This is the thing that you needto put in place to prevent this ever happening again.”Do you think that it would be helpful if we looked atit from a structural point of view rather than the childand the incident?Gillian Allcroft: As governors, we have to put inplace what we can to ensure that heads and teacherscan do their job properly, and look at intervention andlook at staffing complements and decide whether thisis somewhere where the budget might need to go.Clearly, we are all facing budget constraints, so therewill be issues. The other thing that has obviouslyworked in authorities is parent support advisers, andhaving those people in place to help is great. It hasbeen shown that that can help work with behaviour.

Q150 Pat Glass: Moving on to alternative provision,we had Alan Steer here last week, and he said thatPRU provision in this country was little short of anational disgrace. My experience is that it is eithervery good or very poor. Given that we are facingeconomic restraint, do you think that there is a placefor local authorities to share their expertise and poolresources around this? Do you want to start, Charlie?Charlie Taylor: Yes, I do. I think Alan Steer is rightabout the wide swings in the quality of alternativeprovision for pupils. Some of it’s excellent; some ofit isn’t. At my school, there is a lot of intervention;we work with the parents a lot. It is much easier tochange the behaviour of a three-year-old than it iswhen your child gets to 15. Parents are a lot more upfor changing the behaviour of a three-year-old thanthey are for a 15-year-old. By the time they get to 15,the die is cast and people are putting their hands upand saying, “Let’s hope they get to 18, so we canmove them on.” So I think that there is a huge case

for that. We need to put as much resources as we caninto looking after those pupils who are gettingchucked out of school. There is a real danger that youget into what is called the child deficit model, whichis where all the problems get focused in on thechildren, and you end up with situations whereschools are thinking that if they could just get rid ofthis one child, then everything would be okay untilthe next one comes along. We should focus in on thosechildren and improve the quality of teaching inPRUs—we have talked about reading—so that wehave really focused teaching of reading in PRUs andreally focused work on their social and emotionalissues. In the PRU that I run, a lot of time is spent onsocial issues. The children sit around the table everyday for 20 minutes and have tea and toast together.On one level it seems trivial, but what they get out ofsitting opposite each other—it is all very twee, with abutter knife and a teapot and that kind of thing—andactually beginning to unravel and being able todiscuss the issues that are going on makes a hugeamount of difference to their behaviour. Most of thechildren now spend only two terms in my school andthen move back into mainstream primary schools.During that process, because they still spend a day aweek in their mainstream school—we are emphaticabout that: they don’t lose touch with that school andthey have to continue to wear that school’s uniformand everything else—it means that we can get theteachers from that school in to the Willows, and wecan train them and support them to reintegrate thatchild back. So when the next one comes along, insteadof simply pushing them out, they will actually havemore resources and a bigger skill set to help them,support them and change them.

Q151 Pat Glass: Russell, coming back to you, giventhat the panel have seen excellent provision—Charlie’s is one that we haven’t seen, but that werecognise—and given that there is almost a shortageof money and really good staff around this area, is thisan area in which local authorities should be looking topool their resources and their specialities, becausestaff are crucial?Russell Hobby: Staff are crucial, and so is the qualityof training. The difficulty would be, as Charlie hasoutlined, the relationship with local schools. PRUs areconnected to a group of schools, which can make itharder to pool resources at a large level, but that mightbe possible at a smaller, community level, andcertainly with resource constraints that is an issue tolook into. As well as the quality of what is delivered,we need to look at what they are for and why childrenare referred to these units. That is probably a biggerdriver of what is going on. If they are used as a long-term place to put children that we find too difficult towork with, that is exactly the wrong reason to be usingthem. They are short-term interventions to helpsomeone turn around and go back into mainstreameducation. If we are sending children with specialeducational needs there, as opposed to specialistalternative provision, then this is just a big misuse ofthe PRU set-up. I wonder how some of the issuesaround quality and impact might be related to using




them for the wrong things as opposed to what is beingdone in them.

Q152 Pat Glass: May I move on very quickly toCAMHS? As a Committee we heard clearly from anumber of experts that CAMHS is very patchy acrossthe country and very limited. There is just not enoughof it and there are not enough of the really good ones.Because tier 1 services consequently largely fall uponschool staff, and given that we are identifyingsignificantly more children with SEN than ourEuropean neighbours are, are our staff in schoolstrained enough to be able to identify the differencebetween those children who have conduct disorders,those who have SEN and those who are simply under-achieving as a result of many other factors?Russell Hobby: I think the role of special educationalneeds, both delivery of the appropriate teaching andidentification of those needs, should be looked at ininitial teacher training. While classroom managementis probably an argument for putting more teachertraining into schools, because it is a practicaldiscipline, there is a theoretical basis to some of thiswork as well and it supports some of the highereducation influence in initial teacher training as well.But this takes place also within a wider circumstancethat as a society we are more inclined to ascribecategories to behaviour rather than to treat people asindividuals. There is a kind of medicalisation of howwe talk about children. That is driven by parentswanting to ensure that their children’s needs arerecognised and that they get the resources and support,and schools are doing exactly the same thing as well.So there is a bigger picture about how we describeneeds within schools and whether we need to go asfar as categorising people with medical issues, if thatmakes sense.

Q153 Pat Glass: Initial teacher training gets blamedfor everything. It is three or six months for a PGCE.It is a very short course and there is a lot to learn.Teachers are in school a long time. How important dohead teachers feel it is that there should be continuoustraining around SEN?Russell Hobby: Yes. Every teacher needs to know. Itis not just a specialist role.

Q154 Pat Glass: But head teachers are not spendingtheir money there, are they? And they need to, don’tthey?Russell Hobby: But there are any number of thingsthat we could be spending money on training peoplein. That is the difficult side of it. There is the role ofthe co-ordinator and their position on the leadershipteam within the school as well. So there is a balance.In different schools it will vary because for someschools there won’t be a high incidence of pupils withspecial educational needs and that won’t be the rightway to spend their training budget.

Q155 Chair: May I ask you specifically aboutCAMHS? Alan Steer referred to new cases where achild had to wait 18 months before being seen andnine months is routine. Do you have examples where

there is a really good CAMHS and where it makesa difference?Mike Griffiths: I think the time lag is the problem alot of the time with CAMHS. There are often somevery good people but it tends to be a problem of timefor getting a referral, which is one of the reasons why,as I say, we have appointed somebody, almost ourown person, who has expertise in that area. There isalso that notion of special needs: although all teachersneed to be aware of issues about how to work withyoungsters with needs in their subject areas, I don’tthink that every teacher needs to be trained in orderto recognise the thing in the first place. They need tobe aware that a youngster has the condition and betold the best way to deal with that. You refer totraining, but we do that on whole-school training days.There is always at least one of those days at my schoolwhere there is an emphasis on special needs.

Q156 Pat Glass: So is the average teacher in theclassroom well trained enough? Given that, forinstance, on average, we are told, there are twoautistic children being taught in every class who canexhibit all kinds of difficult behaviours, is everyaverage teacher well trained enough to deal with that?Mike Griffiths: “Every average teacher”? All teacherscould be trained more in everything. Clearly, it is anarea, but it’s the art of the possible. We do what wecan and we do what we do. I suspect that most schoolshave a clear focus on youngsters’ special needs, butof course there are special needs. I would not want itto be equated. This hearing is on behaviour anddiscipline and obviously the two are not—Pat Glass: But the two things are almostintrinsically linked.Mike Griffiths: That’s right. I wouldn’t like there tobe a belief that there was an intrinsic link between thetwo. The two clearly are very different issues.

Q157 Pat Glass: In a sense, what I am trying toexplore is this: many of the behaviours that we see inschool will be linked with SEN. Are teachers wellenough trained and aware to be able to identify thedifference? I suspect that Charlie has lots of childrenwho have come through his system who have comethrough as conduct disordered and who actually havea diagnosis.Charlie Taylor: Very often what we find is that theyhave an undiagnosed condition. For example, we hada pupil the other day who was very naughty, but itturned out that she was in the first percentile forspeaking and listening. Even though socially sheappeared to be quite good at communicating, if youlistened to what she said it was very poor and she hadslipped through the net. As soon as we were able torecognise that and support the school to recognisethat, her behaviour improved considerably.

Q158 Chair: On CAMHS, the mental health servicesfor young people—children not with SEN but with aparticular mental health need—the evidence we haveseems to be that that does not get met across theboard. Is that as scandalous as it looks? If that wasn’tso—in other words, if this Committee or theseparliamentarians were to push the new Government to




do what the previous Government obviously did notdo, would it make a huge difference to children withmental health problems if they got early intervention?Mike Griffiths: I think it would, because we havebeen talking for the last 15 minutes about theimportance of early intervention, and you are notgoing to get early intervention if you are having towait for 18 months to even get the assessment. It isan important issue.Charlie Taylor: In my school, we had a clinicalpsychologist who was working there two days a week,paid for by a project from CAMHS. She ran a parentsgroup which was incredibly successful in terms ofmoving stuck parents, really moving their behaviouron. Unfortunately, the funding for that ran out andnow all our mental health support is paid for either byus or by charities who we get to help fund it. But interms of what we get from CAMHS it’s now becomevery limited.

Q159 Chair: Would you rather see the money comedirect to the school so that you can commission andwork under your own control, or would you ratherrely on the NHS with an additional central prod intoit and hope that it can deliver?Charlie Taylor: We are supposed to be able tocommission through CAMHS, but I thought educationrecruitment was complicated until you get into healthrecruitment and everything that goes with it. Thebureaucracy and everything else around it is such acomplete nightmare that in the end you think it isbetter if we use the money on what we want. Youhave to pay them a huge—I don’t know how to putit—pimping fee, I suppose, to get any services intoyour schools. You end up paying a tip to the NHS forbringing a worker into your school, so in the end wethought we would go direct to the workers and recruitour own people.Mike Griffiths: I would agree that the best way thatwe have found to get things to happen is to put themoney into the school and the school then buys fromwherever it can obtain the service.

Q160 Chair: Because there is this general tensionbetween a sense of central direction and prescriptionwhich should guarantee, in a way, the service deliveryand if you go to greater autonomy you might beundermining that.Charlie Taylor: If the money is not ring-fenced, thenit may get spent on something else—that is thedifficulty. If you ring-fence the money you canprovide the service, but then you get all these littlepockets of money that head teachers are trying tojuggle around with, so it is always difficult.Mike Griffiths: I think it is a mistake that politiciansmake to think that prescription guarantees thatsomething will happen. I don’t think it does.

Q161 Pat Glass: May I ask one more question? Myfeeling and experience around this is that there is toolittle provision, it is too variable and it is in the wrongplace. There is a structural issue—CAMHS sitting inclinics and not in schools and not in homes.Charlie Taylor: They need to be in schools, becauseschools have a really good record of getting parents

into schools and working with parents and supportingthem. It is very difficult for some of the parents in myschool to go to a clinical setting and turn up on timefor appointment after appointment. The danger is thatyou get to a situation where they miss twoappointments and are kind of rubbed off and it is saidthat they weren’t ready for therapy, rather than beingchased up and told, “Look, we can help you here, butyou’re going to have to meet us halfway.” There’s ahuge amount to be done on going around to housesand getting parents into schools.Mike Griffiths: My school has four times the nationalaverage of pupils with autism—we have over 40youngsters on the autistic spectrum with statementsfor autism. I would like to support the notion thatparents are absolutely key in behavioural things insecondary school as well as primary school. Wealways look at it as a triangle of parent, child andschool—you need all three corners to be workingeffectively and we try to work very closely withparents on the behaviour of youngsters. Charlie isright—it is absolutely key at primary, but also atsecondary, that you get parents on board. Most parentsstart to despair of their adolescent child at somepoint—I know I did—but it is important to get themessage through to some parents, “Your 15-year-oldadolescent is a pain, but we teachers have seen thatmany times and, trust us, they grow up to be okay.”

Q162 Chair: Will the fact that there will no longerbe a requirement to be a member of a behaviour andattendance partnership have any impact?Russell Hobby: Even if you require people toparticipate in partnerships, they can be there in spiritbut not in body and vice versa, so required partnershipworking tends to produce no better effects thanvoluntary ground partnership working.Mike Griffiths: I agree 100%.Gillian Allcroft: I agree.Charlie Taylor: I agree, too.Chair: Excellent.

Q163 Ian Mearns: We have strayed into parents,which is the area that I wanted to come in on. As aschool governor and an elected member of the councildealing with education for a number of years, I haveoften come across parents who are difficult tocategorise. I very rarely come across a parent wholiterally doesn’t care about their child. They quiteoften lack understanding about how to modify ormoderate a child’s behaviour, but I very rarely comeacross parents who don’t care. Having said that, evenwhen parents might care, they are quite often still theheads of unstructured and chaotic households. Forsome youngsters, sadly, the most negative influenceon their lives will be their own parents. That is a sadfact of life. Having said that, when we come acrossyoungsters from chaotic homes, it is very difficult tointervene. We have received written evidence from aneducational psychologist, Dr Sue Roffey, who saysthat “parents often feel blamed, helpless andmarginalised in their interactions with schools overissues of school behaviour”, and that “parents areoften at a loss themselves to manage behaviour well”.However, where things are going badly awry, the




evidence that we have received states: “By August2008, no parenting order for behaviour had yet beenissued, and Committee staff are not aware that theposition has changed since.” So these powers areavailable to local authorities working in partnershipwith schools, but they don’t seem to be being usedwhen parents are presented with youngsters whosebehaviour at school is chaotic. How can we betterdevelop understanding between schools and parentson issues of behaviour? Should different approachesbe employed in the different sectors between primaryand secondary, or even special schools?Gillian Allcroft: There clearly is a difference betweenprimary and secondary. As a primary school, you arefar more likely to see your parents at the school gateand you are far more likely to know them asindividuals on a regular basis. It is therefore easy tobuild up a relationship and have those quiet wordsand conversations that are more difficult to have atsecondary. I think that all schools, in terms ofbehaviour, accept that you can’t deal with poorbehaviour unless you involve the parents. They havea variety of strategies to deal with them, but whatworks in one school with one set of parents will notnecessarily work in another school. You have to lookat the individual context of the school. Going back towhat I said in that earlier question, where people havehad parental support advisers, they have proved a veryvaluable role, particularly for those parents who havehad a negative school experience and who don’t wantto come in and talk to the teachers, however much theteachers would like them to. Having that person, whois not actually a teacher, can be really useful.Mike Griffiths: I am not surprised that there aren’tthat many parenting orders, because in one sense it isan admission that everything has gone wrong. Myview is that if you end up with a parenting order, youhave lost anyway. As a school, you can only work co-operatively with the parents. If the youngster comesfrom a dysfunctional family, you need to findwhatever help, support and advice you can give,because it is a co-operative venture to get thatyoungster into secondary schools.

Q164 Chair: Do you think that home-schoolagreements are a good thing?Mike Griffiths: I don’t think they are worth the paperthey are written on, to be honest. I don’t think thatanybody has ever used them productively.Charlie Taylor: I think they can be usedconstructively as a starting point for putting downsome benchmarks. The way that they are used is thenbroadened, and it is a way of engaging parents anddiscussing what your expectations are, particularlywhen you first meet them when they first come to theschool. I do think that the more schools can do to meetthose more challenging parents and to make them feelthat the school is on their side, the better. Becauselet’s face it: these are often parents whose owneducation has been incredibly disrupted. They get ahorrible feeling as they walk through the door intoschool; they feel terrified. When they get to the headteacher’s door, it brings back that terrible feeling—Istill get it in my own school, and I’m the headteacher—where the years fall back. I used to knock

on my door for the first three months when I got there,because I’d forgotten that I was the head teacher.Parents still have all those feelings, so they walk inalready bristling and ready for a fight. The moreschools can do to bring parents in and make them feelmore engaged and more a part of the fabric of theschool, the better. Many schools do that brilliantly,and those schools that do don’t tend to have constantissues with parents—complaints and arguments. Theyare working together and understanding that theschool is on their side.Russell Hobby: I think home-school agreements canwork as well, but only if they are a living policy anddocument, not just a piece of paper that is like amission statement. There are more constructivealternatives. If, as a school, you are trying to apply aconsistent policy—which is, after all, what childrenreally need—the fact is that that consistency ends atthe school gates and they can then go out into a veryinconsistent world where their behaviour is treated indifferent ways. The home-school agreement is a wayof trying to spread that consistency further and tryingto invite and engage parents into having a consistentapproach to managing behaviour, too.Mike Griffiths: The most effective schools are theones that try and build on that relationship by havinga good relationship between the parents and somebodyat the school, whether that is the form tutor, a mentoror whoever. We try hard with some youngsters, whohave been a problem, to report back on a weekly basis.We try to report positive things, because sometimes,as has been mentioned, the parents themselves havehad negative experiences of school, and they only seeit as an almost punitive environment. Getting positivemessages back to the parents can be very useful interms of improving that youngster’s behaviour.

Q165 Damian Hinds: I want to talk about leadershipand managing behaviour overall. We have talkedalready about the role of heads. We are short on timeI know, but, Gillian, what is the role of governors inthis? Can governors really be sufficiently in touchwith classroom reality?Gillian Allcroft: Yes, I think they can, provided thatthey know their school. The best governing bodieswill absolutely know what is going on in their school.The chair will have a good relationship with the head.Governors will go into school on properly focusedvisits to find out what is going on. The role of thegovernors is to set a statement of behaviour principles,and it is then the head’s responsibility to set thebehaviour policy, which sets out rules, rewards andsanctions. Those principles are set in conjunction withthe head, because the head is usually a governoranyway. The governors set the ethos and theprinciples, and that should be done in a context of“Where is our school? What is our school like? Andwhat should be the right principles for our school?”

Q166 Damian Hinds: Can you give me an exampleof such a principle, which would not be a universalprinciple, but would be different school by school?Gillian Allcroft: It is possible that some schoolsoperate a no-exclusion policy, so it is possible that oneof the principles that governors could lay down is that




in their school they would like to adopt a no-exclusion policy.

Q167 Damian Hinds: That doesn’t sound like abehaviour principle; that sounds like a what-you-do-about-behaviour principle.Gillian Allcroft: It depends how you look at it,doesn’t it? It is saying, “We will promote goodbehaviour and one of the things that we will try andensure is that no child from our school is excluded.”That would definitely be something that most schoolswill not have. Clearly that would have to be done inconjunction with the head.

Q168 Damian Hinds: Can I press you on the pointabout behaviour principles? I understand the pointabout having principles, but you said that governorswould set them. What sorts of principles will they besetting that would not be universal, in terms ofbehaviour standards, to all schools?Gillian Allcroft: To be honest, if they would not beuniversal it is because the principles tend to be aroundrespect and not allowing bullying behaviour and thatsort of thing. You would expect that most of theprinciples, although they will not be exactly the same,would generally speaking work across most schools.

Q169 Damian Hinds: Thank you. What do you lookfor from your boards of governors in terms ofleadership in this area?Russell Hobby: In terms of variation of principles andhow that relates to governors, it is probably moreabout what you do or do not need to make explicitin a policy. You can take less for granted in someenvironments, so you may have increasing detail inthe behaviour policy or you may need to bereinforcing behaviour. I have been around some of thecharter schools in New York, for example, wherepupils have to look the teacher in the eye when theyare talking to them. In other schools you do not needto make those sorts of comments, so it is more aboutstepping in at that level. There probably is somevariation, for example, in the level of talkback thatyou would allow and recommend in different types ofschools depending on the culture and the philosophythat existed. There is that air of getting together anddeciding how we need to make it work, but nine tenthsof it will be in the implementation of the policy andthe way the governors support the head teacher in bothchallenging them to make sure they are consistent andbacking them up when they have made the rightchoices.

Q170 Damian Hinds: Do you think governors arewell placed to establish those? I understand what youare saying about the degree of specificity on differentrules. Are governors best placed to make thosejudgments?Russell Hobby: In a large number of cases they willaccept the advice of the head teacher, and they will bebacking up and reinforcing that. They are also part ofthe community that the school has served, and theyshould be in a position to express how that feels fromthe point of view of the parents and other members ofthe community and whether it is set in the right way.

Mike Griffiths: On your question about governance,one of the things I am looking for is intelligent targets.During my first headship, in Oxfordshire, the chair ofthe governors wanted to set me a target of reducingexclusions. Fortunately, I had a very wise vice-chairof governors who said, “Well, Chair, what we actuallywant is for the standard of behaviour in the school toimprove. It may be that in order to achieve that, Mikehas to increase the number of exclusions over a shortperiod.” I think that shows the importance of notbeing driven by a set of targets, which might lookas though they will do one thing. What was actuallyimportant in that school was that the standards ofbehaviour improved, not that exclusions went down,up, or stayed the same. In terms of leadership, wheregovernors and heads need to work together is oncreating the ethos in a school—what the school meansand what it stands by. Certainly in my school, one ofthe key things is that word “respect”. We say thatrespect should be given to all, by all, whether that isstudents to students, students to teachers or teachersto students and indeed to other staff. It is just asimportant that it goes both ways. The key thing withall these policies is that you have to live them. Youcan have whatever you like in a drawer, as a missionstatement and as a policy, but you have to be able towalk into a school and get an immediate feeling—youshould be able to tell straight away what the school islike. That is something I would like to see a lot moreof in terms of Ofsted, which we have not mentioned.Ofsted should be using professional judgment onsome of these things, rather than tick lists andchecklists and numbers and so on. I want people whoare well trained, can recognise things and have theprofessional judgment to say, “This is a good school.This is a school where behaviour is excellent,” ratherthan their having a whole series of things that they’vecounted up and which mean, therefore, that the schoolis excellent.

Q171 Damian Hinds: I want to skip to one lastquestion, which is about language. I am only 40, butI sometimes feel that it’s been 120 years since I wasat school. In these sessions, and we’ve already had anumber on behaviour and discipline, we hear a lotof talk about appropriate behaviour and inappropriatebehaviour, acceptable and unacceptable behaviour,disruptive behaviour, but not bad behaviour. I wonderwhat your views are on that. Is there too much policy,too much relativism and too much categorising ofdifferent behaviours, and not enough talk about whatis right and what is wrong?Russell Hobby: It sometimes helps, though, when youdon’t say that a child is bad or good, but that theirbehaviour is bad or good. That’s some of what we’retrying to do, because if you keep telling someone thatthey’re bad—

Q172 Damian Hinds: No, not even to describebehaviour. I think that I’m right in saying that in thesesessions we haven’t heard the words bad and good orright and wrong being used, even in relation tobehaviour. It has always been appropriate andinappropriate, or acceptable and unacceptable. I’m not




saying that you’ve said that, but that’s what’s beensaid in general.Russell Hobby: I think maybe that’s us trying toseparate behaviour from the individual, so that peoplefeel that the behaviour can change. There is also afair amount of political correctness in the way that wedescribe things, so fair enough.Mike Griffiths: I agree with the thrust of yourargument. Children need to know what is right andwhat is wrong. It is as simple as that. We try to ensurethat children do recognise that some behaviour issimply inappropriate—[Laughter]—or wrong in acivilised society. We’ve always had such arguments,whether it is the mods and rockers on Brighton beach,or the punk rockers, things have always beenhappening with adolescent youngsters. We stick withthe respect notion—if your behaviour is showingdisrespect to somebody, that is wrong. In fact, that isone of the things that the chair of governors at myschool says when she stands up at the prospectiveparents’ evening. “Children need to know thedifference between what’s right and what’s wrong.”

Q173 Nic Dakin: There’s a leaked report suggestingthat the Government are going to cut ITT in highereducation by 85% and transfer those responsibilitiesto schools. Earlier today you talked about how schoolsare the best place to train management of behaviourissues and other things, but are schools ready for thatresponsibility? Do they have the capacity, and do youthink that that’s a positive direction for them?Mike Griffiths: I believe so. I also worked earlier inmy career in initial teacher training at a highereducation establishment—Sheffield City Polytechnic,as it then was. I think that schools are the best places.The only problem is that a huge level ofbureaucracy—a level that most schools can onlydream of—affects initial teacher training. That issomething that needs to be addressed, but, if that canbe resolved, schools are very good places for initialteacher training. I am not saying that they should bethe only place, but I think that they do provide anexcellent route for many people to go into teaching.Charlie Taylor: We use the graduate teacherprogramme a lot, whereby we’ve got teachingassistants to transform into teachers further down theroad. I would say that, most of the time, schools cando that work. If they do need support, schools such asmine offer support in training on behaviour to otherschools in the authority.

Q174 Ian Mearns: If a school hasn’t got itsbehaviour programmes right, is it the right place toteach new teachers? Isn’t that a problem?

Charlie Taylor: The difficulty is that, if a schoolhasn’t got its programme right, it doesn’t matter howwell trained the teacher coming in is. If theoverarching behaviour isn’t being managed properly,one teacher at the bottom of the tree doesn’t have ahope.Mike Griffiths: I was also going to make a point aboutschool-centred initial teacher training. In my school,for instance, we have about 18 trainees a year, butthey don’t all work in my school. We organise theteaching, the training and this, that and the other, butsome of them work in our partner schools. Some ofthem will have their two teaching practices in otherschools and not have either of them in my school. It’smore about whether a school can effectively organisethe training, rather than the provision. Such trainingcan also help to address particular geographical needs,because, certainly where I am, there is no HEinstitution that offers degrees and PGCEs for futuresecondary school teachers. Our SCITT is useful tomore mature entrants to the profession, because theydon’t have to travel long distances for PGCEprovision at a university.Russell Hobby: Just to redress the balance towards theacademic end of things, there are some topics aroundbehaviour that are best addressed in an academic orhigher education environment, particularly when youare phasing into some of the more complex needs—health, mental health and special educational needs.Getting a whole view of child development and howchildren grow and learn may not be the right thing totake place within a school environment. Nor, to goback to another point, would every school welcomethe requirement to train teachers. What we areprobably talking about is a balance of a school-ledprovision with suitable academic input.

Q175 Craig Whittaker: But haven’t we alreadyestablished that the training around things likeCAMHS, for example, is minimal anyway?Russell Hobby: Yes. I’m not necessarily saying it’shappening right at the moment, but it strikes me thatthere are some topics that you don’t learn on the job.You learn them off the job, and they include someof these mental health issues. Whether they could beimproved and done differently is another matter.Chair: Whether we could inject the academic into theschool environment rather than regarding them asentirely separate, perhaps. Thank you all very muchfor your evidence. It was very helpful, and thank youfor coming in.



27 October 2010 Virginia Beardshaw, John Dickinson-Lilley, Paula Lavis and Jane Vaughan


Witnesses: Virginia Beardshaw, Chief Executive, I CAN, John Dickinson-Lilley, Vice-Chair, SpecialEducational Consortium, Paula Lavis, Policy and Knowledge Manager, YoungMinds, and Jane Vaughan,Director of Education, National Autistic Society, gave evidence.

Q176 Chair: Excellent. I am so glad that I didn’thave to send the Serjeant at Arms to go and fetch you,forcibly compelling you to appear. [Laughter.] Thankyou all very much for joining this session of theEducation Committee and our inquiry into behaviourand discipline. You bring specialist expertise. Will youstart off by giving us an opening view about yourthoughts on this misbehaviour and discipline inquiry,as briefly as you can? I will start with you, John, ifI may.John Dickinson-Lilley: Good morning. My name isJohn Dickinson-Lilley and I am vice-chair of theSpecial Educational Consortium. First, I just want totake this opportunity to thank you for inviting me togive evidence today. I really appreciate theopportunity to do that. The SEC is made up of 22voluntary sector and professional organisations. Weprovide a discussion and debate about specialeducational needs and disability issues. We define ourpolicies by identifying areas of consensus, and I willbe talking about those areas of consensus today. Thereare three particular issues that I would like to pick upon: the first is the link between behaviour and theability of disabled children and children with SEN toaccess their learning; the second is the importance ofmaking reasonable adjustments to behaviour policies,and the third is exclusions. In terms of the first issue,I think that the Steer review built on a lot of previousevidence about behaviour in schools. SEC supportsthe conclusion of his report that for all childrenbehaviour in school is intrinsically linked with goodteaching and the ability of a child to access theirlearning. It is common sense that a child who isengaged with their education and making goodprogress is less likely to be disruptive or challengingin class. That means that where a child is disruptive,schools should not look at behaviour in isolation andtake the disciplinary route, but should look to identifythe underlying causes of that behaviour. Furthermore,where a child has a disability or SEN, it meanslooking at the support that they are receiving anddetermining whether that support is the right type ofsupport. We know that there is a lot of confusion insome quarters about the crossover between childrenwith SEN and disability. We think that schoolsperhaps need to appreciate slightly more thedifference between SEN as a legal concept anddisability as a legal concept. The confusion means thatschools are not always clear about when they shouldprovide a reasonable adjustment and when they shouldmake provision for a SEN. The legal protectionsafforded disabled children, specifically in schools, areabout reasonable adjustments and actually thosereasonable adjustments are sometimes critical toensuring that disabled children can engage in alearning environment. In terms of exclusions, weknow that children who have been permanentlyexcluded are less likely to achieve five good GCSEresults, they are less likely to be employed in later

life, and they are more likely to enter custody. Thereis a broad consensus that exclusion from schoolresults in dramatically poorer outcomes for childrenand has a significant long-term cost for society. Weknow that disabled children and children with SENcontinue to be eight times more likely to bepermanently excluded from school than the rest of theschool population. In fact, 24 children in every 10,000excluded have SEN compared with two in every10,000 excluded without SEN. We have argued formany years that when a disabled child or a child withSEN is at risk of exclusion, a review of that child’sSEN should be undertaken before they are referredoff-site. The review should look at whether reasonableadjustments are required for the disabled child or achild with SEN that, if they are made, could avoid theneed to remove the pupil from the school in the firstinstance. We know that exclusion is only likely tocompound the considerable barriers that disabledchildren and children with SEN face in achieving theirfull potential.

Q177 Chair: Thank you very much, John. Virginia,what are your opening remarks? Could you be as briefas you can, please, because we have limited time?Virginia Beardshaw: I am Virginia Beardhaw, chiefexecutive of I CAN, the children’s communicationcharity. Our mission is to support all children’s speechand language development, and our special focus ison children who find speech and language difficult. ICAN is a member of the Special EducationalConsortium, of which John is the vice-chair. I thankthe Committee for inviting me to give evidence today.I will start by giving some killer facts. There is a clearand proven link in research between a child’s speech,language and communication needs and theirbehaviour. Children with speech, language andcommunication needs, SLCN, are at a higher risk ofdeveloping poor behaviour and therefore are muchmore likely than average to be excluded from school.Two thirds of seven to 14-year-olds with behaviouralproblems actually have SLCN, so it is a very highincidence. Undetected speech and languagedifficulties will often manifest themselves as poorbehaviour, both at school and within the home. It isjust common sense: members of the Committee willunderstand that if you are not understandingsomething very well, and if you cannot expressyourself very well, school may be a frightening,humiliating and absolutely confusing place to be.Those of us who know this do not find it in any waysurprising that children and young people with SLCNact up or opt out. They are highly over-represented inboth the excluded and truanting populations, but fromtheir point of view it is entirely logical.

Q178 Chair: That is a very powerful statement,Virginia. Paula?




Paula Lavis: My name is Paula Lavis and I am fromthe children’s mental health charity YoungMinds. Ourparticular interest is in the links between behaviourand mental health problems. As you probably know,one in 10 children have a mental health problem, andmany children with a mental health problem areexcluded from school for bad behaviour. I was reallyinterested in your conversations in the previoussession about CAMHS and early intervention.

Q179 Chair: Jane?Jane Vaughan: I am the director of education for theNational Autistic Society. I have three key areas thatI feel run on quite well from the previous discussion.First, the behaviour of children with autism is linkedto teaching and learning, and to appropriate supportfor teachers and learning. Anxiety and stress have agreat deal of impact on how you see a child withautism behaving in the classroom. We are talkingthroughout this session about behaviour, and I thinkthat sometimes we need to think about the individualchild and, rather than how we manage the behaviour,what we have to do to return the child to learning.What should we put in to return the child to learning,not necessarily just manage the behaviour? Whatshould we be doing to return to learning? Secondly,training: Pat’s discussion about training in secondaryschools was very interesting. I liked that bit. I feelvery, very strongly that it is not just the teachers andspecial educational needs co-ordinators that needtraining; we have to get to the head teachers and thegovernors, because they influence the whole school.That is very important to us. It’s not just the teachingassistants, supervisors and teachers. Let’s get thosehead teachers and governors involved. We need toimprove our assessment to identify additional needsand special educational need, especially beforeexclusion. If you are going to exclude a child, youshould look at whether there is a special educationalneed. Is there autism there? Could we do somethingdifferently? Could we put something in now, beforethe exclusion? Also, we talked about alternativeprovision: there again, assess the child beforealternative provision. Let’s have a look at what theirneed is. Is there something that we have not pickedup, especially around autism? We use lots ofassessment for learning in the classroom. It is a superbtool for teachers. They don’t need a different tool forchildren with autism, but they need to know about andappreciate autism so that they can use exactly thesame tool in perhaps a slightly different way. So theareas are training, assessment and returning tolearning through appropriate support.Chair: Thank you very much.

Q180 Nic Dakin: I shall pick up on the trainingtheme. Thank you for coming today. You mentionedin those opening remarks several areas—for example,speech and language, mental health, autism and otherissues. Do you think that the training that is currentlyin schools for the staff—head teachers, support staff,teaching staff—is adequate to allow identification ofthose different needs, and to know the appropriateinterventions to get the best out of pupils? If it is not

adequate—I saw heads shaking—what needs to bedone to make it adequate?Virginia Beardshaw: We have advocated for a longwhile, as have others, tools to help staff to identifyand assess SLCN in both special and mainstreamsettings in order to help to identify areas fordevelopment. We would also like to see a step changein the initial teacher training and continuousprofessional development processes for teaching staffto help them to link poor behaviour and speech andlanguage difficulties—and other special educationalneeds for that matter—to address the cause rather thanthe effect. More specifically still, we are advocatingthe introduction of a screening tool for children at twoand a half, linked to the healthy child programme, andthen subsequently at five, prior to the proposedreading test, to pick up children’s communicationdifficulties early and to introduce a personal plan forthe child. That would have general benefits acrossspecial educational needs, because communicationdifficulties are a part of so many different specialeducational needs and disabilities—autism is a notableone, and 60% of children with cerebral palsy and avery high proportion of all deaf and hard of hearingchildren, for example, are affected.John Dickinson-Lilley: The Institute of Educationand its teacher development agency have developednew modules which specifically look at SEN anddisability. New teachers and initial teacher trainingshould be getting more input around those specificareas. There is also the inclusion developmentprogramme which is basically bringing teachers up tothe same level through CPD. Overall we are probablystarting to move in the right direction at a very, verysimplistic level, but we are not even going to start tosee the impact yet. I would like to pick up on one ofthe points that Nic made, which is about support staff.One of the problems we can see is that TAs are beingused at the moment just specifically to managebehaviour, rather than to support attainment. It is clearthat the more support assistant time a child has, thefurther back they are in attainment. A good exampleof that would be in a classroom environment and, say,filling in a classroom survey. Quite often a TA woulddo that for a child, so the child is not being integratedinto the learning that’s going on with the rest of theclass. Making sure that TAs have the right kind ofsupport to support a teacher and the child in gettingchildren to learning points is significant.

Q181 Pat Glass: We know that the NationalAssociation of Head Teachers and many others, evenI in my time, have said that far too many childrenwith special needs are attending pupil referral unitssimply because there isn’t the appropriate provision inlocal authorities. As a Committee we went last weekto visit New Woodlands School in Lewisham wherethey have powers—what is it?Chair: Innovation powers.Pat Glass: They have powers to innovate to allow theschool to run the pupil referral unit and for childrenwithout statements to attend. It was clearly anoutstanding school, which was meeting the needs ofall the children there. Do you think that there needsto be separate provision for children with SEN? Is it




about the culture and ethos within the provision ordoes there need to be separate provision? If there is aneed for separating provision for children withchallenging behaviour with SEN from children whohave disaffected, delinquent, conduct-disorderedbehaviour, within the SEN bits do we need to haveseparate provision for autism, language and all theseparate areas around the disabilities?Virginia Beardshaw: At I CAN, because speech,language and communication needs are of very highprevalence—SLCN is the largest category of reasonsfor statementing in primary school and applies tomore than a quarter of all statemented children—weadvocate the classic, public-health-based, wavesmodel. The critical thing—John mentioned this too—is that mainstream settings need to have very goodteaching and learning for all children. Quality firstteaching and learning, when it works, is a good wayof addressing the needs of many, many children withspeech, language and communication needs. Forothers with greater needs, a targeted approach will berequired. What is really needed is for the whole schoolwork force to have the skills to be able to bring specialresources to bear to support the child well and makereasonable adjustments. Then there is a group ofchildren who might need specialist help. That canoften be done in mainstream settings, but sometimesit is best for the individual child if that is done outside.For example, I CAN run specialist special schools forchildren with severe and complex speech, languageand communication needs, many of whom have failedin mainstream schools. Sadly, poor behaviour will bea significant component of that failure. I do notbelieve that there is a right or wrong approach, but itneeds to be based on the needs of the child.

Q182 Chair: When you have provision for childrenwho have been excluded from school, which has to beprovided structurally, should that be providedcollectively so that the children with seriousbehavioural issues that are not related to SEN—badbehaviour—are put together with children with SEN?Is that the right way, or should we be trying to haveseparate channels of provision?Virginia Beardshaw: No; I think wherever possiblethe needs should be met in the mainstream school.Moving children out should be the exception.

Q183 Pat Glass: Do you think it would be helpful ifthe Committee made a recommendation that no childwith a statement of SEN should attend a PRU?Jane Vaughan: No; I do not think that that would behelpful at all. I think that for some children withautism, going into a PRU can be very challenging,very stressful and, for some of them, the worst thingthat possibly could happen. They will find that theirneeds are not being met at all, and that goes backto the point we made earlier: before deciding on theprovision that the child will be placed in, you have toensure that you know what that child’s need is. AsVirginia said, we all accept that children with SEN areindividual. Children with autism are individual, as itaffects everyone in a different way. There is a corediagnostic issue for autism, the triad of impairmentsand difficulties, but every child is different. Autism

affects children differently, as do speech and languagedifficulties. With person-centred planning, we shouldbe able to support those youngsters in mainstreamschools, if that is suitable for them. There needs to bea range of provision. Some children can be supportedwell in mainstream schools. If we can get themassessed well and meet their needs, if there is goodteaching and learning, and if the support services arethere, are accessible and are coming into schools tosupport teachers, then we can do it. However, thereare some children who do need specialist provision. Itis the same as going into PRUs; for some childrenwith autism, that is not the right place for them, inwhich case specialist provision is preferable and willgive them the best opportunities in life. Going to aPRU could well destroy their future. However, thereare some PRUs that are good at assessing need, and Iknow some very good PRUs where children withautism are assessed as soon as they come in and putin the right structures, and you see them fly.

Q184 Pat Glass: Given that unfortunately, whicheverway we look at it, there are an awful lot of childrenwho have very serious speech and languagedifficulties, whether or not they have a statement orhave been diagnosed, and are perhaps on thesemantic-pragmatic spectrum of autism, what onething could we do to improve alternative provision,such as short-stay schools or PRUs? Do you want toanswer that, John? If you had a wish list, what is theone thing you would do? I know what I would do.John Dickinson-Lilley: To be honest, this is whereSEC is quite an interesting organisation; becausewe’re a consensus organisation, I could give you 22different answers to that question. I am inclined towrite to you after speaking to our members, becausethey would all want the opportunity to put their littleNo. 1 in, if that’s possible.

Q185 Pat Glass: Paula?Paula Lavis: I would say that, obviously, looking atit from the mental health perspective, what I hear fromcolleagues who work in PRUs is that better links withCAMHS for particular young people are important. Igather, and this is similar to conversations that we hadearlier, that there is a lot of stigma around mentalhealth problems. I gather from children and parents inPRUs that a lot of people would like CAMHS to comeinto PRUs to work with them, rather then expectingchildren to go to the service, but I guess there wouldbe some who wouldn’t want that, so it’s about beingmore flexible in how you work with others or howthey work with other services.

Q186 Pat Glass: So better, more flexible CAMHS?Paula Lavis: Yes.Jane Vaughan: For me, it would be about trainingand autism awareness, and exactly as you’ve beensaying. Looking at training, there should be a tieredapproach, so you should have a certain level oftraining if you are a TA, a certain level if you are ateacher, and there should be a level of training if youare a head teacher or governor—you can tell it’s mything. If you are working in a PRU, there should be alevel of training in awareness of autism and other




special educational needs so that you can put in theindividual package to get that child accessinglearning, whether that is outreach in their homes tosupport them or whether it is coming into the PRU.Virginia Beardshaw: I don’t know whether this is theone right answer, but for me, given the highprevalence of speech, language and communicationneeds, I would say that all children should be screenedfor SLCN, ideally before they’re excluded; then thoseneeds can be met in the PRU. It is such a pan-SENand pan-disability issue.Paula Lavis: May I just add something about trainingin mental health? In school or a PRU, if teachers orschool staff have some ability to identify mentalhealth problems and possibly improve the referrals—so they only refer people to CAMHS who need to bereferred—you might not get the bottleneck that youget at the moment in CAMHS.

Q187 Nic Dakin: One of the things that’s comethrough in what we’ve heard in other witness sessionsis reading, which, I suppose, is one of therepresentations of language at its core. As youngpeople who can’t read are more likely to havebehavioural issues, notwithstanding the othersituations that they might be in, do you think that it isa key issue? We heard from Charlie earlier about aclear strategy for addressing that in his area. Is itimportant or is it a distraction?John Dickinson-Lilley: In my day job, working forRNIB, we know that only 100 titles are available in anaccessible format to visually impaired kids in schools.With only 100 textbooks on the curriculum availableto visually impaired children, it goes without sayingthat those children will not perform as well. In a sense,it is connected to reading, but more widely itilluminates the need for training of staff who canidentify needs. The same theory might apply, forexample, to a child with a hearing impairment, wherehow they are taught, in terms of acoustics, is moreimportant. Therefore, it is also about linking into thecomments I made earlier about reasonableadjustments, lesson planning and the tools you use asa teacher, but using different tools in different waysto ensure that everyone is achieving the rightlearning points.Virginia Beardshaw: I think the reading is animportant one, but both literacy and numeracy rest ona language base. The single most accurate predictorof a child’s attainment at age five is their vocabularyand their ability to use language. Therefore, there isan inextricable sequence of language skills knockinginto and forming literacy and numeracy skills, and,therefore, having a huge impact on attainment and achild’s ability to thrive in school.Jane Vaughan: With autism, we sometimes have adifferent angle to cope with, in that a lot of childrenwith autism are very good readers and will read quitefluently. Where the teacher then has to be skilled is todig deeper and be able to assess the comprehension,because they often have over-expectations. Thatyoung person may have learnt and be reading by roteand their comprehensive language may be very lowindeed. So, there is a different issue there again, butteachers need to be trained to understand that for a

child with autism, that issue might be something thatpresents.Paula Lavis: I guess, from a child development andmental health perspective, these building blocks ofeducation are important to get into place early on soyou have a better sense of self-esteem, and so youdon’t start off your education or early life thinkingthat you’re an educational failure. You are buildingresilience so you are much better able to cope withdifficulties of life, which would hopefully reflect inyour behaviour.

Q188 Nic Dakin: Can you give an example of howinappropriate teaching and learning can impact on apupil with special educational needs?Jane Vaughan: I will give you one anecdote ofsomething that happened to me. I gave a child aworksheet and on it, you had to put a cat beside thetable and a lamp on the table. This was many yearsago. It said, “Draw a line under the table” and, whenI turned around, the little boy had actually gone underthe table. When I dug deeper, it was not badbehaviour—you could have seen that as him justmessing about. It was before I was veryknowledgeable about autism and I thought, “What isgoing on here?” and I realised he had read that totallyliterally. That could be interpreted as a behaviourissue, because he did a lot of things like that, butreally, it was literal understanding.

Q189 Chair: Does anyone else want to come in onthat? Quality of teaching for children with SEN, asfor other children, is the single most important thingin terms of shaping behaviour in the classroom.Jane Vaughan: Could you repeat that, Graham?Chair: We are very keen to explore the quality ofteaching because it is so important—that’s what AlanSteer said, and that’s what you have said to us. AsAlan Steer put it, “You’d always ask in these matters,‘What does it look like?’” That’s what we are tryingto find out. What does good teaching for children withSEN look like and what does bad teaching look like?What does it look like to disadvantage a child withSEN in the classroom, because if we can’t understandwhat it looks like, it’s hard.

Q190 Nic Dakin: I suppose the other thing is, arewe making improvements? You are working in thisarena—do you feel we are moving in the right orwrong direction?Jane Vaughan: I think in the last five or 10 years, wehave moved on hugely—I am especially talking aboutautism. You see huge improvements in primaryschools. Five years ago, some primary schools hadnever heard of autism but that rarely happens now.You go in and they have heard of it. I am not sayingthat they are all doing wonderful things, but it is veryrare now to go into a primary school where they arenot doing something or they are not aware of it.Secondary schools are another, completely differentissue.Paula Lavis: May I say something about projects suchthe targeted mental health in schools programme? Ithink that has made huge differences in some areas,possibly to those who were in the first pathfinder.




They have been going for nearly three years now.Those huge differences are not just in terms of theschool, but how the school sits within the system ofservices that supports children and young people—obviously, I’m thinking about children and youngpeople with mental health problems. YoungMinds hasbeen involved in some of the training for some ofthe TaMHS projects, to train teachers in basic thingsconnected to mental health, so they can be reflectiveon their practice and think how they can best helpyoung people.

Q191 Nic Dakin: So, you feel that awareness israised on those issues with staff in schools and thatthe interventions for those sort of students are betterthan they were 10 years ago, so the outcomes shouldbe better?Paula Lavis: For some schools. I’m sure that someschools are still struggling.John Dickinson-Lilley: I kind of build in the point Imade earlier. My specialism is in visual impairment.If you think about how you are taught in a classroom,there is a huge dependency on the written word andon being able to interact with a blackboard. Forexample, I can’t really see any of you particularlyclearly, so for me to read on a blackboard would betremendously difficult. This leads back to the pointabout training, and why we are all so keen on reallyhigh quality training of teachers and teachingassistants. If you aren’t able to physically think abouthow to make an on-the-hoof adjustment in theclassroom—something very simple that includeschildren—you start to build the potential for abehaviour problem right there. We need to see theimpact of improved teacher training, and then workout whether what teachers are being taught now interms of their initial teacher training and what existingstaff are already doing in terms of classroom practiceis the right approach, or whether they need moreupskilling.

Q192 Chair: What would it look like? We heardfrom Alan Steer that primary schools are rather betterat classroom management and planning wherechildren sit. Secondary schools tend to do that lesswell. Is it about where you position children, or arewe talking about teachers changing how they presentthe curriculum, or the curriculum itself, to better suitthe children? What does it look like? When we havedone the training, what will the teachers do that theywere not doing before?Jane Vaughan: I think again that it is looking at theindividual, and knowing what to look for and howtheir SEN may impact on their learning. I can give asimple example. A teacher in a mainstream secondaryschool was having a lot of difficulty in getting a youngchild with autism even to come into the classroom.We went to look at it, and after just a little diggingwe discovered that the child found it very hard tocome into the classroom past two particular boys whowere themselves quite challenging. There wasobviously a slight issue between him and them. Healso found it difficult because of his sensory needs tolook at the whole classroom and know where to sit.His anxiety levels went straight up as soon as he was

in her classroom. All we did was to try to work out,by talking to him, how we could get over that. We cuta circle out of black paper and whenever that classwas coming in, the teacher put that circle under a chairso that when the boy got to the door he could look forthe circle and make straight for the chair. That tookthat problem out completely. The issue is aboutmaking adjustments, and knowing your children andwhat to look for, especially when children with autismare in mainstream education. If you don’t knowautism, you don’t know that they may have sensoryneeds. You may not know that they are anxious aboutwalking into bright lights, or that they have difficultiesanticipating when lessons will end. There are so manythings that if you know about them, you realise thatsomething that you think is behavioural could just betheir autistic need.Virginia Beardshaw: I agree with that personalisedapproach that Jane is advocating. One very practicalsuggestion for the Committee to consider is buildingon the general continuous professional developmentin the inclusion development programme with whichI CAN was a collaborator. We wrote the speech,language and communication needs bit of it. I thinkthe inclusion development programme was a goodstart, but there needs to be renewal, and building onthat. It is only if you have that basic level ofunderstanding in the whole school population that youwill be able to build the personalised approaches thatJane has told us about so eloquently.Jane Vaughan: The inclusion developmentprogramme has one for autism as well. Last year,every school got that. When I go to meetings or dotraining, I say, “Hands up who’s seen the IDP in theirschool.” Perhaps 50% or 25% do so, and I am thrilled.Again, what is happening to that training? I know thatI am being repetitive, but I am making my point. Headteachers should be saying, “I want all my staff trainedin this.”

Q193 Pat Glass: May I ask something quickly? Ithink the IDP was absolutely superb, and I think it gotbetter as it moved on. At the beginning there wereissues, but as it moved on it was superb. It is aboutevery teacher. It is not targeted at specialist teachers;it is targeted at every teacher. What can we do thatwould help that to move on?Virginia Beardshaw: I think you should recommenda refresher, if I may be so bold. We learned as wewent along, so that learning should be applied to moveit up a level. I think we fell down a bit in thedissemination plan and programme for it, so Irecommend that the Committee looks at that.

Q194 Pat Glass: So what about saying that Ofstedwill look at it?Jane Vaughan: I was thrilled that Ofsted now has tolook at SEN, because local authorities do not reallyhave much power in schools. Again, it is back to thehead teacher and governors. It would have been greatto see some accountability, which is why I talk aboutthis tiered approach. Norfolk, for instance, hasdeveloped in its schools a tier of training so that ifyou are a TA you have so many modules, or if youare a head teacher so many modules. Everybody is




expected in their schools to have so much training inSEN. If we had linked the IDP with that, with somesort of sign-off that you had actually completedlooking at it on your PC, that would have had muchmore impact if there was some accountabilitysomewhere.

Q195 Craig Whittaker: As a trainer in my other job,before I came to this place, I know that you have tobe very careful that meeting training needs is not justa tick-box exercise, which quite often happens. I thinkthat we have established that training need withteachers is key. We have also learned over the last fewweeks that assessors probably over-assess, andbecause of the training needs quite badly sometimes.The key for me is provision. I want particularly to talkabout CAMHS, because Paula has already said thatone in 10 young people have mental disorders inschool. Going back to the head teachers as well, SirAlan Steer’s report clearly says that head teacherscomplain very strongly about accessing CAMHS.CAMHS is not just about one thing; it is about a rangeof services that do not always come from a primarycare trust, but from a whole range of providers. Howwould you model a provision that was actually goingto provide for all children who need a CAMHSspecialist, from low-level support to more complexsupport?Paula Lavis: I guess it is also, as you say, thinkingabout what CAMHS actually is. It is not just aboutspecialist NHS services, which I think often peoplethink of it as being. It goes back to what I was sayingearlier about the idea of this being a whole-systemapproach to mental health. You do not just have theschools, but you have the NHS, and they all worktogether in partnership to produce a strategy for howthey can commission and deliver these servicestogether at their local level. That also needs to bebased on the local need, which I think is quiteimportant, because there is obviously no point inputting in place services that you do not need in yourservice. The other important thing is listening toyoung people, because they have a lot to tell us, andwe can learn a lot if we listen to them about what sortof service they would find acceptable.Jane Vaughan: We have an issue reported to us by alot of young people with autism, adults with autismand parents, in that a lot of children with autism havereal difficulty accessing CAMHS, because they willsay that this behaviour is their autism, when in fact itis actually a mental health problem.

Q196 Tessa Munt: Sorry; this behaviour is—?Jane Vaughan: Sometimes CAMHS will say that achild cannot be referred because they are autistic, andtherefore the behaviour that we are seeing is part oftheir autism rather than a mental health issue. Weknow, however, that autism does not mean that youhave a mental health issue, and you can have autismand a mental health issue. Because of the lack ofrecognition of the anxiety and stress around autism, itoften deteriorates into a mental health issue, and suchindividuals are having great difficulty accessingCAMHS.

Q197 Craig Whittaker: So how do we model thatprovision, to give that provision where needed? Thatis the key question, really.Paula Lavis: I suppose we have to see the wholeperson, not just split-off bits. Our mental health isintegral to our physical health as well, so you can’tjust split them all off.

Q198 Chair: We are talking about the structure ofthat provision. What does good provision look like?How is it modelled? Who does what? Who has whatresponsibility? Who has the lead? Where should thebudget go?Paula Lavis: Maybe it should be a pooled budget.That has always been a bit of an issue, with differentagencies contributing to the main pot. It does not takea lot before a bit of that money is pulled off. Oftenyou get lots of project money, so you might get a littlepot of money for the short term, which is then takenaway because it has not been mainstreamed. It wouldprobably be helpful to have a centralised fund withina local area.Jane Vaughan: Again, going back to CAMHS, weassume people have been trained in autism, but lotsof the CAMHS teams have not. We go back onceagain to having that training.John Dickinson-Lilley: I think that, as people havealready pointed out, it is really difficult to disentanglemental health disability and behavioural difficulties.There is a real issue in schools about who isresponsible for a child’s mental health; we need a bitmore clarity about that. One of the key challenges forschools now, certainly with the changes to thestructure of the system, is how to develop thosepartnerships. Not only are the quality and types ofservices available variable—within countiessometimes—but the relationships may need to be builtwith the local mental health trust, the NHS and socialservices to create a bigger picture. There are all kindsof reasons for mental health issues that may be relatedto disability or to something else. I think that afundamental role for schools would be to build thosepartnerships in the first instance, which then links tomaking sure that children are being assessed at school.That assessment is critical, because we know thatchildren with an SEN or disability are more likely tohave a mental health problem than their peers. Gettingthat identification in place should lead a school toquestion the need to look at the kinds of interventionsthat need to be made either now or in the future. It isnot only about looking at a child’s SEN or disabilityin isolation, but at its tangential effects.

Q199 Craig Whittaker: The initial question wasabout what sort of structure you would put in place,but I am not quite getting it.John Dickinson-Lilley: I could give you a directanswer to that. It is very hard for us to talk aboutstructure, because of the changes to the educationsystem as it is now. One of our concerns at the SECis that we are seeing significant defragmentationalready in the traditional central support servicesprovided by local authorities—such as educationalpsychologists and so on—because of the newacademies programme. There is potential for further




defragmentation with free schools, where schools willbe required to commission services. If the money hasalready been taken away from local authorities, thoseservices will be lost, and if they are lost, how willprovision be made? It is an absolutely criticalquestion, but it is one that we are going to find veryhard to answer until the Government can give us ananswer about how they are going to ensure that thisprovision will continue to be made while education isbeing changed in the way that it is being changed.

Q200 Craig Whittaker: That leads nicely to my nextquestion. As a previous Lead Member, one of the keythings that I have been banging on about for manyyears in the local authority is that, with things such asCAMHS and disabled children, we often see moneygoing from vast amounts of pots through differentdirectorates, children and young people’s services,primary care trusts and sometimes justice services,and we often also see a huge amount of duplicationof service and huge gaps in the service. The thing thatI have been banging on about for years is: why don’twe get one pool of money, tear down those structuresand have one overhead cost? And, guess what, all ofa sudden we wouldn’t just have service, but aprovision right across the board. Surely, in the light ofthe savings that are needed, that would be the bestway forward.Virginia Beardshaw: I wasn’t expecting to make thispoint today, but this fragmentation is a real worry. Ithas been a consistent feature of the system forumpteen years, not just affecting CAMHS. Childrenwith speech, language and communication needs fallthrough the cracks between local authority-providedservices and NHS-provided services arguably morethan any other group. As a result, I CAN, the Councilfor Disabled Children, the National Children’s Bureauand the Communication Trust have made asubmission to the Department of Health, in responseto the new White Paper, suggesting that the childhealth commissioning budget, which is the money thatpays for CAMHS among many other things, shouldmigrate with the public health budget to localauthorities, so that local authorities would be able totake an integrated view of commissioning. That isquite a radical suggestion. It has always been rejectedin the past, because of issues around healthprofessionals’ terms and conditions. Those would notapply, because, under the proposals on splittingprovision and commissioning, it is only thecommissioning budget that need move to localauthorities. Health professionals’ terms and conditionscould remain the same. I wasn’t expecting to do thistoday, but I highly recommend that radical suggestionto this Committee, which is of course known for itsindependence, and I will make available the letterfrom I CAN, CDC, the National Children’s Bureauand The Communication Trust, so that you canconsider it.1

Jane Vaughan: Craig, I would like to think about thisa bit more. Can I think about it and write back to you?Craig Whittaker: Certainly.

1 See Ev 146

Q201 Chair: John, do you want to give an instantresponse to Virginia’s radical proposal?Virginia Beardshaw: It’s CDC, so—John Dickinson-Lilley: It’s slightly more complex forme to give a radical answer—no matter how radical Iwould like to be on occasion.Chair: If you have to get consensus of 22, we’relucky that you say anything at all.John Dickinson-Lilley: You’re right; it takes a lot ofpreparation. On provision, one of the difficulties isthat, if you look at children with sensory impairment,including children who are deaf, for example, there isa very low incidence; the same goes for children whoare blind and partially sighted. As a result, serviceprovision by someone central is actually fairlyessential. We’re not necessarily saying that localauthorities are brilliant, but we’re not saying that theyare terrible either. We’re not even saying who shouldprovide it. What we are saying is that the market isnot viable, because you are talking about such a smallnumber of children. The question about how thatprovision is made is really important and it issomething that the Committee might want to reflecton a little bit more. Charities such as the RNIB or theNational Autistic Society provide such services andcan do a little bit of work in providing some of thoseservices, but we don’t have the capacity or the abilityto provide specialist support services. There is a realquestion there about the viability of those servicesgoing forward.Chair: Thank you, John.Jane Vaughan: May I just add one more thing?Chair: No, I’m afraid not, Jane.

Q202 Ian Mearns: There’s a strong correlationbetween children who have emotional and behaviouraldifficulties and SLCN. In particular to you, Virginia,can you tell us about the correlation betweenchildren’s emotional and behavioural difficulties andtheir speech, language and communication needs?Virginia Beardshaw: That is what I was starting to doat the beginning. It always amazes me that, in thisfield, we always tend to make things too technical.That is why, when I’m talking about behaviour andSLCN, I always say that it is commonsensical that, ifyou can’t really understand, because comprehensionis a big part of language, what is going on in a setting,particularly a setting as formal and as demanding as aschool, and if you can’t really express yourself verywell—in technical terms, this means receptivelanguage and expressive language—is it any wonderthat you either act up, misbehave or absent yourself?Hence the exclusion figures of 60% to 70%—actually,those are the figures for youth offending—andtruanting is equally high. I could go off into technicaldetail, but I would invite members of the Committeeto make an imaginative leap. All those same elementsapply in the youth offending and criminal justicesystem. These kids cope very badly. If we could getinto the whole teaching work force, the whole schoolwork force and the young offending work force arealisation of just how many children are not gettingit and are not able to express themselves properly,then, I think, we would bring about a sea change thatwould have a beneficial effect across the whole range




of special educational needs, including key areas suchas autism, dyslexia, deaf and hard of hearing childrenand a range of others.Jane Vaughan: I will just give you an example that Ithink demonstrates a lot of what Virginia says, withwhich I agree totally. It was given to me by theSENCO of a secondary school in Surrey. A young boywho has Asberger’s syndrome accidently dropped hissandwiches as he walked into the dining room. Hedidn’t realise and went to the other side of the hall.The head teacher came in, saw the sandwiches,realised that they were his and shouted, “Boy, pick upthese sandwiches.” The young man stood up and said,“Man, you pick them up.” Absolutely horrified, theSENCO rushed over to the head teacher, as he wasexploding, to say “Let me explain. Let me explain.”She got the young man to sit down and explain howhe saw the situation according to his understanding oflanguage and his own expression. The person he’dseen had called him “Boy”, so he responded with“Man”. In his logic, the sandwiches were next to theman, so why would he walk right the way across thehall to pick them up when they were next to the man?I thought that that was a great example of how speechand language communication difficulties can result ina behaviour difficulty.

Q203 Ian Mearns: If I can come back to Virginia, Iam delighted that you have raised the issue of non-attendance and truancy, which often goes withyoungsters. It seems to me that it is one of the itemsthat we have lost a little bit. We did agree to look atthat at the start of our proceedings on behaviour anddiscipline, but we seem to have lost it somewhere.Can I take you back to something you said thatperturbed me a little bit? You said that if youngsterswere screened for speech and languagecommunication needs prior to exclusion, then theycould be dealt with in the PRU; but why would youexclude them in the first place? It seems to me that ifwe identify such needs through a screening processprior to exclusion, what we have actually done isidentify a failure in the institution rather the child.Virginia Beardshaw: Thank you for giving me anopportunity to clarify that for the Committee. Ofcourse, I would always prefer the child’s needs to bemet in a school setting. If, prior to exclusion, there isscreening for SLCN, then that is exactly what I thinkcould, should and in many cases must happen, ratherthan the child going to a PRU. But sometimes theywill go to a PRU, and there, they will need to havetheir needs addressed. I am also glad that you arepleased that I brought up truancy. It is something thatwe see a lot in our I CAN schools. We’ve had childrenwho have been school refusers for two or three years,and we bring them back. One of the things that I amproudest of is how they can then achieve good GCSEresults and go on to college.

Q204 Ian Mearns: Is there one magic bullet fordetecting youngsters who have these needs that havepreviously gone undetected through the systems andthrough primary and secondary education?Virginia Beardshaw: For SLCN, which has widerapplications across special education needs, we are

advocating screening at two and two and a half, linkedto the child health programme, and then screening atfive on entry to school. We are passionate—we thinkthat would turn things around if, and only if, this isn’tjust an assessment and it is followed up by support.We spend far too much in this country and waste a lotof our valuable, most skilled staff’s time just doingassessments and then doing nothing whatsoeverabout them.Jane Vaughan: There is the danger therein as well. Ifteachers are waiting for a child to be assessed anddiagnosed, they won’t meet the need—“Oh no, wedon’t need to do anything. They haven’t gotanything.” We need to look at the child and say, “Thisis your need.”

Q205 Tessa Munt: We heard evidence earlier aboutlinks with crime for the group of young people whohave SEN. There is a phrase from the YJB, whichsays, “Significant numbers of young people withspecial educational needs can end up in alternativeprovision and in turn involved in the criminal justicesystem, when their needs have either not beenidentified properly, or they have not been metappropriately in mainstream provision.” What kind ofinterventions are required where a child with specialeducational needs or a mental health problem is alsoidentified as being at risk of committing a crime?John Dickinson-Lilley: Again, that links back to theassessment, because although a child might already bediagnosed with a special education need, the fact thatthere are behavioural issues might mean that there isanother underlying special educational need ordisability. You quite often find that disabilities, specialeducational needs and behaviour get overlaid indifferent ways, so things get missed. One of the mostimportant things is that identification. One of thethings that we’ve found is that if a child has, forexample, a behavioural problem, quite often schoolsprogress them through the disciplinary route andforget about looking at curriculum and assessing need.They just look at the child’s bad behaviour andprogress them through the disciplinary route withfixed-term exclusions and permanent exclusions. As aresult, by the age of 19, 27% of young disabled peopleare NEET, because, ultimately, they get excluded fromthe system so many times that the system inherentlyfails them. We then move on to the causes of crime,with which we are all familiar and on which I don’treally need to comment, including social exclusionand all of the other factors. We need to get it right atschool and keep on getting it right. If you look at thekey stages, 42% of children in key stage 1 have aspeech, language and communication need. If youlook at the same group of children at key stage 3, only5% have that need, but DCSF research shows that,between the ages of 12 and 17, 38% of that grouphave a behavioural, emotional or social difficulty. Sowhat you are seeing is a bizarre translation from keystage 2, in which 42% of children with a speech,language and communication need becomes 38% ofchildren with behavioural, emotional and socialdifficulties. I allude to the point that was made earlierabout secondary education by saying that there is a




distinct difference in how secondary schools treatchildren with special education needs.Virginia Beardshaw: I saw some slightly bewilderedfaces among the Committee members, but I have anifty little chart that shows that miraculous conversionover the summer holidays. High levels of speech,language and communication needs are identified inprimary school, but we believe that a massiverelabelling takes place by the time they get tosecondary school and those very same children arerelabelled as having behavioural difficulty. I have thatchart here, and I will make it available to theCommittee. I just wanted to back you up, John.

Q206 Chair: I’m afraid that our time is up, althoughthere’s much more that we’d like to explore. There isjust time for a final word from Paula.

Paula Lavis: There are strong links between youthcrime and mental health. Huge numbers of youngpeople with mental health problems end up in theyouth justice system. I guess that a lot of those casesmay well have been avoided if we had really goodearly intervention services to pick them up. You canidentify those at risk at a really young age.

Q207 Chair: So if you prioritise them at the age oftwo and a half or five, they won’t end up in jail?Paula Lavis: Yes.Chair: On that positive note, I thank you very muchindeed for coming to give evidence to us today.

cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [SE] Processed: [20-01-2011 12:57] Job: 006766 Unit: PG04Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/006766/006766_o0004_Edc 17 November 10 CORRECTED.xml


Wednesday 17 November 2010

Members present:


Neil CarmichaelNic DakinBill EstersonPat GlassDamian Hinds

________________


Witnesses: Katharine Birbalsingh, ex-Deputy Head, Daisy Christodoulou, Teach First Ambassador, SueCowley, Educational Author, Trainer and Presenter, Paul Dix, Lead Trainer and Director, Pivotal Education,and Tom Trust, Former Elected Member for Secondary Sector, General Teaching Council for England, gaveevidence.

Q208 Chair: Good morning. Thank you very muchfor joining us this morning for this behaviour anddiscipline inquiry. It is a great pleasure to have youwith us. We tend to do this fairly informally and usefirst names, if you are all comfortable with that. Youhave come to give evidence to us this morning. If youhad to pick one thing that could be adopted and helpto improve behaviour and discipline in our schools,what would it be? Can I start with you, Tom? Anddon’t cheat.Tom Trust: One thing is a return to the belief that,where respect comes into the equation, the childrenshould actually be respecting their teachers rather thanthe other way round, depending on the definition of“respect” that you are using.

Q209 Chair: Isn’t respect necessarily mutual?Tom Trust: Yes, but it has a number of differentdefinitions. What a lot of children who are less wellbehaved appear to mean by the word is that you—theteacher—should defer to them. That is one meaningof “respect”. One of the things that I have found as ateacher over the years is that it is usually the childrenwho have done the least to earn respect who expectyou to defer to them.

Q210 Chair: So it is a re-establishment of adultauthority.Tom Trust: Yes, if you want to précis it, that wouldbe the summation.Daisy Christodoulou: I would arrange schooltimetables so that pupils are taught by as few teachersas possible over a week, and that teachers teach asfew pupils as possible, whereas currently a teachermay teach 20 lessons a week and may teach 20different classes. Teachers therefore have to seehundreds of pupils and know all their stories, all theirtargets and everything about them. If it can be doneso that they teach only four or five classes a week, itwould allow teachers and pupils to form better bondsand better relationships and reduce the likelihood ofpupils misbehaving.Paul Dix: I would introduce to teacher trainingthroughout, whichever route you take to become ateacher, compulsory high-standard, high qualitytraining and behaviour management. We must behonest about the skills that we can teach and ask

Charlotte LeslieIan MearnsTessa MuntLisa NandyCraig Whittaker

teachers to teach behaviour rather than just to rely onour culture moving towards better behaviour. We mustactually teach the skills, but do it so that it isconsistent throughout the country and do it when ithas most impact, which is in initial teacher training.We must make that training of the highest quality thatit can be and teach behaviour on a par with howteachers learn to teach the curriculum.

Q211 Chair: Do you think that the training ofteachers in behaviour management is poor?Paul Dix: It is shockingly patchy. When it is poor, itis half an hour in a seminar and sink or swim. Wehave proved that we can teach it, and when we doteach it, it turns schools around. We have been doingit for 10 years. Let us have it as a core competence.Let us give teachers the ability to learn it in training,so that they do not come to us and say, “Thank Godwe met you 30 years later. If only somebody had toldme that 30 years ago.”Sue Cowley: I am going with Paul on this. I meetNQTs all the time. I work with them, and they say tome, “Why didn’t anybody tell us that there are thesereally simple, straightforward things that are not easyto put in place, but that are straightforward tocommunicate to NQTs? Why has nobody told uspractical ways of actually managing behaviour?” A lotmore complex things could be changed, but of all thethings that could be changed in a fairlystraightforward way, it would be to give new teachersaccess to those techniques and strategies that make adirect difference in classrooms.

Q212 Chair: Behaviour and discipline is not somenew faddish concern. It has gone on for years. Howcan we have a system of initial teacher training,continuing professional development and the mostresearched educational system in the whole world andnot have put in place basic, well-recognisedtechniques?Sue Cowley: Yet all the time I meet new teachers whosay to me, “Nobody ever told me this,” and it is sucha straightforward thing.Katharine Birbalsingh: While I agree with mycolleagues, we have got things the wrong way round.We are always concentrating on looking at thebehaviour and then dealing with the behaviour. All

cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [20-01-2011 12:57] Job: 006766 Unit: PG04Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/006766/006766_o0004_Edc 17 November 10 CORRECTED.xml


17 November 2010 Katharine Birbalsingh, Daisy Christodoulou, Sue Cowley, Paul Dix and Tom Trust

that is very good and, clearly, there are a lot of waysof dealing with behaviour from the teacher’s point ofview. That is an excellent idea and we need to teachthe teachers that, but what we need to do is to holdstaff to account. In particular, we need to hold thesenior teams to account. When I say, “hold them toaccount”, senior teams are responsible for leadingschools and for supporting their teachers. Too often,senior teams fail their teachers by not supporting themproperly and by having low expectations. We need toensure that the right questions are asked of seniorteams. Are they putting systems in place to ensure thatthe right kind of environment exists in the schools, sothat the behaviour we are talking about does nothappen and the level of bad behaviour is reduced?Clearly, teachers still need to know how to deal withthat behaviour, but if senior teams were doing theirjob properly across the country, we would not havethe state of behaviour that we have at the moment.

Q213 Chair: What happens to people on the frontline who try to highlight the situation and ask forgreater levels of support?Katharine Birbalsingh: Obviously, it depends on theschool. It is not that people don’t want to help. Thereis too much in-house variation to which some peoplehere have referred. If you are an excellent teacher andcan manage that behaviour, you will survive whereveryou are and do well. Then what tends to happen isthat senior teams say, “If he can do it, why can’t she?”But it is the role of leaders in schools to ensure thatall teachers can discipline their students. That doesn’tmean taking responsibility away from the member ofstaff, but there is a real lack of responsibility in ourschools. The children and teachers are not responsiblefor themselves, and it’s the same with senior teams.Often in schools, you see the senior teams blame theteachers and say, “If only they had the skills and wereas clever as I am, everything would be fine.” And theteachers say, “The senior team are horrible. Theywon’t support me and won’t do anything.” There is akind of back-biting that goes on, and the people whoare lost, obviously, are the children in between.

Q214 Chair: Do the rest of you accept Katharine’sanalysis? We have heard evidence that leadershipteams in schools tend to be slightly removed from thereality of front-line teachers who have to put up withbehaviour, and sometimes that doesn’t seem to filterupwards. It is certainly not recognised, and teachersfacing challenge are not supported in the way that theyshould be.Daisy Christodoulou: I agree with most of that.Paul Dix: It comes back to the same issue—the factthat they all start from different starting points. If youdon’t allow people access to high quality training, youwill have teachers who are failing and struggling, andteachers who are absolutely flying. There is alsovariation in senior management teams. Some are onthe ground every day, deeply committed to being outof their offices and involved in the life of the school.Some shut their doors and lock themselves away.Again—I’m sure we’ll come to it—the patchy natureof effective leadership is a core issue.

Q215 Chair: You have said that behaviourmanagement techniques for front-line teachers can betaught. Is there something just as discrete anddeliverable that can be given to school leaders?Obviously, Katharine’s point is different from yours.Regardless of the skill of the teacher, the really highlyskilled ones might be able to cope more easily butthey also need support and help when required. Canthat be delivered?Paul Dix: Yes. We do exactly that. We work withfuture leaders, head teachers and middle managementteams to create the conditions where the training willhave most effect. That is what we do. It’s proven.HMI and Ofsted have seen it and commended it.Tom Trust: What Katharine said is crucial. Withoutidentifying any locations, I have worked in a schoolwhere the head’s attitude towards a teacher having aproblem with a disruptive pupil was to say, “It’s yourproblem. Your lessons must be uninteresting,” or“Your methods are not good enough.” Then you canhave a situation where a head or senior team givesupport, which has a number of benefits. It certainlylifts staff morale. I sat on a case recently where a headhad gone into a school to turn it around. He put 13members of staff on capability in one go. That musthave had a devastating effect on staff room morale,which of course will then feed down to theirperformance in the classroom. It will do nothing toimprove the school. On the other hand, in anotherschool I am aware of—I won’t identify it—a head hasjust come in and has started from the point of view ofthe pupils. He has shown the staff that he is supportingthem in a school where they had felt unsupported,where there were all the various problems. They weregetting stressed out. They had absences and so forth.He has come into the school and started dealing withpupils. He said to the staff, “If you have any problems,I will deal with them.” He has confronted the problemin that direction and lifted the morale of the staff. Iam aware of it because I know many of them. So, Iam underlining what Katharine has said. The role ofsenior teams in this matter is absolutely crucial, butvery patchy.

Q216 Nic Dakin: Good morning. Thank you all forcoming. I have to leave before the end of the sessionbecause of constituency matters, so I apologise forthat. Can I take this a little further? How do we ensurethat school leaders in the increasingly devolvedsituation that we are moving into meet the highestaspirations that you are describing in terms of leadingon behaviour? How do we do that?Tom Trust: I think that that will be very difficult. Youreferred to the devolved powers, and I think that thatwill make any kind of consistent approach verydifficult. It is what this Government seem to want todo. What the solution is, I do not know.Sue Cowley: When I talk to teachers—mainly on theground with them, as opposed to with managers—thething that most worries them is when there is a kindof disjoint between what happens in the classroom andthe support that is provided by the management.Teachers will say to me, “I follow the school policyand I discipline—I give a verbal warning, a writtenwarning, and then I go to the next stage up and the

cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [20-01-2011 12:57] Job: 006766 Unit: PG04Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/006766/006766_o0004_Edc 17 November 10 CORRECTED.xml



next stage up. But nothing happens when that goes upthe line.” So it is a case of joining up the teacherin the classroom—on the ground, with the kids—andfinding a way for management to follow through atthe top end of the disciplinary policy. Otherwise, thechildren quickly learn that when the teacher says,“This will happen,” it does not, which is a big problemin schools.Katharine Birbalsingh: We have to hold them toaccount. We need to ask questions—we need to askthe same questions of staff that we do of senior teams.We say to them, “What kind of bad behaviour do youput up with? What do you think is acceptable?” Youask the head and the deputies, and then you ask thesame of staff, to see if they match up—if they do not,you need to ask a few more questions. You need toask them about what kinds of systems they have inplace in the school to support the teachers, and if theywork. Ask the senior team and then ask the staff tosee whether they match up and then, finally, hold themto account. Quite simply if people do not do their jobs,they need to be fired. If people cannot do their jobsthere needs to be some sense that they might losethem. Members of the senior team do not feel that, sothey go about their jobs doing whatever it is that theydo. In the same way that we need to hold teachers andchildren to account, we need to hold senior teams toaccount. We should not allow these things to spin outof control for years and years. If a school is in chaos,the senior team is doing something wrong and weneed to point our finger at them and say, “This isn’tgood enough,” and hold them to account. We shouldnot feel fear about doing that. In any other industry, ifyou do not do your job properly, you lose it. Why canwe not have that in teaching? I want to be able towork in a profession that is held in such high regardthat when I do well, someone says, “Well done,” andwhen I do not do well, I think, “Oh my goodness—I’m in fear for my job.” That is how it should be—like it is in industry.

Q217 Nic Dakin: There seems to be a differencebetween your approach and Tom’s.Tom Trust: I agree that senior teams should beaccountable. I am very supportive of the notion of360° appraisal. Managers and heads are not appraisedby the people whom they most affect—the staff. I donot want to leave out the fact that how they affect thestaff also affects the children, which is why the wholething is there in the first place. I have sat on cases forthe General Teaching Council, which I have resignedfrom, by the way—I am not in it any more. Therehave been a couple of times when I have sat on a caseand I have heard a head teacher giving evidenceagainst a teacher, and I have sat there thinking, “Youshould be in the dock as well—so to speak—becausewhat you were doing was clearly not helping thesituation.”Paul Dix: Hold people accountable, but train themeffectively first—give them an opportunity to learn theskills. Many of our middle and senior managers wentthrough a period when we had corporal punishment.We put down the cane and we replaced it withnothing, and we force teachers to guess. Well, if youwere previously striking your students and suddenly

you are told not to, what do you do? You shout, yourail, and you try to replace the physical punishmentwith some sort of emotional punishment. Nobodytrained our teachers, so, absolutely, hold senior andmiddle management to account—but train them sothat they can do it. None of this is particularlyrevolutionary or new, it just needs to be done. It hasnever been done apart from where we go—where wego and do it, we see schools in the worst possiblesituations turn around, because people get it. If youtrain them and then they do not get it, and they areclearly not taking up the opportunity, you can tacklethem. The national strategy has trained teachers inneed, but it did not train all teachers; it trained somemanagers and some middle managers, but it did notgive that consistency across the country. What is themotor of a good school? It is the middle management,and where they are not trained appropriately, you seethings fall down. You can train the staff as well as youwant, but if you have not trained the middle and seniormanagement, the whole thing is a waste of money.Daisy Christodoulou: This ties into devolved powersto schools. Sue said about how you punish a kid, yougo up the behaviour policy and get to the top of it—then what happens? The ultimate sanction ispermanent exclusion, which is something that wouldbe affected by devolved powers, as PRUs arecommissioned on a local authority basis. I have agreat deal of sympathy for people who have to operatein this area. When I was at the classroom level, I didnot see such things happen. I can sense a lot ofpressure for and there are probably a lot of peoplewho want to exclude pupils. Nevertheless, from myposition in the classroom, it seemed that there were alot of pupils who could do unacceptable thingsrepeatedly, and they had to do an awful lot that wasreally bad in order to be permanently excluded. Iunderstand that it is difficult and that the PRUs havea lot of pressure on them. However, you may have thebest behaviour policy in the world—the best trainedteachers in the world—but kids know that they canget to the top level of sanction and, as it sometimesseems, effectively just start again at the beginning.They work their way up to the top, and begin again.If there is no ultimate sanction at the top, it is veryhard—for all the skills and all the techniques—toenforce any of this. Kids quickly see through it.

Q218 Nic Dakin: May I move on to a differentpicture? We have taken a lot of evidence and alsovisited several institutions, so we have looked at whatis going on. To me, the general picture is thatbehaviour in schools is generally good to very good.But there are some pockets of difficult behaviour, witha few students in particular schools, and probablyacross them. Does that match your assessment of whatis going on?Sue Cowley: There are two things going on, when Italk to teachers. First, there is the low-level stuff,which a competent, inspirational teacher can deal withfairly simply. Secondly, there is a core group ofstudents with what I consider to be fairly seriousbehavioural issues, who, since inclusion, are perhapsin a mainstream environment that does not suit theirneeds. One, two, three or x number—it’s the weight




of numbers—of those kind of students can destroy thelearning for 30 kids in a class. That breaks teachers’hearts. They say, “I just want to teach. There are 27in there who all want to learn. And I have these threehardcore students.” It is the hardcore ones who candestroy the education of the other children, which isreally just a crime.

Q219 Nic Dakin: But you are saying that that is anexception rather than a rule.Sue Cowley: It only happens in certain schools. Inmost schools, it is the low-level stuff, and if you haveone, two or three difficult students, you can supportthem and put them into the referral unit. But wherethere is a weight of numbers in a school, it moves tothe negative side—the ethos of the school is affectedand there is a snowball effect.Daisy Christodoulou: I agree completely about thetwo levels—low-level disruption and seriousmisbehaviour—but they are linked. Even if only a fewpupils do really quite bad things, if they are seen tobe getting away with those things, it makes it so muchharder to tell a kid at the back of the class to stopdrinking a Coke or to do their tie up properly, so thetwo are linked. It may be a minority of pupils whobehave in that way, but if you don’t deal with iteffectively—in a lot of cases, we don’t—it impacts oneveryone and lowers standards across the school.Katharine Birbalsingh: I want to say that what Daisyhas said about holding pupils to account, and theirhaving some final sanction happening to them, is a bigissue. What Sue has said obviously follows on fromthat. I also want to point out on the difference betweengood and very good that it depends what you meanby good and very good.

Q220 Nic Dakin: I am looking at Sir Alan Steer’sinquiry into behaviour and at Ofsted inspectionreports. That is the evidence base that we have beengiven.Katharine Birbalsingh: I would say that when Ofstedsays something is good, it’s not very good. Certainly,from the thousands of teachers I have spoken to, themany teachers who have now written to me—givenmy new profile—and others who have spoken to mein the street, I would say that bad behaviour in thecountry is quite common. That does not mean that allchildren are badly behaved. You have a situationwhere 27 of them are fine, but three of them are beingdisruptive in most classes across the country. Becauseyou do not have the final possible outcome—the childknows that they go up, come back down again and goup, and that there is nothing that can be ultimatelydone about them—you often have two or threestudents in each class who are misbehaving in such away. Bad behaviour spreads like a cancer; it is verydifficult to contain it. One very badly behaved studentimpacts on a second one, who is quite badly behaved,and those two impact on two others, who aresomewhat badly behaved. It spreads, so that even thevery good students become somewhat unsettled. Thatcreates a situation where you have low-levelbehaviour. People often dismiss that, and say, “It’s justlow-level behaviour, that’s okay.” You’d be amazed,

however, at how disruptive to learning low-levelbehaviour is.

Q221 Nic Dakin: I think that people understand that.The reality is that we have a base of evidence, throughOfsted inspections and through Sir Alan Steer, whichsays that behaviour is good to very good. You aresaying that your anecdotal evidence base challengesthat. You’re saying that in every classroom there arethree disruptive students, whereas Ofsted is sayingthat it has not seen that.Katharine Birbalsingh: No. I’m saying that it is inlots of classrooms.Tom Trust: I must question Mr Dakin’s sources—theSteer report and Ofsted. I have read the Steer report,and I think that he talked to a lot of head teachers.Head teachers have told me that there are no disciplineproblems in their school when there have been copiesof lesson observations that they have taken when theyhave been observing the teacher. In thoseobservations, there have been a list of misdemeanourshappening with the head in the room. I have alsoheard a head say, on oath, that there were nodisciplinary problems, even though there were pressreports stating that there were. Getting evidence fromhead teachers is not always reliable, because they havea lot to lose. On Ofsted, I did some supply in a schoolthat was having an Ofsted report, and I got my supplylist for the lessons that I was covering that day. I wastold that those teachers were not away, but that I wasgoing in the classroom with them. In I went. I laterfound out that it was unlikely that Ofsted inspectorswill go into a class that is being covered by a supplyteacher—it is not impossible, but it is unlikely. Eachmorning, the Ofsted inspectors were given the littlepile of cover slips, and they knew which lessons werebeing covered. They thought that the ones that I wassupposed to be covering were covered, but theyweren’t. They were terrible classes. They did notnecessarily have weak teachers—perhaps somewere—but they were full of really disruptive pupils.Ofsted’s views on behaviour are not worth the paperthey are written on, in my humble opinion, becausethere are lots of strategies that head teachers use toavoid the Ofsted inspectors seeing the worst children.That may shock you, and you may think that that isan isolated incident, but it is not—it happens. I haveone crucial point to make. I was elected to the GTCby secondary teachers. I objected to the GTC’s stanceat the time on not supporting teachers on the questionof unruly pupils. That was my election statement andsecondary teachers had to vote for 11 out of 24candidates. I got the fifth highest number of firstchoice votes. Okay, there was only 7% turnout, but7% of 250,000 teachers is a very good samplecompared with a YouGov poll or a Mori poll. Ithought, “Hang on,” because I hadn’t expected to beelected; I was just making a statement.

Q222 Chair: I take it that that is a statisticalindication of genuine concern among secondaryteachers.Tom Trust: Yes. It is there among secondary schoolteachers.




Q223 Chair: I want to bring Lisa in, because wehave got a lot to cover, but does anyone else want toadd anything on that? Both Katharine and Tom havesaid that they do not think that Ofsted and Steer givean accurate reflection of the level of indiscipline inour schools.Paul Dix: We can all throw anecdotes in front of youto prove the story either way. What is clear is thatbehaviour is good or outstanding in most of ourschools. If you asked teachers whether they wouldappreciate more input on behaviour, they would say,“Absolutely, yes.” We should give them that, and weshould focus resources on those schools and pupilsthat are most in need.

Q224 Chair: So, you broadly accept the Ofstedanalysis, although there is obviously still ample roomfor improvement.Paul Dix: Yes.

Q225 Chair: Sue, do you accept the Ofsted analysis?Sue Cowley: Generally speaking, behaviour is goodand fine. We mustn’t demonise children. They are justbeing like we were. A lot of this stuff is what we didwhen we were at school: “Let’s wind up the teacher.” Ithink you have to be really careful. This is the currentgeneration of children. They are different from howwe were when we were at school, but they areessentially children. But there are some schools incrisis; don’t get me wrong.Daisy Christodoulou: Briefly, I have concerns. I don’thave any statistical data to back it up, but some Ofstedreports and the Steer report don’t ring true with whatI see. I think a lot comes down to what Katharine hassaid about what you define as good behaviour. If yousay bad behaviour is only something that is at theextremes of violence, then yes, it is a minority. But ifyou define it more broadly, which I think it is fair todo, then I think that there are problems. I think it is asignificant issue among the teachers I trained with,who represent a fairly big cross section.Paul Dix: But you’re in the most challenging schools,though, so your experience is skewed by that.Daisy Christodoulou: That is true, but it is still a lotof schools.Paul Dix: But they’re all identified as challengingschools, which is why Teach First is involved.Daisy Christodoulou: But in challengingcircumstances, some of them are classified asoutstanding.Chair: I am going to bring this dialogue to a close,as fascinating and enjoyable as it is.

Q226 Lisa Nandy: I’ve heard from most of the panelthat you have real concerns about Ofsted’s ability togive us an accurate picture of the level and nature ofchallenging behaviour in schools. What suggestionsdo you have for how we might get a really accuratepicture?Sue Cowley: You want to do what it is doing in earlyyears, which is Ofsted turns up without warning. Ifyou want an accurate picture, and do not want schoolsto exclude pupils for the week,1 you want to get it1 See Ev ??

down to, “Right, somebody turns up.”2 But equally,what you don’t want to do is have this punitive model.At the moment, there is this sense that Ofsted is justhere to pass judgment—there is no sense that there’sthe kind of support that there used to be with the kindof LEA inspection model. I think that has kind of gonemissing down the years somewhere.

Q227 Lisa Nandy: Do the rest of you agree withthat—if Ofsted were seen to be more of a way ofhelping schools to improve and reach standards ratherthan just an inspection model?Sue Cowley: If you want schools to be honest andgive an honest picture of what goes on day to day,then you can’t expect all lessons to be outstanding.Some days, teachers are knackered, and they need tohave a lesson that just kind of paces along. Some days,they are an inspiration, absolutely, but on a Friday,when it’s the last thing, it has been raining all day,and the kids are narky, you adapt, and you’re flexible.Not every day is every single teacher in the countrygoing to be able to prove that they’re outstanding.

Q228 Lisa Nandy: The other members of the panelsaid largely that Ofsted underestimates the level ofchallenging behaviour in schools; I know you didn’t,Paul. The Children’s Commissioner put to us theopposite point of view, which is that because Ofstedfocuses very much on lower-performing schools, thepicture we get of poor behaviour is over-inflated. Doany of you have any response to that?Katharine Birbalsingh: For the vast majority of mycareer, I have only ever worked in good andoutstanding schools. Ofsted’s standards are not highenough when it comes to behaviour—it is as simpleas that. The problem is that we’ve got it the wrongway round, as I said at the beginning. We keepthinking, “Well, there’s bad behaviour. What do wedo about it?” Of course we need to think like that, butwhat we are not thinking about is: how do we createan environment where that behaviour doesn’t happenin the first place? That is what we must concentrateon. Ofsted doesn’t even look at that. It is not thinkingabout what kinds of systems are in place to ensurethat a certain environment is created. We always cometo it after the fact, and don’t pre-empt. We’re nottrying to create a certain environment. What we’redoing is we wait for the behaviour to happen, and thenwe’re thinking about how we react to it. Of course weneed to react to it and have innovative ways of dealingwith behaviour, but it is not even necessarily in thethinking of senior teams that those environments needto be created. It is not in the thinking of inspectors.It’s just not in anyone’s thinking, frankly, and that’swhat we need to do.

Q229 Lisa Nandy: The Government’s direction oftravel is very much about trying to free up good or2 Note by witness: I’ve been told by teachers on several

occasions that their school has either excluded certain pupilsduring an inspection, encouraged them to stay off school, ororganised work experience to coincide with an inspection.However, I would not wish to present this as something forwhich I have direct written evidence or research. This isanecdotal, but I think most teachers would accept that it stillgoes on.




outstanding schools from inspection. Do you thinkthat that’s a positive thing in relation to behaviour, ordo you think that that might cause some problems?Tom Trust: If they aren’t going to look at theoutstanding schools, what yardstick are they going touse to measure others by?

Q230 Bill Esterson: Can I ask the panel to definewhat they regard as unacceptable behaviour, and whatthey define as children being children, and where theline between the two is?Paul Dix: That is a fascinating question. I was at aschool the other day where somebody had beenexcluded for what in another school would be aterribly minor offence, but they suddenly foundthemselves permanently excluded. They go to thepupil referral unit, which asks, “What on earth are youdoing? I have other children who have been excludedfor extreme offences, and all you’ve done issomething very minor.” What in one school passes forhorseplay in another is a critical incident. Unless westart to get some consistency in the tariff, we will findthat in some areas pupil referral units and alternativeprovision are stuffed with people who were beingteenagers but got caught out on a bad day, and inothers there are extremely violent, aggressive,damaged young people who are in need of a lot ofsupport. I don’t think there is an easy answer to whatis good behaviour. In Stoke, it is different from whatit is in Edinburgh.Sue Cowley: I think that it is fairly straightforward. Ifa kid tells me to F off or spits at me, that isunacceptable behaviour. If they are talking during mylesson because I have spent half an hour rambling onat them, their behaviour is partly caused by myapproaches to teaching and learning. I need to takesome responsibility for the low-level stuff. So I won’thave talking while I’m talking—it is unacceptable, butit is to do with my skill as a teacher. It is those thingsthat Paul and I have said. You can train teachers todeal with them, but things like telling me to F off—I’m sorry, that is unacceptable, in all walks of life.3

I meet teachers who tell me that yesterday a kid intheir class told them to F off but nothing happened.There is a disjoint between day to day in theclassroom and what the managers do about it.Katharine Birbalsingh: I fundamentally disagree withSue. What Sue has just said demonstrates preciselywhat is wrong with our thinking in schools. Of course,you are a dynamic teacher, you are interesting and youdo everything the right way, and you can keep yourstudents entertained and interested in working and soon. Sometimes there are ordinary teachers—in fact,often there are ordinary teachers, simply because theextraordinary is exceptional, by definition. Therefore,there are lots of teachers who sometimes ramble on,but, because we have this way of seeing things—“Itis my fault for their misbehaving because I rambledon,” which is exactly what Sue said—it is partly theteacher’s fault, because they did not entertain the childenough or teach the child well enough. Of course,there is truth in that—if you have a very good teacherwho does not ramble, the children will not misbehave.However, we must not then allow that to make us3 See Ev ??

think that it is the teacher’s and not the child’s faultwhen the child misbehaves. It is very important thatchildren are responsible for themselves. Even whenthey are in the most boring of situations—it is Fridayafternoon, it is raining outside and they have the mostboring teacher in front of them—we should still havethe highest expectations of behaviour. In certainschools, that will be the case; in other schools, theteacher will be held responsible for the bad behaviour,and that is where we go wrong. We should not beholding the teacher responsible. We should be holdingthe students responsible.Sue Cowley: You said earlier that teachers—Chair: Sue, I am not having a dialogue.Sue Cowley: Sorry.Daisy Christodoulou: I would agree with that. Pupilswould be fine, they would be very well behaved inmy class, they would be my children, but I would hearstories about them misbehaving in another class inschool. I would sometimes see them misbehaving infront of a supply teacher, and I would ask themafterwards, “What were you doing? I know you canbehave. Why were you doing that?”, and they wouldsay, “Oh, Miss, it wasn’t my fault. The teachercouldn’t control me.” I heard that from one or twopupils. It was a common refrain from good pupils whocould behave. I was gobsmacked when I first heard it.I would sometimes ask, “What, if you were in a sweetshop with a policeman standing next to you, would itbe okay to steal the sweets?” At some point, you haveto say that it is unacceptable for a pupil who is capableof behaving and who knows how to do it to startmisbehaving, because they think that something isgoing on for too long.

Q231 Bill Esterson: I am not sure whether that wasquite the point that Sue was making.To move on from that point, what works in terms ofmanaging behaviour both for the lower level stuff andthe higher level stuff?Tom Trust: Can I come in on that because I have notgiven my view on your original question? I created adefinition. I prepared a paper on disruptive pupils ayear ago for a policy committee, and wrote: “If apupil’s behaviour causes the teacher to have tointerrupt the flow of a lesson so that the whole classceases to be taught for a measurable length of time orif that behaviour prevents just one or two pupils, eventhe pupil himself, from benefiting from the teacher’sinput for those pupils or that pupil, the lesson has beendisrupted.” It is very simple. It takes in the low-leveldisruption, not just the extreme cases. I also wrote: “Ifwe wish to do service to the ‘Every Child Matters’principle—I don’t know the status of that particularprinciple with the change of Government—“the needsof the disruptive child have to be met, but they areclearly not best met in otherwise well-managedmainstream classes or else the child would not behavein a disruptive way. The needs of the other childrenin the class who also matter are obviously not bestmet by the lessons being disrupted.” I do not knowwhether that is helpful, but you asked what wethought was meant by disruption.




Q232 Bill Esterson: What about the techniques thatwork in managing behaviour?Paul Dix: The best schools have a sign above the doorregardless of what context they are working in, whichsays, “This is how we do it here.” When you walkthrough the doors of that school, the expectations ofbehaviour are different from those outside. Thebehaviours that you use in the community or thebehaviours that you use with your parents might wellwork out there, but when you walk through that door,that is how they do it there. The best schools haveabsolute consistency. I don’t care whether the systemthey use is behaviourist or whether the system theyuse is extremely old-fashioned, the critical differenceis that people sign up to it and teachers act with onevoice and one message: “This is how we do it here”.You can find those beacons of hope in thecommunities in most poverty, and you also find thatthe best independent schools do exactly the samething, such as, “This is the Harrow way,” or whateverit might be. It is, “When you walk through the door,this is how we do it here.” The best teachers have thesame sign above their door. What works isconsistency, not trying to tackle all behaviour at oncebut deciding which behaviours are to be taught. It isnot relying on the parents to teach it, but saying, “Youneed these behaviours to be a successful learner inthis school. We are not going to hide them. We aregoing to teach you them. We will teach the staff howto do it.” I see that evidence every day in schools thatare moving forward in the hardest circumstances. It isnot necessarily an issue of resources. It is an issue ofcommitment and focus for the school and of absoluteconsistency.Sue Cowley: They are very high expectations, clearlystated and clearly applied, with a system to back themup when they are not being met. It is not the teacher’sfault the students misbehave, but equally the teacherhas a responsibility to set high expectations, to refuseto talk over students and to ensure that students listento them, but at the same to be willing to buildrelationships, build trust and be flexible with the mosttroubled. The stories you hear about some childrenturn your blood to ice. We cannot just say to some ofthem, “Right, do this—or else you’re out!” That is notappropriate. Flexibility at the same time is the hardestthing in teaching. I have high standards and highexpectations, but I am flexible and I achieve those inthe best and simplest way to build a relationship withmy children.

Q233 Bill Esterson: Can I pick you up on that point?I sometimes hear in schools about children beinggiven a bit more leeway for the very reasons you aredescribing, which is that something is going on intheir lives.Sue Cowley: I understand what you are saying.

Q234 Bill Esterson: There is a perception ofdifferent treatment for some children. What about theother children who then say, “Hang on a minute, howcome he or she is allowed to get away with it?”Sue Cowley: Can I clarify that? Teachers ask meabout that frequently. I am not saying that the standarddiffers. It is an equal, consistent standard for

everybody, but I could say to one kid, “Sort your tieout”, but to another kid I may have to go across tothem and whisper, “Can you get your tie sorted out?”For some kids, it is appropriate to say across the class,“Sort your ties out,” but for other kids I need toachieve that standard but by using differenttechniques—those are the techniques that we aretalking about: consistency, but flexibility in how Iachieve the consistent standards—because we arehuman and so are the kids.Daisy Christodoulou: I agree with Paul thatconsistency is phenomenally important; if differentthings are going on in different parts of the school itis really difficult to maintain standards. I also thinkthat the larger the school, the harder it is to beconsistent—it is not impossible, but it can be moredifficult.Katharine Birbalsingh: These are the questions thatone must ask of the senior team—how do you getconsistency across the school? How do you ensurethat staff are all doing similar things and are havingsimilar expectations in their classrooms? That is rarelyasked of senior teams, so one must hold them toaccount to ensure that there is consistency across theschool. One must not be attacking each teacher andsaying, “Look, you haven’t done it in yourclassroom.” If they have not done it, it is because it isnot coming from above. You have to hold the seniorteam to account for that consistency, becauseconsistency is everything—if you do not have it, youdo not have anything.

Q235 Neil Carmichael: I will ask a few questionsabout curriculum and teaching methods, but before Ido so, I want to ask Katharine a question. You haveput great emphasis on keeping the leadership andmanagement of the school accountable. I wasimpressed by that, but who is going to do it? Cangovernors do it? Is governance the right sort ofstructure? Who else would it be? If it were to begovernors, how would you strengthen it?Katharine Birbalsingh: No, it cannot be governors. Isuppose I am thinking of an equivalent to Ofsted—ofsome sorts of inspectors popping in every now andagain and talking things through. That does not meanthat they need to come in wielding an axe, but theyneed to ask the right questions. They need to askquestions of the senior team and then ask the sameones of staff to see whether they tally up. If they do,that is fine—you know that there is consistency. Theywould be looking to see whether there is consistencyin the systems and whether there are systems, both tosupport the teacher when the behaviour happens andto create an environment in which children can learn.That is what they should have as their focus and theyneed to be asking questions of everyone to seewhether consistency is there.

Q236 Neil Carmichael: So you are looking for apretty rigorous and persistent inspection regime.Katharine Birbalsingh: That is the word—persistent.How are they persistent? How are they relentless?Senior teams must be relentless and the teachers mustbe relentless with their love of learning in order toempower everyone in the school to move that school




forward. Those inspectors—or whoever it is—wouldcome in and ask about that. They need to be lookingfor relentlessness, persistence and consistency—andthey rarely are. That in-house variation is somethingthat all schools struggle with. That should be whateveryone is looking at, and they are not—they arelooking at things such as “community cohesion” andnonsense.

Q237 Neil Carmichael: Those matters will be dealtwith, but I have got your point. I am not entirely surethat an inspection regime is the right instrument, butwe will work on that. On curriculum teachingmethods, we need to tease out an answer on mixed-ability classrooms. May we have a one-liner fromeach of you about the wisdom of having those, inconnection with discipline?Tom Trust: I have always opposed the notion ofmixed-ability teaching, which is very much moredifficult than teaching a streamed class. It is verymuch a matter of—almost—belief or faith, but I donot go with it at all.Daisy Christodoulou: Perhaps for certain subjects,but on balance, no.Paul Dix: When you have high quality teachers,mixed-ability teaching raises achievement andresults—done it, seen it, proved it. You can look atthe evidence and see that when you have poor qualityteaching, setting and streaming make it easier to copewith behaviour. It is about the quality of your teachingstaff. Good teachers will tell you that they love andenjoy mixed-ability teaching and that it raisesachievement; teachers who are not quite as skilled willsay that having streams is easier.Sue Cowley: Human beings are of mixed ability. I amwith Paul—it is about the skill of the teacher. It isabout the joy of differentiating—of having the mostable pull up the weaker ones. It is the model that Iwould absolutely go with—not always, not in everysituation, but most of the time.Katharine Birbalsingh: In any institution, you have afew, who are extraordinary, at the top; a few, who arestruggling, at the bottom; and most people, who areordinary, in between. The few who are extraordinary,who are at the top, might be able to cope with mixed-ability classes, but you cannot have a system thatrelies on everyone being extraordinary, because it willfail. If most people are ordinary, and those are mostof your teachers, you must have a system that willwork for them. Therefore, mixed-ability cannot work.I understand that in PE, drama and art—those kind ofsubjects—mixed-ability is much better for them andthey prefer that, but for academic subjects mixed-ability is an absolute no.Neil Carmichael: Mixed views there about mixed-ability.Chair: I do not know whether that reflects theirabilities or not.

Q238 Neil Carmichael: I’m not going to go into that,but—interesting stuff. The next question that weshould be looking at, and you have all touched on this,is the curriculum—the management of it and what itis. First, I want to know how you think the curriculumcan be used to influence behaviour, and then there is

the question of managing the curriculum. There aretwo distinct issues, and I would like you all to have acrack at them.Tom Trust: Starting with me, again?Chair: No, we will start with Katharine, because thatis only fair.Katharine Birbalsingh: Okay. I was hoping that theywould answer, because I wasn’t quite sure aboutyour distinction.Neil Carmichael: The curriculum is a curriculum:first, there is what is on it, which is what we expectchildren to learn about; and secondly, there is how weeffectively manage the delivery of the curriculum, ifyou like. They are two different questions, which bothneed to be addressed.Chair: Start with how important you think it is totailor the curriculum to the needs of the pupils ratherthan to the results set.Katharine Birbalsingh: Again, this is one of thosecomplicated questions. Clearly, if you teach childrenthings that they are interested in, they are more likelyto behave. But do we then abandon Shakespeare,because they are not interested in Shakespeare?

Q239 Neil Carmichael: How do you know?Sue Cowley: They are.Katharine Birbalsingh: They are when you do thingsto get them into it. For instance, the argument is oftenmade that black pupils will be more interested in blackwriters than in white writers. There is some truth inthat—they will be. However, does that mean you onlyteach them black writing and never teach them anywhite writing? I don’t think so. There needs to besome kind of balance. Similarly, when you teachhistory, the argument is made that black pupils will bemore interested in black history than in other types ofhistory, and there is some truth in that. Does that meanyou only teach them black history and do not teachthem any other type of history? No, I don’t think so.You have to find a balance, which is difficult. Beingquite traditionalist, I like the move towards moretraditional teaching of history and English. Havingsaid that, there will be an impact on behaviour,because there is very much a sense in somecommunities that people want subjects that are taughtin a certain way to be made relevant to them as such.Sue Cowley: There are two aspects to behaviour whenit comes to the curriculum. One side of it is inspiringchildren to want to learn and to be engaged, which ispart of the deal that you have with them as a teacher.Some of my lessons start: “You will be engaged. Wewill be doing this crime scene. Somebody’s beenmurdered. We’re going to work back through the storyof ‘Romeo and Juliet’ from the end, where all themurders happen.” But the bargain is that, in return forthose inspirational and engaging lessons, we are goingto read and analyse this section of the text, because,equally, children love difficult technical terms andanalysis. They adore Shakespeare when it is taught ina creative way and when it is relevant to them, butalso when you say to them that the language is partof the joy of it. There does not have to be this disjointbetween the traditional curriculum and the creativecurriculum. It is not like that. You need a mixture ofthe two, with the skilful teacher in the middle




managing behaviour by engaging with her pupils andknowing what’s going to turn them on, for want of abetter term. She has that as a bargain with them: “Youneed to do this bit to access this bit, therefore youmust behave.”Chair: I am not going to allow anyone else to comein on that, as we have a lot to get through. I amsorry, Paul.

Q240 Craig Whittaker: I want to ask Tom aboutsomething you said earlier. You used the example ofa school where a head teacher came in and put 13teachers on capability assessments, which demoralisedthem. I come from a background—before coming tothis place—where a capability assessment was anincredibly positive thing in analysing people’sdevelopment and training needs. Are you saying thatthere may be a reluctance out there for teacher trainingand development from the teachers themselves,because that’s what I picked up?Tom Trust: No. By the time you put a teacher oncapability, there will already be issues aboutperformance. Presumably they are there because theyhave had appraisals that raised questions about theirperformance. I know the standard letters that headshave to send out during the capability procedurealways include rather pat phrases such as “This is asupportive thing.” It isn’t supportive. If a teacher isput under capability, they are at risk of losing theirjob. That doesn’t cheer up many people.

Q241 Craig Whittaker: I do not agree with you,because my experience is totally different—it can bean incredibly positive thing. That brings me nicely onto teacher training. David Moore, who was here someweeks ago, told us that Marks and Spencer—I am aretailer by trade—spends more time training its staffto deal with angry customers than teachers get inbehaviour and assessment training. We have alreadyestablished that there is a greater need for that. Whatare your views on the Secretary of State’s proposalsto bring ex-forces personnel into the teaching workforce?Paul Dix: What schools need are the ambition, highexpectations and respect that people from the armedforces bring. But I know from experience a huge andhefty ex-special forces person who joined a school. Isaw him wobbling in the staff room at lunchtime andhe said to me, “How do you get these kids to behave?”Let’s train them, because they could be a huge asset,but let’s train them well and put them into primaryschools. Primary schools need men teaching boys toread, and if boys can read, the behaviour problems insecondary schools start to go away. We must haveboys reading before they go to secondary school, andthen you will see behaviour start to improve. When Igo to modern foreign languages departments inschools, there are often behaviour issues. Why?Because the children do not understand English wellenough, and we are suddenly asking them to learnanother language, so they are voting with their feet.Teach children to read and get men in primary schoolsso that reading is not just cool—it is what happens. Itis what men do. Get them leaving primary schoolswith the ability to read, and then you will see people

who are able to access the most boring—or creative—lessons in secondary education. It is absolutelycritical. Sorry, I bent the question round, but myexperience brings me to that.

Q242 Craig Whittaker: So you are saying it’s agood thing?Paul Dix: If they are trained appropriately inmanaging behaviour, yes. Teach for America worksphenomenally well, so that model makes sense. Itwould be intelligent to bring that over, but let’s havethem in primary schools, because we need men inprimary schools.Tom Trust: In the Department for Education businessplan, it says that you want to create “new programmesto attract the best to the profession”—I have noargument with that—“including former members ofthe armed forces”. Why single out former members ofthe armed forces? Why not former Members ofParliament?Chair: Lack of discipline. We are an unruly lot.Tom Trust: I don’t know why that was specified.Sue Cowley: We need to be careful that we don’t lookat somebody in the armed forces and think, “Well,they can discipline,” because discipline in a school byits very nature is a different kettle of fish, and it wouldrequire training. You cannot court-martial a kid. Theidea that you get to the end of the line—that’s it,you’re out—is not how it works in schools. Thechildren have to go somewhere.

Q243 Craig Whittaker: So is it a good or a badthing?Sue Cowley: It’s fine, as long as they are trained andthey understand what it is about.Katharine Birbalsingh: When I was told on the phoneabout the Army, I laughed. If it is the case that in mostof our schools the behaviour is very good, why are wethinking about putting the Army in our classrooms?It’s a good question.Paul Dix: They would be in disadvantaged schools.In America, they target the communities most in need,where they do not have the quality of staff. They putthe male role models in there and it works. It isproven. It works.

Q244 Craig Whittaker: Okay. Let me turn it on itshead. Do schools use SEN to hide their own failings?Sue Cowley: It’s very hard to get a kid statemented.There is a tendency, perhaps more these days, to say,“Does this child have SEN?” But the statementingprocess, to have somebody with a statement and extrasupport, is a very long and complex process.Statistically, I don’t know. Are there more childrenthese days with special needs, or is it that weidentifying them more? I don’t know.Katharine Birbalsingh: I always talk about thisexcuse culture that exists, which has become part ofthe norm, so there is ADHD, SEBD, angermanagement and so on. It is through no one’s fault,because we’ve looked at why this child ismisbehaving, and then see what kind of support wecan bring in for him, which isn’t a bad thing—that’sa good thing to do. But then it has become socommonplace that teachers tend to think, “Well, this




one has behavioural problems in this way, that one’sgot ADHD, this one’s got this, and this one’s got that.”Everyone has some kind of label, and no one isresponsible for themselves in looking after theirbehaviour, because, “Well, it’s not my fault, I’ve gotADHD. It’s not my fault, I’ve got angermanagement.” So it’s an excuse culture. Although Ithink schools probably use SEN officially and hidebehind it, it is less obvious or tactical in what you’resaying. It’s just more of a culture of expecting less ofstudents because we think they’ve got this or thatlabel. We’re always labelling everyone, as opposed tojust expecting high standards of behaviour from them.

Q245 Chair: Does anyone take a different view?Paul Dix: We need to differentiate between thosechildren who walk the line—on some days they’rehaving a tricky day, and other days not—and somevery damaged children with severe mental healthissues, with whom we should be extremely concerned,and who have huge additional needs. I think schoolsdon’t necessarily hide behind it, but they’ve played agame. Extra funding comes with it, so you’re temptedinto identifying every single possible need. I thinkthere’s a case for differentiating those children whoare damaged and most at need, and who have medicaldiagnosis, and the children who, in a differentsituation, in another week or year, or when with adifferent teacher, could perform differently. Schoolsplay the game that is laid out for them, and we’ve gotto where we’ve got to because they have been doingexactly that.Chair: I’m afraid that I will have to cut both you andthe panel off on that and come to Tessa.

Q246 Tessa Munt: I would like to pick up onsomething. I can’t remember who said this, but one ofyou said we shouldn’t be relying on parents to teachbehaviour. I just want to ask you questions about thefact that we’ve concentrated on consistency. If you’vegot one model in schools, where you have consistentstandards that you have been set by the school, andthen everything falls apart when that child leavesschool and goes back to the community or home, howmuch emphasis should be put on work with parentsand carers to deal with young people withbehavioural difficulties?Sue Cowley: I’m doing a lot with early years at themoment, and one of the things that you really noticeis that by the age of three, a child can be so damaged,effectively, by lack of boundaries outside school, thatright from the start, you are playing catch-up.Absolutely, if you can get things right before a childis three, when they start the educational process, it’dmake a huge difference.

Q247 Tessa Munt: Okay, but how do you do that?You’ve picked a child up at three, and I accept thatabsolutely. What do we do?Sue Cowley: I think it’s great to have the emphasis onearly years, that more two-year-olds are being fundedto have more time in an environment where peopleare skilled at handling them, and that more workshopsare set up for parents. There is patchy provision forparents, but I don’t think there’s consistent provision

around the country where they have access to the kindof training we’re talking about that is given toteachers. I’ve done it for parents as well, so there isthat.Daisy Christodoulou: I worry slightly, in thatsometimes I think that these things might seem a bitintrusive. I am a teacher, and not a parent. There arestandards of behaviour that you want in school and inclass, but I don’t want to tell a parent how to do theirjob. I worry over that. I think it is a sensitive issue.Paul Dix: Where it works best, you have key workerswho work with that family and follow it, and thefamily has a consistent connection with that keyworker throughout that child’s period of need. Earlyintervention works well, but we could go on for yearsand years blaming parents. That’s an easy thing to do,and I think it’s very difficult to solve those entrenchedproblems in families. Why don’t we concentrate ourresources on where they’re most effective, which isestablishing good order and behaviour in schools, andtargeting some of those families, but not pretendingthat we can suddenly have national parentingteaching? Parents don’t buy into it. You put onbehaviour management meetings and so on, butparents don’t get their parenting from trainingsessions; they get it from the telly, their neighbours,tradition or culture. It is easy to divert responsibilityon to parents, but what we need to do is to set thestandards in schools first, and then work outwards,rather than try to change what is coming in—that isthe wrong way around, for me.Tessa Munt: Can I go to Tom and then to Katharine,because Tom was frowning?Tom Trust: Early years is way outside my experiencebecause I am a secondary school teacher. I wasfrowning because I remember having a discussionwith a head teacher about 30 years ago in which hetold me that we shouldn’t be telling parents what todo. I disagreed with him in the sense that if we don’tset standards in school, and standards are not beingset at home, the child is lost. That was my view 30years ago. Schools are quite entitled to set standardsof behaviour, but I am thinking in terms of secondaryschools, whereas your interest is more in early yearsin this line of questioning.Tessa Munt: I’m interested in the whole lot.Tom Trust: As a general rule, and to state the obvious,the most difficult children generally have the mostdifficult parents. Head teachers who are dealing withvery difficult children—perhaps where there is aquestion of whether a child will be excluded—findthemselves talking to difficult and unco-operativeparents.

Q248 Pat Glass: Moving on to the Government’sproposals on discipline and behaviour, a ministerialstatement has been issued that sets out new measuresto tackle behaviour. Ofsted is telling us that we don’tneed new measures to tackle behaviour and thatteachers know what they can do, that restraint isperfectly legal, and that it is actually parents andpupils who don’t understand what powers teachershave. What is your comment on that? Do we neednew powers, or is it that not enough people know whatthe powers currently are?




Paul Dix: If head teachers are asking for additionalpowers because of their particular circumstances, Ithink we should be prepared to give them to them. Itwould be disproportionate to give powers of restraintto every school and every schoolteacher. Perhaps weshould be targeting the areas where that is an issue.Compelling trouble-making parents to takeresponsibility for their children is an intelligent idea,and giving head teachers power is absolutely whatthey want and need. We have already talked aboutwhat head teachers are crying out for, and that is thetraining and the tools to do the job properly.

Q249 Pat Glass: So it is the training rather than theadditional powers.Paul Dix: If head teachers want these new measuresand they are asking for them, we should of coursegive them to them. But I think that teachers wouldsay that what they want is joined-up management anddecent training.Tom Trust: I wouldn’t argue with the need for someextra powers, but what teachers need more isreassurance about what they can do, because they area beleaguered profession. A particular point thatworries me is the idea of repealing the legislation thatrequires schools to give parents 24 hours’ writtennotice of detentions, although I know that that isqualified. Having taught in a rural areas, I know that

Examination of Witness

Witness: Nick Gibb MP, Minister of State for Schools, Department for Education, gave evidence.

Q250 Chair: Good morning, Minister. Thank youvery much for joining us this morning after thatexcellent panel, which I know you listened to. If Imay, I will start with the question that I asked theprevious panel. What is the one thing that theGovernment can best do to improve behaviour anddiscipline in our schools?Mr Gibb: We need to trust and support our teachers.That is the key thing. That came out of the evidencesession that we’ve just heard, and it came out when Iread the evidence you took in earlier sessions.Teachers need to be supported by their head teachers,and both head teachers and teachers need to know thatthey have the support of the Department for Educationand the Government. The other thing that came outthis morning was having systems in place. I havevisited a lot of schools over the past five and a halfyears, and the schools that have the most successfulbehavioural policies are those that have very clearsystems in place. For example, Oakgrove school inMilton Keynes has a member of the seniormanagement team walking the corridors with a mobilephone, every teacher has a mobile phone, and if thereis any disruption in class they pick up the mobilephone and call the assistant head, who comes to theclass and takes the child away. A consistent, well-established series of events happens at that school.There are no behavioural problems, and the mobilephones are rarely used.

there are implications for such places. It was all rightwhen I was at school in London because I could bekept in just like that and get a later bus. On being ableto restrain pupils, training is necessary where restraintis necessary. I notice that it refers to not lettingchildren leave the classroom. Unions have beenadvising for years that you shouldn’t stand in a pupil’sway if they try to leave. I have always ignored that asa teacher. I have always taken the view that a childcan only leave my classroom if they walk over me. Ihave survived to retire. I have always felt that it sendsthe wrong message to children if you let them do whatthey want, quite honestly.Daisy Christodoulou: Yes, I agree with that. With alot of the rules, it comes down to the message thatthey send, as opposed to whether they are enforced ornot. For example, on whether you can search kids’bags, if I didn’t know a pupil’s name, I would askthem to give me their planner. If they refused, therewas deadlock. The issue of this law came up on 7 Julyand I discussed it with my class. It’s not particularlythat I want to search a pupil’s bag, but if there is alaw and the school has the power to do so, it sends amessage. That’s what I like about it. That messagedoes get through to kids, and it makes them think.Chair: Thank you all very much indeed for yourevidence this morning. It’s been tremendous,enjoyable and informative.

Q251 Chair: But you’ve described, Minister, whatyou’d like. You haven’t particularly described how theGovernment are going to bring that about.Mr Gibb: We have set out very clearly that we wantto give teachers and head teachers the powers andsupport that they need. For example, on 7 July, Iannounced that we would clarify and strengthenguidance on the use of force and on search powers,and that we would remove the statutory notice for 24-hour detention.

Q252 Chair: But Minister, some people havewelcomed that and have said that it would be a usefulpower that they could use appropriately in rural areas,or otherwise as they saw fit—hopefully they wouldtailor it sensibly—but no one has said that the powersare the issue. All they’ve said is that this consistentpicture needs to be made to happen in more schools.What are you going to do to make that happen?Mr Gibb: That’s about spreading best practice. It’sabout having Ofsted focus its inspections, and insteadof focusing on 17 different issues focusing on four:teaching, attainment, leadership, and behaviour andsafety. We can send them a clear message that we asa Government regard tackling behaviour as a keypriority and can have Ofsted focus its inspections onthat. That will, I think, send a clear message to schoolsand head teachers.

Q253 Chair: But the previous Government sawbehaviour as a key priority, and good practice hasbeen recognised and is fairly commonly shared, and



17 November 2010 Nick Gibb MP

yet it doesn’t happen. It is still not clear how youare going to bring it about in a way that the previousGovernment didn’t.Mr Gibb: Well, don’t underestimate the importance ofthe powers that we’re talking about. We have done aresearch exercise over the past few months into whyteachers don’t use the powers that they have. There isa lot of uncertainty out there. They don’t know whattheir powers are. They don’t know how to use them.One of the reasons for that is that the guidance that issent out to schools runs to 500 pages for behaviourand nearly another 500 pages for bullying. With thebest will in the world, this guidance is not read byteachers. So, we have engaged in a very extensiveexercise of slimming down that guidance to 20 or 30pages, and we hope to be able to release it over thenext few weeks and months.

Q254 Bill Esterson: In the previous session, weheard mixed evidence on the level of behaviour inschools. My experience of schools that I go into isthat behaviour is pretty good on the whole. So, isn’tthe challenge to focus on those schools wherebehaviour is an issue, rather than on a much widerapproach? To pick up Paul’s point, is the challenge toensure that there is consistency in all schools?Mr Gibb: Yes, but Ofsted says that more than one infive schools have behaviour that is only satisfactoryor inadequate. That is 677 secondary schools in thecountry. If you speak with the unions, ATL says that40% of teachers have faced physical aggression in thatacademic year. There are problems and they need tobe spread on a system-wide basis. It is not only aboutfocusing on a minority of schools. Having said that,one of the key objectives of this Government is toclose the attainment gap between the wealthiest andpoorest backgrounds. Children from the lowestsocioeconomic group are eight percentage points morelikely to be engaged in poor behaviour and theydisproportionately attend schools with poor behaviour.We need to make sure that, in a fair and just society,we tackle those weaker schools on behaviour.

Q255 Bill Esterson: Sure. We have heard about theSteer report. What would stop you implementingthose recommendations?Mr Gibb: Many of Alan Steer’s recommendations willbe incorporated in our policy. If you don’t mind beinga little patient for the White Paper that is about to bepublished, he has a series of principles that we agreewith, and I think that you will find that a number ofhis recommendations are reflected in our approach topolicy. He talks about consistency, school leadership,rewards and sanctions, behaviour strategies, staffdeployment, pupil support systems, liaison withparents, managing pupil transition and organisationand facilities. Who can disagree with that approach tobehaviour? It is about turning those general principlesinto concrete policy, which I hope that you will see inthe White Paper.

Q256 Damian Hinds: Good morning, Minister. Iwant to point back to early years. It seems to havebeen a consensus among economists for a number ofyears that the marginal million pounds is best spent in

early years, partly because of the knock-on impact ithas on behaviour, discipline, reading and all thoseother things that affect children further down the line.We have had Sure Start for a number of years andthere are soon to be extensions to it in a couple ofdifferent ways. I wondered what your view is on theeffectiveness of the Sure Start model in the UK.Mr Gibb: It can be effective, but it does need to betargeted better at those parents and families who haveparticular difficulties. That has been my colleagueSarah Teather’s objective and that is what I hope theClare Tickell review will look at, as she examines theearly years foundation stage. Going a little up the agerange to reception and the first years of primaryschool, I do think that reading is very important. Itcame out in this morning’s evidence session as wellas in evidence sessions earlier on in yourdeliberations, which I have read, that reading is veryimportant. It is not only reading per se, but thefrustration at not being able to read by the time a childreaches secondary school, which can lead todisruptive behaviour. Our policy on synthetic phonics,and ensuring that every six-year-old has masteredthose basic decoding skills, is very important when itcomes to behaviour policy.

Q257 Damian Hinds: More generally on earlyidentification and early intervention programmes, wehave taken evidence from a number of differentpeople and even seen a couple of people who havetold us about a brilliant thing that is going on here anda brilliant thing that is going on there, but when youask how they came up with it, there is always adifferent route. What is the Government’s plan foramassing the intelligence on what works best in whatcontext, with who and how and so on? How do youmake sure that it is disseminated and that you get bestpractice without stifling the innovation, the diversityand the localism, which is quite often the strength thatyou find in those brilliant things?Mr Gibb: Two things to say. First of all, we want towait to hear what Graham Allen has to say in hisreview, which is important. You make a good pointabout spreading best practice. Please wait for theWhite Paper, where we will be discussing how wedisseminate that best practice. The evidence that is outthere sometimes does not get down to the classrooms.It is about disseminating best practice, and havingwebsites and easy access to material through somesort of directory. That is the right approach. It mustnot be top down. We have to move away from thetop-down approach to policy—the prescriptiveapproach—which stifles innovation and can be verydemoralising for teachers. I’m talking about the leverarch files that arrive every two weeks and are plonkedon a teacher’s desk, but then lie unread and underminemorale. Those days are over, as far as we’reconcerned.

Q258 Damian Hinds: Does that imply that theguidance given on the early intervention grant will bequite broad in terms of how it can be used? Also, whatpotential do you see with that and more generally forincreasing reliance on payment by results and howwould you measure results?




Mr Gibb: Payment by results is a good approach whenyou want to buy in services from other, third sectororganisations, but we are trying to move away fromring-fenced grants for specific purposes. A lot of thegrants in the past have been subsumed into thebaseline of schools, and that is the right approach, buton the specifics, just wait, please, for the White Paper.

Q259 Damian Hinds: We talked a little in the lastsession about Troops to Teachers and we had someonehere from Teach First. It’s interesting that wheneveryou talk about the American Troops to Teachersprogramme, there is an explicit recognition that it hada lot to do with getting men into primary schools andspecifically black men into primary schools. In thiscountry, how explicit will we be about trying to getmore men into primary schools?Mr Gibb: That is a problem. Only 15% of teachers inprimary schools are men, and 28% of primary schoolshave no male teachers at all. As you indicated earlier,particularly when children are from families in whichthere is no male role model and they then go toschools where there is no male role model, it can bea problem. I think there is a case for encouraging intothe teaching profession people who have hadexperience in all walks of life, including the military,because they bring something extra to our educationsystem.

Q260 Damian Hinds: Let’s move on to teachertraining. Paul Dix mentioned that we had got rid ofthe cane in schools and replaced it with preciselynothing, but there are various tricks of the trade, andvarious people have given evidence to the Committeeand brought up specific things such as “Don’t repeata question”—if you repeat a question, the child getsused to the idea that they don’t have to listen to otherpeople talking—“Don’t talk over children,” and so on.To what extent do you see the place for learning aboutthose things as being in initial teacher training, or doesit have to be in continuing development and on-the-job training? If it’s the former, how much does initialteacher training have to be changed to make morespace for learning those techniques?Mr Gibb: We are reviewing the QTS standards, and Ithink that’s very important. There should be greaterfocus on those behavioural management techniques,but as Alan Steer pointed out in one of the sessions,continuing professional development is important;learning these things in the school is important. That’swhy we also want greater focus on graduates—peoplecoming into the teaching profession—learning inschools, in school-centred initial teacher training.

Q261 Damian Hinds: It struck me when Sue Cowleywas speaking earlier that a lot of what she was sayingabout the way you interact with and tailor yourapproach to individual children means that it probablyis rather difficult to teach to a teacher, as it were, in asystematised way. You would have to learn more fromobserving other teachers and a bit from trial and error.Is there more of a role for buddying and that sort ofthing even after initial teacher training?Mr Gibb: I think so. If you talk to experiencedteachers and the trade unions, they say that what

matters with CPD is not going off on some course, butsitting down with other teachers—more experiencedteachers perhaps—in the school and reflecting on theirown experience and observing good teachers in theschool to see how they manage poor behaviour, howthey manage to teach physics or whatever.

Q262 Damian Hinds: Finally, on the issue ofongoing support, particularly in terms of specialeducational needs and identification of them, theNational Strategies inclusion development programmeis said to be useful in helping teachers to identify thecauses of poor behaviour. With the end of NationalStrategies, how do you plan to plug that gap to ensurethat that ongoing support remains in place?Mr Gibb: Early identification is very important, andthat’s what things such as our screening test at sixare designed to achieve, because a child who hasn’tmanaged to master the simple decoding techniques forwords may well have other needs as well. We need tomake sure through the ITT that teachers do havetraining, not necessarily in how to teach every singlespecial need that there is, but at the very least in beingable to identify that there is a need there. They canthen call in the specialist to address it. Things likedyslexia are needs that do need to be identified veryearly.

Q263 Lisa Nandy: I want to ask you about yourdecision regarding no-notice detention. Do youconsider that decision to be fair to children who havecaring responsibilities at home?Mr Gibb: This isn’t a prescriptive policy—“You shallnot give a detention without 24 hours’ notice.” Thisis a permissive power that says that if you do not wishto give 24 hours, as a school, you do not have to.Schools are public bodies and as a public body theyhave to behave reasonably, so I don’t believe that anyschool would—well, any school would simply not bepermitted to—act unreasonably in giving a detentionto a child who has caring needs, or who lives, as waspointed out by Tom Trust, in the middle of a rural areawith transport problems. Of course, those schools willtake the appropriate measures, but do you think it isright for the House of Commons to pass a law tellinga school how to run detention? It does seemextraordinary. We need to get away from thisprescriptive approach to our schools.

Q264 Lisa Nandy: I’ve worked with young peoplewho have caring responsibilities for several years.One of the most striking features about that is thatthey are often very reluctant to tell people—friends,peers, teachers, anybody—about what’s going on athome. So my question for you is, if you’re expectingschools to behave reasonably, how can those schoolsbehave reasonably if they simply don’t know thatthose young people have those responsibilities?Mr Gibb: Well, perhaps they ought to know. If aschool decided to give a no-notice detention to a childwho had these responsibilities, and it did prove aproblem, so the child simply left, it would soonbecome clear to the school that that child had otherissues. I think most schools are aware of these issues.I think we have to trust professionals who run our




schools—trust the head teachers, trust the teachers.They are professional people, and I believe they knowwhat they are doing in running a school. What wehave to do—certainly the approach of thisGovernment—is to liberate them to run the schools asthey see fit, and not always to prescribe every dot andcomma on when and how they can run detentions andhow they can run their schools.

Q265 Lisa Nandy: I understand that, Minister, and Iknow that that’s the direction that the Governmenthave said they want to take, but obviously there are acouple of really key issues there. One is that schoolstend not to know about those issues, and if they don’tknow then they won’t be able to behave responsibly.That will cause extreme damage for that young personwho then is sitting at school thinking “I’ve got amother”—or a father or a younger sibling—“who isin desperate need at home, and here I am completelytrapped.” And it will cause issues for the school aswell, because the school will be failing in itsresponsibility to that young person without everhaving known about it.Mr Gibb: It won’t just be the detention issue that willbe a problem for that child. It will be a whole rangeof issues. I would hope and expect that the issuewould have arisen and come to the notice of theschool before the first detention was made. Forexample, issues of homework being completed, and awhole host of other issues, should have come to theattention of the school before that time.

Q266 Lisa Nandy: I understand you’ve hadconversations with organisations that represent youngcarers. Are they supportive of the approach?Mr Gibb: We are engaged with a carers strategy andwe do want to have a better identification. I have notmet the carers people yet, but I will do soon, in duecourse.

Q267 Lisa Nandy: You will commit to doing that.Mr Gibb: I will do so.

Q268 Lisa Nandy: Will you talk to them veryseriously about whether this is in fact a good idea?Because I put it to you that there are serious concernsabout the impact on that group of children and youngpeople, quite apart from the other groups that weheard about in the earlier session.Mr Gibb: I understand the argument, but the key isidentifying who these children are, and it’s not just theissue of detention that makes that important. We dowant to ensure that all schools are able to identifythose children who have these kinds of responsibilitiesat home. These measures do have the support ofteachers, and some of the teaching unions, though notall, support them.

Q269 Ian Mearns: On the back of that, Minister, Ithink overnight I heard a report that there are fourtimes as many youngsters who have these caringresponsibilities in their own home than previouslythought, and we’ve got to find out the evidence forthat. It seems to me that you’re implying that for thoseyoungsters who have those responsibilities we should

take a differential approach to the general schoolpopulation. Yet in earlier evidence, people have saidconsistency in disciplinary matters is most important.So which one are we going to have—consistency ordifferentiation?Mr Gibb: They are not incompatible. I think it wasSue Cowley who said in the earlier session you haveto be flexible when it comes to the particular needsof particular children. What consistency means is thatwhen you speak out in the wrong way, or swear ata teacher, you know that the following will happen,regardless of which teacher is taking the class. That iswhat consistency means—there are systems in place,as Katharine Birbalsingh pointed out, that willautomatically kick into place when poor behaviourhappens. That will apply to all the children in theschool, including those who have special needs,difficult home lives or caring responsibilities. Butwhen it comes to things like detention or thecompletion of homework, of course you have to takeinto account the home lives and the responsibilities ofthose children—schools do do that.

Q270 Lisa Nandy: A number of organisations havesaid to us that they consider the response that youhave, essentially, given us, which is that you wantschools to be able to discover those things, is puttingthe cart before the horse. I urge you to take that veryseriously when you talk to those organisations. I wantto ask you one further question. We have heard verylittle support for another proposal from the coalition,to end the right to an appeal against permanentexclusion to an independent panel. Can you tell theCommittee whether you still intend to go ahead withthat measure?Mr Gibb: What we are concerned about is thecircumstance in which a head teacher expels orpermanently excludes a pupil—for example, forcarrying a knife or for attacking another pupil or ateacher. That child is then excluded, there is an appealand, as a result of the appeal, the child comes backto the school. When that happens, it undermines theauthority of the head teacher and the teacher. It is anunacceptable state of affairs. You will have to waituntil the White Paper next week, please, but whenwe were devising our policy, that was one of our keypriorities. The other thing that we wanted to ensurehappened was that the child being excluded was beingexcluded fairly. We need to make sure—this is theimperative that led to the establishment of theindependent appeal panels—that a capricious decisioncannot happen when it comes to excluding a pupilpermanently from a school. We need to make sure thatpupils who have committed a serious offence withinthe school don’t come trotting back into school,undermining the head teacher’s authority.

Q271 Lisa Nandy: It seems strange because Sir AlanSteer’s report came out very strongly against the sortof measures that you seem to be indicating will be inthe White Paper next week.Mr Gibb: There are differing views on a range ofissues, of which that is one. We agree with much ofwhat Sir Alan Steer has said. For example, on settingby ability or children sitting in a seating pattern in a




classroom—all these are good practice, and wesupport his 10 principles, but on that one issue wedisagree.

Q272 Chair: So are you planning to have some formof internal right of appeal? You said that you wantedto stop capricious decisions, but that is impossible—the only way that you can stop capricious decisions isto have some mechanism by which to correct them.Mr Gibb: Again, patience—I have set out the issuesthat were concerning us, which are about ensuring thathead teachers have—Chair: I’ll take that as a reassurance that you agreewith my analysis.

Q273 Lisa Nandy: May I ask you one last question,Minister? I am concerned, in light of your answer tothe previous question, that there are not sufficientsafeguards in the measures you are pressing aheadwith for some of the most vulnerable children. Willthere be safeguards for the most vulnerable childrenin the system that you are proposing?Mr Gibb: Of course, the driver behind all our policiesis to help children from difficult backgrounds, and themost vulnerable are our key priority. We want to closethe attainment gap for children from poorer familiesand between children with special needs and thosethat have no special needs. That is an overridingobjective of this Government, so you can be assuredthat every policy that you see in the White Paper willhave built within it safeguards to protect the mostvulnerable.

Q274 Neil Carmichael: We’re all looking forward tothe White Paper, that’s for sure.I want to test this question of accountability, whichwe discussed in the evidence session when looking,for example, at the role of head teachers andleadership. You emphasised that a moment ago. Youhave also said that you don’t want a top-downapproach, which is consistent with the coalitionGovernment. So, how do we hold head teachers andleadership to account? Are we going to look at Ofstedand look at that as an instrument, even if it doesnarrow down to four areas? Or should we bestrengthening governance? What mechanism do wehave in mind to enforce this issue of accountability?Mr Gibb: It’s a good question and the answer is all ofthe above. Ofsted is very important, which is why wewant to focus inspections on those four key areas,which are teaching, attainment, leadership andbehaviour and safety. On the results of the school—its attainment levels—we want to ensure that thepublished results, or league tables if you like, don’thave built within them perverse incentives for childrento be put in for the wrong qualifications. And ofcourse, the whole structural reform process, ofallowing new schools to enter the system—theacademies programme—is all about giving parentsgenuine choice. It’s accountability to parents ratherthan Government that matters and opening up theschool system so that increasingly—not immediately,because this is a big capacity issue—parents will havea genuine choice in where they can have their childreneducated. That is the most powerful of all the

accountability measures. They will look at all kindsof issues as well as exam results, such as behaviour.In the Department, we want to get the information thatwe have about schools out there. It should be availableto the public to look at; it shouldn’t just be sitting oncomputer discs for Ministers.

Q275 Neil Carmichael: The other question relates tothe curriculum, which we have talked about; the kindof curriculum that we will be seeing is going to beslightly different and you have announced some plansalready. The key is how that will be sure to engagethe pupils, and whether it will be something that wecan be confident will help disciplinary andbehavioural issues in schools.Mr Gibb: What’s important when you devise acurriculum—and again, we will be announcing thedetails in due course—is that it will deliver theeducation that our young people need in this countryfor the modern world. We need a well-educatedsociety. There will be things in the curriculum thatare challenging, difficult, and not necessarily fun orimmediately interesting, which is what education isabout. That is why it is called an academic disciplinebecause sometimes, it’s hard. Learning long division,or tables, or learning to read is hard, but once you canread and you’ve mastered that basic skill, it’s a joyfor children to read books. I feel very strongly that—and this evidence was in some of your earliersessions—if children can’t do things, that is a causefor them to start to misbehave. I think we all would ifwe were in an environment where we were expectedto be able to do something but we hadn’t learned howto do it and were struggling. It makes peoplemisbehave and be disruptive, and that’s what we haveto tackle.

Q276 Neil Carmichael: So, higher standards andimproved teaching are obviously the solution, and wewould all agree about that. In a sense, what we aresaying is that the ethos and overall feeling of theschool is really the key driver for improvingbehaviour.Mr Gibb: Yes. We must have high expectations of allchildren in our schools. I don’t think we should takethe view that we need to make our curriculum easierin order to raise the standards of behaviour; it shouldbe the other way round. We need to raise standards ofbehaviour right across the board, so that children canlearn more and schools can deliver a challengingcurriculum. That will equip our young people tocompete in a very competitive global environment inwhich emerging countries are educating generationsof graduates to very high standards and where schoolleavers are highly educated. In a global world, wherejobs are also now global, we want our young peoplewho are educated in this country to have a goodchance of competing for those jobs and that business.

Q277 Chair: How do you stop you yourself fromending up as a bit of a Gradgrind? Isn’t this relentlessfocus on standards and measurable outcomes takingthe enjoyment out of teaching and the joy out oflearning in too many cases?




Mr Gibb: Why do you say that? What is there not toenjoy in teaching a child to read effectively and to seethe joy they have in reading book after bookthroughout primary school, or in a child graspingsome of the complexities in the physics curriculum?That’s what education is about and most teachers havecome into the teaching profession to teach theirsubject. We need to liberate them to enable them todo that.

Q278 Charlotte Leslie: My swimming coach used tosay, “No pain, no gain.” I think it may be somethingwe’ve forgotten to tell young people. The bestachievements and the best things come after you’veworked quite hard to do them. That’s my littlecontribution.Chair: Who’s next?

Q279 Charlotte Leslie: Thank you, Chair. I’m goingto ask about exclusions. I was very interested in whatLisa had to say about children who have caringresponsibilities. I was very shocked by what yousaid—that no one at the school actually knows—because I think it’s absolutely vital that in our policywe take care of the most vulnerable. To what extentdo you think that structures such as 24-hour detentionand structural safeguards have removed the feeling ofresponsibility from the teachers for their owninteraction with their pupils, and their ownunderstanding and professionalism towards theirpupils, towards simply depending on a very crowdedstructured basis where children just move through amincemeat machine of structural safeguards? Do youfeel that the removal of some of these safeguards orstructures would re-emphasise to teachers that it’stheir professional duty to understand and know theirchildren, which surely must be the basis of goodlearning?Mr Gibb: Talking to teachers, I think they feel that thebalance between rights and responsibilities betweenadults and children—pupils and teachers—has shifted,or the perception has shifted, too far towards the pupil.So you will get children saying, “I know my rights,miss. You can’t touch me,” or “You can’t keep mehere.” I think that does undermine the confidence ofteachers. The message we want to send out is that youdo have those rights, and we’re going to clarify themso that you yourself are clear that you have thoserights.

Q280 Charlotte Leslie: Do you want to moveresponsibility? In good schools that I go to, I knowthat the teachers have a very personal relationshipwith their pupils. The pupils that you see feel thatthere’s someone there for them. In my view—I don’tknow what the caring organisations would say tothis—that is by far the best way of dealing withchildren with caring responsibilities, because it’s notjust the detention that’s going to be an issue but allsorts of other things. How do you foster, throughpolitical structures, an atmosphere where teachers takea professional personal responsibility towards thechildren they’re teaching?Mr Gibb: It’s a difficult thing to do in a top-downway, but that pastoral care is what happens in the best

schools. The best schools have huge extra-curricularactivities. No one has required them to have thoseextra-curricular activities, but all those things—goodpastoral care, good extra-curricular activities—lead tohigher standards in the schools. That’s what we needto try and foster. It’s our belief that the way you fosterthat is to take away the bureaucracy and impositionsfrom the centre that stifle innovation and crowd outteachers’ time.

Q281 Charlotte Leslie: Does it stifle compassion aswell?Mr Gibb: I think it probably does. If you are a teacherfaced every two weeks with a new missive arrivingfrom the Department for Education or one of thearm’s-length bodies telling you that there’s a newapproach to doing this and that, it does undermineyour morale and take up time that you could bespending on dealing with a child’s needs.

Q282 Charlotte Leslie: Moving on—sorry for thatexcursion—to exclusions and academies, there’s quitesignificant evidence to suggest that academies useboth fixed-period and permanent exclusions more thanlocal authority schools. First, do you think this is thecase? Secondly, is it of concern? Thirdly, does it putan excessive burden on those local authority schoolsthat remain, which are left with the more difficultchildren?Mr Gibb: I think you’ll find that the figures show thatover a period, they don’t exclude more thanmaintained schools. What does tend to happen inschools in very challenging areas is that a new headteacher comes in—that can happen in the maintainedsector or in a new academy—and, wishing toestablish, might make his mark on the school byestablishing new behavioural policies and bringing ina new uniform and a new approach. They can excludea large number of pupils in those early years, but oncethe good behaviour is established, those exclusionsfall off. What does concern us is that there are 300,000fixed-period exclusions every year, and 20% of youngpeople who are excluded are excluded three times ormore in a year. That’s a worry. We have to tackle that.

Q283 Charlotte Leslie: That was my secondquestion, really. What sort of scrutiny will you beusing to make sure that schools aren’t overusing fixed-period exclusion? Is there anything you will be doing?You don’t want to be top-down.Mr Gibb: One of the reasons, of course, is that headteachers are deterred from excluding permanently, andthat’s why we’ve seen a decline in those figures and asignificant rise in temporary exclusions. But whatgood practice around the country shows is that earlyintervention—not in the sense of very young childrenbut when problems are identified in secondary schoolsand specialists are brought in before the children getto the point at which they are going to be excluded—is the right approach. There are lots of examples ofshared expertise, of using the expertise of those in thethird sector who are experienced in helping childrenwith behavioural problems. Spending a day a weekwith the London Boxing Academy for example, orany of these organisations, can turn the children




around. There is a very good example in Horshamof a virtual PRU. Four secondary schools use a non-maintained special school that specialises inbehavioural policy, and young people who are indanger of exclusion go to that school a couple of daysa week to do photography and things that interestthem, and that addresses their behavioural problems.That is the kind of imaginative approach that we needto see in our schools.

Q284 Charlotte Leslie: As the local authority, underwhat we imagine might appear in the White Paper,becomes less of a player—less of a provider—in theschool landscape, do you think that that will bedetrimental, or will it be an opportunity for the betterprovision of alternative provision, which hasn’t beengreat?Mr Gibb: No. Again, you’ll have to wait for the WhitePaper, but I think that we do need to harness that vastpool of expertise and experience that lies in the thirdsector. We also need to look at what’s happening inthe best PRUs. Ofsted has graded 69% of them as“good” or “outstanding”, but that does mean that awhole bunch are not, which is a worry. I think thatsomething like one in five of them are graded as“outstanding.” So, we need to harness that experience,and the experience of the third sector, and bring thatexpertise into schools.

Q285 Charlotte Leslie: Will anything replace thekind of structural support that the local authorityprovided? I want to think about behaviourpartnerships between schools. Will anything replacethat, or will schools be expected to simply replicate itthrough professionalism? If so, and if they don’t, willthere be any measures to ensure that there isn’t avacuum left where once a local authority was?Chair: We’ll come on to partnerships in a minute.Minister, if you could answer on the other issue.Mr Gibb: Very early on, the Secretary of Stateestablished a ministerial advisory group of peoplefrom local government and the education world tolook at what the structure of a post-academies worldwould be like. A lot of the ideas that you’re talkingabout have been deliberated on in that discussion, andsome of the conclusions from that group are in theWhite Paper, which you’ll have to wait for, but notfor very long.

Q286 Chair: When will it be out?Mr Gibb: Very soon. Very soon, indeed.Chair: You can’t tell us precisely when.Mr Gibb: Very soon.

Q287 Craig Whittaker: A lot of people have writtenin to the Committee about the requirements forschools to join behaviour and attendance partnerships.Birmingham City Council’s behaviour support servicesaid that it regretted the Government’s decision toremove that requirement, and argues that allowing“schools to ‘opt out’ of working with neighbouringschools and local youngsters will lead to additionalpressure on a smaller number of schools, a fracturededucation system and more pupils out of school as a

result of exclusion. Pupils need to remain the sharedresponsibility of all in a locality.” Is it right?Mr Gibb: You don’t need to force people intopartnerships. The best partnerships are voluntary. Inone of the earlier sessions, you had Sue Bainbridge,and I jotted down what she said. She said: “in placessuch as Bradford, where they have a really strongpartnership and operate in three different clusters.They have engaged in those partnerships because theywanted to and not because anyone told them to.” Soyou do have to trust professionals, and we are movinginto a world in which we are going to be trustingschools, teachers and head teachers and taking awaystatutory requirements to do things such as that. ButI believe that people will want to work together asprofessionals. In addition to that, of course, there isthe Fair Access protocol in the admissions code. It isstill there, and will remain. So I don’t think that justbecause you take away an obligation an activitywon’t continue.

Q288 Craig Whittaker: I hear what you’re saying,but what about the better schools? What about theschools that have the best pupils? Are they not goingto benefit by disadvantaging the schools that don’t orwon’t get involved, or those that are poorerperforming?Mr Gibb: They’ll still be subject to the Fair Accessprotocol, which is designed to prevent all the childrenwho have been excluded going into one particularschool. My perception of the head teachers in thiscountry, even those who run high-performing schools,is that they do not want to be an island untothemselves; they believe in working with otherschools. I believe that that will continue,notwithstanding that you take away a statutoryobligation.

Q289 Craig Whittaker: Let me come to the moveaway from reliance on the local authority. Are thereany services that you think need to be provided by thelocal authority to allow both the benefits of economiesof scale and for cases that need an urgent response?Mr Gibb: There will always be a role for localauthorities in education. For example, they need tohave the role of being the champion of pupils andparents. If they look at the schools in their area andsee an inadequate number of places or poor provision,they have a role in ensuring that the provision rises,by inviting in and cajoling or by encouraging newschools to be set up in the area. They will have a rolein low-incidence special needs, of course. Even in asystem where all schools are autonomous, schools willwant to buy services. They may well buy them fromtheir local authority or from another local authority.They might decide to form their own clusters orgroups of schools to buy goods and services in a morecost-effective and economical way.

Q290 Craig Whittaker: What evidence is there toshow that autonomy is what schools want?Mr Gibb: We are persuaded by the evidence fromaround the world that autonomy is commensurate withhigh standards. The OECD has done a lot of research,and the two key features that high-performing




jurisdictions around the world have in common areautonomy and clear external accountabilitymechanisms. That is what we’re driven by.

Q291 Craig Whittaker: Do our schools have theskill set and the capacity to undertake that role?Mr Gibb: That’s why the academy programme hasbeen set out in stages. We invited all schools to apply,but those that are rolling forward in the first wave arethe schools that are graded by Ofsted as outstanding.We are sure that those schools have the rightleadership. At the bottom end, we will be encouragingacademy sponsors to come in and help the poorer-performing schools that we are not sure have the rightleadership to develop.

Q292 Craig Whittaker: So with the exception ofacademy sponsors, what other skill-set programmewill we put into schools, so that they can take on therole of being autonomous and not rely on the localauthority?Mr Gibb: What do you have in mind?

Q293 Craig Whittaker: I’m not the one who ismaking the policy; that is you. I am just saying thatwe currently have a situation in which a lot of schoolsare heavily reliant on local authorities. We are goingto take that away and give them more autonomy. I’mnot convinced—some of the evidence says that we arenot convinced—that they have the skill set and thecapacity to deliver that autonomy. I have asked whatwe will do as a Government to support the skill setand capacity raising, apart from introducing sponsors.Mr Gibb: It’s not about taking the scaffolding awaytomorrow, but about moving over a period of time toa position where schools have autonomy. Schools thatwe do not feel have the right leadership will not befast-tracked to become academies. We are startingwith schools that are outstanding, and we have nowannounced that schools that are good with outstandingfeatures will be able to become academies. We expectall those academies to take with them, or help, aschool in the local area that has poor leadership andis struggling. That is a way of getting those skillsspread more evenly across the school system. TheSecretary of State has also announced a doubling ofthe number of national leaders in education—exceptional teachers around the country who havealready provided services and support to neighbouringschools or schools in other parts of the country. Whenthey provide that support, the standards in thoseschools rise. It is about using the existing stock ofexceptional heads to spread expertise around theschool system.

Q294 Chair: Minister, have you done enough on thistransition? If we’re moving from a less autonomousworld that is supported by local authorities to a moreautonomous world, there is a transition period inwhich that capability has to be grown. Have youthought about this enough and put enough support inplace to allow that transition to have as few downsidesas possible?Mr Gibb: The Secretary of State has to sign off everyschool that becomes an academy. If he is not

convinced that a school applying for academy statusis capable of managing itself as an autonomousacademy, he won’t sign the academy order. It won’thappen if we’re not convinced of that.

Q295 Chair: In a more autonomous world, will theresponsibility for permanently excluded pupilscontinue to rest with the school and not the localauthority?Mr Gibb: Again, we have been deliberating on theseimportant matters. Without wanting to sound boring,please wait for the White Paper, which will have a lotto say on those issues.Chair: Whether it’s Monday or Wednesday nextweek.Mr Gibb: It will come out very soon.

Q296 Pat Glass: In a similar vein, you said earlier inanswer to a question that the Government are lookingto support children from the most difficultbackgrounds. I have worked with the most specialistschools in behaviour and with some of the children inthose schools who have incredibly challengingbackgrounds. Almost universally, those children comefrom homes in crisis and in the most awfulcircumstances. As a head teacher, I would look tobring in all the agencies that could support that childand that family—the police, child and adolescentmental health services, social care, the NHS and soon. At the moment, the local authority acts as thebroker and, as I said, the school holds the ring. In yournew autonomous world, who is going to replace thelocal authority in doing that? As the head teacher ofan academy, where do I look for that support?Mr Gibb: As you know, from next September,4 weare introducing the pupil premium. By 2014, that willbe £2.5 billion a year. We are still consulting on howthat will be allocated and on the definition of thechildren who will qualify for it. It will go to schoolsthat have a high proportion of pupils such as thoseyou are referring to, and the money will help headteachers to buy the services that you are talking about.That’s the essence of what we intend to do. think thathead teachers want that responsibility. They don’twant to always have to pick up the phone to somebodyelse and tell them what to do. They want theautonomy and decision-making power to help tacklethe education and special needs of those children intheir care. If they don’t want to do that, they won’twant to apply for academy status.

Q297 Pat Glass: To be fair, schools have got moremoney now than they’ve ever had. It’s not a questionof money. Giving the pupil premium will not makethat happen; it is about the responsibility for pullingtogether and co-ordinating all those agencies. As ahead teacher of an academy, is that really going to fallon me? It is not just about standards or managing myschool and teachers; I will also have to manage whatwas previously done by the local authority.Mr Gibb: Yes, but as a head you don’t have to do allthose tasks yourself. Heads can delegate suchactivities to specialists. We have the targeted mental4 Witness correction: The pupil premium will be introduced

from April 2011, not September.




health in schools initiative, which is about bringingthose specialist services into the school. It does not allhave to land on the shoulders of the head teacher.Most heads want the responsibility and decision-making power to take such decisions and not have todefer to others. Most professionals respond to thatvery well and rise to the occasion. We want to ensurethat those services are available. One thing that hascome out of the evidence sessions is that there areproblems with the CAMHS service and that access toit is not adequate. I take that point and share theconcern. I hope that we as a Government will takethose things on board. I know that the Department ofHealth wants to raise the importance of mental healthand put it on a par with physical health in terms ofhealth indicators. There is a seriousness about thatissue in the Government. I take your comments onboard, but I think that most head teachers relish theresponsibility.

Q298 Pat Glass: I think we differ in that. I knowthousands of head teachers as well, and I have rarelycome across any who see their job as about co-ordinating the police, social care and so on. We willmove on from that.Let us take those children whose lives are not awfulenough to hit the thresholds whereby agencies such asCAMHS, social care and the police would getinvolved. Currently, co-ordination of that would lieeither with the education social work service or theeducation welfare services in local authorities. Thereis an increasing number of academies, and as theytake their funding out of the local authority, we willhit a critical mass whereby local authorities will nolonger be able to provide those services. In a sense,some children are not bad enough to need thosestrategy services. What will happen to them?Mr Gibb: If you are talking about social services, thatis a separate issue. If you are asking about the role oflocal authorities in a world where an increasingnumber of schools are academies, the ministerialadvisory group established by the Secretary of Stateis looking at that to see what their role will be andhow it is to be funded. There will always be a role forlocal authorities in the provision of education, and inthe provision of central services. Because thoseservices may be purchased by schools, it may bedecided that local authorities will provide thoseservices funded centrally—for example, low-incidence special needs. That is something that isbeing discussed at the moment with the localauthorities.

Q299 Ian Mearns: We touched on CAMHS servicesin a previous sitting. Some people giving evidencedescribed the current situation as nothing short of anational disgrace. There are many examples where Iwouldn’t disagree. Would you consider passingresponsibility for budgets and the commissioning ofall children’s community health services to localauthorities, in order to provide a more streamlinedservice to young people and their families?Mr Gibb: In terms of mental health, this issue hasnow been addressed with the mental health strategy.We’ll have to wait to see what comes out of that

strategy, but I share your concerns and the concernsof the witnesses that you’ve heard from in terms ofaccess to those services. I think it was Alan Steer whosaid that it was nothing short of a national scandal.We need to address it. If 10% of our young peopleaged five to 16—that is what the figures show—aresuffering from mental health problems, it cannot beright if a teacher identifies a serious problem and triesto access the CAMHS service but finds that they can’t.That cannot be right. It is a set of circumstances thatwe can’t allow to continue.

Q300 Ian Mearns: On special educational needsprovision, an important part of the process for youngpeople as they are assessed is the need to see aneducational psychologist. I’m sorry to say thatsuccessive Governments have got the provision ofeducational psychology wrong. In training, forinstance, we are currently having a massive problemin terms of the number of local authorities that haven’tbeen subscribing to the training programme. Prior tothis, it was top-sliced, and the number of trainedpsychologists produced annually wasn’t enough tomeet demand. We are looking at a profile of theprofession that shows that we’re going to have asignificant problem within a relatively short period.What do you think the Government need to do toaddress this problem in terms of training needs, butalso on the provision of educational psychology?Mr Gibb: This is something that the Government arelooking at. It is important. I know that there has beena freeze on recruitment of educational psychologists,but you will see more on this in the specialeducational needs Green Paper that will be comingout fairly shortly.

Q301 Chair: What’s the update on when we canexpect the Green Paper?Mr Gibb: Fairly shortly.Chair: Before Christmas then.

Q302 Ian Mearns: A quick question on speech andlanguage, and communications therapy. What haveyou got in mind for that?Mr Gibb: Again, it is important that we identify earlychildren who have these problems, but you’ll have towait for the outcome of the SEN Green Paper, whichis due shortly.

Q303 Ian Mearns: On funding, Charlotte was goingto ask some questions about alternative provision, butthat was dealt with earlier. But in terms of that, yousaid earlier that you want to get away from a situationin which Polish kids perform the worst. Pat said, whenasking you a question, that schools already have quitea lot of money, but the trouble with that money is thatit comes through standards funds, additionaleducational needs funds and area-based grants. I havea funny feeling that the £2.5 billion pupil premiumwill absorb those grants and will not be extra to them,and that the redistribution will mean that some kids inthe poorest areas will end up getting less. Could youcomment on that?




Mr Gibb: Other than the area-based grant, those othergrants that you have mentioned have been subsumedinto the baseline of the schools funding.

Q304 Ian Mearns: Not in this financial year, theyhaven’t.Mr Gibb: No, from the next financial year onwards.

Q305 Ian Mearns: So is the general schools budgetgoing to grow by those amounts in the next financialyear?Mr Gibb: Yes, a number of grants that are currentlyring-fenced will form part of the baseline for schoolfunding. On top of that, you have the pupil premium,which is why, over the four years of the spendingreview, there is a real-terms increase in spending onschools.

Q306 Ian Mearns: Just to be absolutely spot-on onthis, I was, until recently, the chair of governors of asecondary school in Gateshead that has something like22% of its budget over and above age-weighted pupilunit funding through standards funds and so on. Areyou saying that that is being put into the pot and addedto the existing pot for the general schools budget, andthat the pupil premium is on top of that?Mr Gibb: Yes, that is correct.

Q307 Chair: Does that mean that each school’sindividual budget will remain the same, or could therebe a redistribution based on a new assessment ofneed?Mr Gibb: It is flat cash per pupil. That is thenallocated to the local authority, which then allocates itto the schools. If those local authorities decide thatone particular school in the area gets all the moneyand there is nothing for the rest, it is a decision forthe local authorities how they allocate that fundthrough the Schools Forum. But overall, there is flatcash per pupil and, on top of that, you have the pupilpremium, so those schools that have high proportionsof children who qualify for the pupil premium willhave additional cash on top of the flat cash per pupil.

Q308 Chair: Is the flat cash based on the existingallocation to a local authority area?Mr Gibb: Yes, they then allocate it to the schools.

Q309 Chair: So, just as an example, Hull willcontinue to receive considerably more—hundreds andhundreds of pounds more—per pupil than East Ridingnext door?Mr Gibb: You are now talking about the disparities infunding between local authorities, which is somethingthat we want to address. That is why we have beentalking about, over a period, moving to the nationalfunding formula with a view to trying to eradicatethose problems. The trouble is that it will take manyyears before you can actually have a system that isabsolutely fair between local authorities. We haveinherited this system that goes back many years andis based on historic allocations. That can’t be right. Itis unfair that areas such as Barking and Dagenham,with all the deprivation that they have, have muchlower funding than some of the neighbouring

boroughs. You also have the example of Leicestercompared with Tower Hamlets. They will take anumber of years to iron out.

Q310 Tessa Munt: I want to talk to you about thelink between attendance and behaviour, which bringsus back to the beginning of the session. The NationalAssociation of Social Workers in Education identifiedthat the school board, as was, highlighted a range ofbarriers to school attendance as being poverty, mentaland physical ill health, domestic violence, alcohol,drug misuse and child cruelty. It says that thoseindicators are equally applicable to predicting poorbehaviour. Do you recognise a direct link between thecauses of poor behaviour and the reasons for poorattendance in school?Mr Gibb: I think that’s true. I cited at the beginningthe fact that a child from the poorest cohort is eightpercentage points more likely to engage in poorbehaviour than a child with parents in the wealthiercohort. Those children are also disproportionatelylikely to attend a school with poor behaviour. So thequestion for us as policy makers is: what do we doabout it? Other parts of Government are trying toaddress those underlying causes, but our role here isto make sure that children who come from familieswith poor structures at home can at least come to aschool that has safe structures in place. Other partsof Government are trying to address those underlyingcauses, but our role here is to make sure that childrenwho come from families with poor structures at homecan at least come to a school that has safe structuresin place. That is what we have to deliver as a publicservice.

Q311 Tessa Munt: I wonder how you envisage howyou might deal with poor attendance. Are you goingto take a stronger line on that? Are we slappingparents into jail, or what?Mr Gibb: We are going to continue to monitor thenumbers and have it as a priority for schools. We willcontinue with the current approach to attendance anduse all the parenting orders and parenting contractsthat exist at the moment. We are not intending to easeup on any of those issues and imperatives in terms ofattendance. Schools will still be under the samepressure they are now to ensure that they have highattendance.

Q312 Tessa Munt: But the Education WelfareService has quite a low threshold for intervention. Iwonder how you envisage our moving from what is arelatively punitive approach to a problem that is basedin different places. We may not, if we go back toLisa’s point, be picking up those causes very well. Ijust wondered how you see the interaction betweenbeing relatively punitive to people who don’t attendand picking up those children who have a massiveproblem. People may wish to hide that because theymay not want to have intervention, because they maysee that as being highly dangerous.Mr Gibb: It is about schools engaging in their pastoralresponsibilities the best that they can—that is what itis about—and about ensuring that social services,which my colleague Tim Loughton is dealing with,




have the capacity to deal with problems when they areinformed about them and about a particular child fromthe school. You hear all too often that the socialservices departments of local authorities are stretchedand don’t have the manpower to tackle issues, and thathas to be addressed; there is no question about that.That is, again, about trying to liberate social workersfrom the bureaucratic burdens imposed on them, sothat they have time to behave as professionals. Thecommon theme in this Government is about trustingprofessionals and liberating them to do the job thatthey want to do to the best of their ability, withoutbeing inhibited and stifled by having to deal with formfilling and all the bureaucracy that is piled upon them.That is our approach, and I think it will be successful.If you trust professionals, liberate them and give themthe time and space to do the job they love and wantto do well, they will do it well. They will pick up, andthen be able to focus on, these issues.

Q313 Chair: Minister, there is early intervention andthere are schools, but there is another factor in thebehaviour of young people in schools, which is theyouth services provided outside. How are theprofessionals in youth work being liberated by 50%cuts and the removal, in many cases, of services thathave contributed to engaging young people andhelping them learn to behave, not only in schools, butoutside them?Mr Gibb: Local authorities have to fulfil theirstatutory functions with the resources that they have.It is a difficult time that we are living in; we are facedwith a huge budget deficit of £156 billion. It is theworst in the G20, and we have had to make some verydifficult decisions that we would not wish to havemade.

Q314 Chair: You rightly boast of your success asMinister in protecting schools’ budgets, relativelyspeaking. Absolutely, but are you concerned, on theother hand, that youth work is facing what looks likepretty catastrophic reductions in service? Is that anunbalanced approach?Mr Gibb: These are very difficult decisions that hadto be taken. They were not taken lightly. We areexpecting people to do more with less. A great dealof deliberation took place over the summer on howwe can get more out of the limited resources that we

have. We had to make some difficult decisions, andthey were not taken lightly. We hope local authoritieswill be able to manage their budget and find savings.For example, we expect schools to deliver £1 billionoverall in terms of efficiency savings through betterprocurement, and we will assist schools throughvarious tools and mechanisms to help them deliverthose savings. We expect the same approach to betaken by local authorities.

Q315 Chair: You didn’t directly answer my question.At the moment, however they manage it, they arefacing general cuts. Youth services and youth worklook to be facing catastrophic reductions. Is that abalanced approach? Do you have concerns about it?Mr Gibb: We have concerns about any spending cutsthat have had to be made. We did not come intopolitics, certainly not into the Department forEducation, to make cuts. That has been made essentialby the state of the public finances that we inherited. Itis not the ideal place that we want to be in. Yes, weare concerned, of course.

Q316 Charlotte Leslie: On the back of that, do yousee specific tension between devolving a lot of activitytowards the third sector—the big society stuff—andthe fact that a lot of those third sector organisationsgain an awful lot of their funding from localauthorities? There is a tension between wanting morethird sector involvement and the effects of the localauthority cuts, which means that there is less thirdsector involvement.Mr Gibb: Yes, but we also are devolving budgets todecision makers, whether it is schools or elsewhere,who can then purchase those services. On the onehand, the local authorities are having to make somevery difficult decisions themselves on how theyallocate scarce resources but, on the other hand, weare giving de-ring-fencing funds that first give localauthorities more flexibility but also give head teachersthe power to spend money on acquiring services fromthe third sector, which they previously may have beenrequired to purchase from the local authority. Thatflexibility will assist the third sector certainly in thelong run.Chair: Thank you very much indeed for givingevidence to us this morning.

cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [SO] Processed: [26-01-2011 14:12] Job: 006766 Unit: PG05Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/006766/006766_o0005_EdC 01.12.10.xml


Wednesday 1 December 2010

Members present:


Neil CarmichaelNic DakinBill EstersonPat Glass

________________


Witnesses: Dr John Dunford, Education Consultant, Bill Gribble, Behaviour Management Trainer, JacquieNunn, Director of Improvement and Training, Training and Development Agency for Schools and AndrewWinton, Manager, Voice of Young People, London Borough of Havering, gave evidence

Q317 Chair: May I welcome our witnesses? This isa formal session as opposed to an informal seminar. Itis none the less a closed session, and the record willbe published when our report is produced some timenext year. If it is necessary to bring in any of our otheradvisers who are not on the panel, I may do so—Iwarn Hansard about that.Thank you all very much for coming this morningto give evidence to our inquiry into behaviour anddiscipline in schools. The biggest theme that has comeout is the need for consistency both within andbetween schools in terms of setting policy and ethoswithin the institutions and ensuring that everybodyknows where they stand, whether they are a memberof staff or a pupil. We are moving now towards theend of this inquiry and coming up withrecommendations to Government. If you had onerecommendation above all, what would it be, Bill?Bill Gribble: For me, the thing that has come out thatyou must not lose is the whole concept of the schoolretaining responsibility for a child, even if they areexcluded, and a continuity of provision of some sort,whether that be in terms of personnel or otherwise.But it doesn’t need a teacher to do that. You’ve startedto get a few pointers in there that we don’t necessarilyneed teachers to do some of these jobs, and I thinkyou are quite right. So succinctly then: moneyfollowing the child and continuity of provision to givea full educational experience.

Q318 Chair: John, I know you have some thoughtson the issue of the school retaining responsibility forthe excluded child.Dr Dunford: Yes. I am very concerned about thismeasure because I think, particularly at a time ofdifficult funding, that it would be very difficult forschools to afford good provision on an individualbasis for excluded children full time, so I think this isgoing to act as a disincentive to exclusion. If you putin place a disincentive to exclude students who behavevery badly, the message that dribbles down throughthe system is that the school can’t exclude you. Thishappened in 1999 when the Government introducedcircular 10/99—I think it was called that—which wasa disincentive to schools, and there were all sorts ofways in which David Blunkett tried to stop schoolsfrom excluding people to reduce the number ofpermanent exclusions. That message trickled downthrough the system during the second half of 1999

Charlotte LeslieIan MearnsTessa MuntCraig Whittaker

until, by Christmas, we had the situation that everychild knew that they could disrupt their classes asmuch as they liked because at the end of the day theschool wasn’t going to exclude them. This seems tome to go counter, potentially—because of this fundingsituation at the moment—to the very welcomemessage in the report that the Government want tosupport head teachers on good behaviour anddiscipline in schools. I just give that as a warning.

Q319 Chair: Jacquie, would you like to come in onthis?Jacquie Nunn: Not specifically on this issue, becauseit is beyond the remit of the agency in terms of schoolleadership and so on.If there is one key message that I have for theCommittee, it is about the importance of early andcontinuing CPD for teachers, building on theexperiences we have that are broadly positive in initialteacher training. There is also a very strong sense thatinitial teacher training gets new teachers up andrunning and gives them the basic skills to function inthe classroom, but that it’s very far from being acomplete journey at that point, and that they needstrong support once they get into their first schools,particularly when they are moving between differentenvironments for training. There is some disjunctionfor those who are training in—for the sake ofargument—relatively leafy suburbs and then move towork in the inner city and perhaps encounterdifficulties that they have not faced before. That is amajor issue in terms of an ongoing focus in the schoolfor that development.Andrew Winton: I would like to come back to thepoint made by John and Bill around exclusion. Iwould argue that we need to look at the whole life ofthe child, and exclusion is not necessarily a positivepart of the process of bringing up children. In terms oflooking at exclusion within the context of managingbehaviour—of course, when we look at behaviour, wehave to look at both positive and negative aspects—Ido not see it as being a positive process. Disciplinewithin schools is very important, but I think we needto look at the consequences of exclusion and how wecan better provide for the needs of the young peoplewho often have some of the most challengingbackgrounds. I agree with John that money needs tobe made available to support those children, but Iwould also support the argument that they should

cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [26-01-2011 14:12] Job: 006766 Unit: PG05Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/006766/006766_o0005_EdC 01.12.10.xml


1 December 2010 Dr John Dunford, Bill Gribble, Jacquie Nunn and Andrew Winton

remain the responsibility of the school, because theycan then be managed effectively.Bill Gribble: Having administered the aspect of 10/99that was being discussed, I found, as an educationofficer, that the difficulties that were beingexperienced in schools were just the same at a localauthority level. It is about a partnership and about thelocal authorities, which currently retain the money forthe pupil referral unit system and alternativeprovisions, working in partnerships with schools. Thatis not to say that they can’t exclude, but perhaps tosay, “We can do something in partnership with you ina trusting relationship, so there is no need to excludeand we can carry a child on to another aspect ofeducation that is perhaps alternative and outside thecurrent school,” although, for parts of that child’seducational experience, they might still be in theschool.We had a virtual pupil referral unit set up in theauthority that I was in, where children were workingin different aspects and in different parts of the countydoing different things, but they were still receiving, ineffect, a relevant educational experience for them. Imean “relevant” very much in terms of the emotionaland developmental level of the child, because oftenthese young people are very emotionally delayed.

Q320 Chair: What is there about the school retainingresponsibility that will make it more likely that therewill be better provision?Bill Gribble: They can go back to school at somepoint—that metaphorical umbilical cord betweeneducation and the person, which can never be repairedemotionally, hasn’t been cut. There is always a wayback. To cut that at an early stage for the child isalmost unforgivable. It is about giving us theopportunity to help a child to go back into theeducational environment rather than excluding themfrom it, or encouraging them to go elsewhere. I havefound many young people being encouraged to go—inappropriately, because they are vulnerable already—to further education establishments to seek theireducational experience. They are in an even morevulnerable situation there, and many of them didn’thave to carry out the same rigorous attendanceprocedures as were carried out in mainstreameducation and they just disappeared from the system.The societal cost of that, at a later stage, is vast.Working in great partnership with many of Andrew’smembers, we were able to find where those youngpeople were and to try to re-include them in theeducational experience.Andrew Winton: I just want to say that there is also aquestion of whether exclusion should be consideredas form of discipline or punishment. I think that thereare certainly situations when a young person’sbehaviour is such that, in order to enable other youngpeople to learn and teachers to teach, they need to beremoved from the classroom environment. However,exclusion—and certainly permanent exclusion—hassuch a cataclysmic effect on the life of that child thatto view it as a discipline measure is an admission offailure.

Q321 Chair: Can we move on to techniques formanaging behaviour? In the context of the WhitePaper, can you comment on whether you think itcontains sufficient incentives for partners to conveneof their own accord in the interest of sharing bestpractice and promoting school improvement?Bill Gribble: I think it’s excellent, but, at times, it canbe very inward-looking if that is done just within theinstitution. I think those institutions need to lookoutside and to other institutions.

Q322 Chair: Is there enough incentive in the WhitePaper? Do we need to retain compulsory behaviourand attendance partnerships?Bill Gribble: Very much so.

Q323 Chair: You do need to keep the behaviour andattendance partnerships?Bill Gribble: I think so.Andrew Winton: I would agree with that.Dr Dunford: I think they are very important. Theyhave made a lot of progress. I think it is importantthat schools should not be able to opt out of them,because there is no great incentive for schools thatdon’t have many badly behaved children to be in thesepartnerships, and that means that they’re not takingtheir fair share of the burden. All schools should bein these partnerships.

Q324 Pat Glass: We heard this morning and inearlier evidence about the importance of parents, ofthe culture and ethos within a school, and of itsleadership. It is almost a three-legged stool—if oneleg isn’t there, it falls over. Would you agree that allschools should be making effective links with parents?What is it that the good schools are doing that we canrecommend that all schools do?Bill Gribble: Bringing parents in. They are acommunity in the very sense of the word—they arean essential part, in essence, of that schoolcommunity. When I was in mainstream school, thebest learning assistants I had were those who weremums within the community. It was people who knewwhat was going on in that community. It wascommunity-based, and the schools were opening theirdoors to the community.In terms of behaviour, if you are developingbehavioural contracts in school for difficult youngpeople, if you exclude the parents from those contractsand don’t reach out to the community, you are missinga real opportunity.

Q325 Craig Whittaker: May I go back a little bit,because I want to ask particularly about what ourpaper here says about the role of governors insupporting that? One of the biggest issues thatgovernors come to me about is the fact that we put toomany burdens and too great responsibilities on them. Ijust wonder whether this is a step into the running ofthe school. How does it fit? I am bit concerned aboutus putting more emphasis on school governors,particularly when it should be the head teachers andthe leadership of the school that take thatresponsibility.

cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [26-01-2011 14:12] Job: 006766 Unit: PG05Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/006766/006766_o0005_EdC 01.12.10.xml



Dr Dunford: What I don’t think you’re saying, andcertainly you are not to say, is that governors shouldcome in and do it, or even know how to do it. Thereis a notion that governors are, in a sense, almost a linkbetween the school and the parents, and can be anearly-warning system for the school of when theparents are not happy about things—I think that thatis their role.

Q326 Chair: Do you think that the White Paper,which is saying that a national college is going to takeon a particular role in training chairs of governors sothat they can do this strategic challenge of heads andassistants—Andrew Winton: Excellent.Dr Dunford: It is a very small start, but an importantone, on a much bigger problem.Chair: Does everyone agree with that?Neil Carmichael: Can I just tease that one out a bit?Chair: You’re going to, Neil. Go ahead.

Q327 Neil Carmichael: What I think is inappropriateabout the way in which we select governors at themoment is that they are representing things, ratherthan the skills that they have. I would like to hear yourviews about that because—Chair: Neil, sorry, I’m going to cut you off. I hate tobe so brutal, but I think that is taking us into broaderissues of governance, which I think is fascinating, butnot on behaviour.

Q328 Neil Carmichael: Not really, because one ofthe skills that they should have is about behaviourmanagement and so forth.Chair: Very briefly then.Dr Dunford: I am a great supporter of what you saidabout skills versus representation, but behaviourmanagement is not one of the skills.Bill Gribble: Yes, I agree, but they can bring theirexperience to bear. I think we were talking previously,before we came into this session, about the importanceof bringing life skills into an educational environment.It is vital, because that is the real world.Chair: Thank you. Craig, had you finished? Pat, didyou want to come in? Oh no, sorry; it was Tessa.

Q329 Tessa Munt: I want to go back to this businessof parents. I think it is critical that parents areinvolved, but I would just like to pose to you thedifficulties of being in a rural area. It is absolutely finein first school; it is a bit of a problem in middleschools, or once children get to about nine or 10 andthey are always travelling on buses; and it isimpossible when you go 15 miles to your seniorschool. How do you bring parents in?Dr Dunford: I have had this issue as a head teacher.I ran surgeries in the villages.Tessa Munt: Ah! Great.Dr Dunford: Not many parents turned up to thesurgeries, but there you go.Tessa Munt: But it doesn’t matter, because you aredoing it.Dr Dunford: And then it doesn’t depend on physicallywhere the school is as to the extent to which parentsfeel a link with it. Living 15 miles away you can feel

no link at all—“Oh, that’s the school over in Yeovil,”or wherever it might be.Bill Gribble: And school isn’t a building, is it?Dr Dunford: School is a community. You go out tothat community.

Q330 Tessa Munt: And the other thing is that wehave to take account of working parents.Dr Dunford: And this is jolly difficult for schools thathave 40 or 50 different primary schools feeding intothem and take from a hugely wide area, but mostschools have some distinct communities that they cango out to.

Q331 Bill Esterson: We talked earlier about parentswho don’t want to engage and the impact of that. Is itenough to try and engage with them? I suspect not,but I would be interested in your views.Andrew Winton: Yes, in terms of the work that mymembers would be doing working with parents whentheir children are not attending school, those are someof the most difficult to engage parents. We don’t applyenough resources to this, and it is certainly somethingat the moment that resources are being pulled awayfrom. We have to argue that that work in its general,broadest format is the most important thing that weneed to be focused on now.Bill Gribble: When I was a head teacher, theeducation welfare officer was my eyes and ears in thecommunity—and certainly my eyes and ears for earlywarnings of problems with particularly vulnerablechildren either coming into the area or developingwithin the area. They also had links with youthworkers. Youth workers have different skills; they aremuch more local, and those channels ofcommunication would be opened up accordingly. It isabout the systems that you’ve got, but it is also aboutopening up those systems to reach out to parents.

Q332 Bill Esterson: So it is very important thateducation welfare officers and youth workers aresupported, and that we don’t see cuts in those services.Bill Gribble: That’s why I say school isn’t a building.Jacquie Nunn: Just on the business of working withparents, and thinking about initial teacher training,currently in the standards we have got explicitrecommendations and requirements about developingthe ability to work with parents. We are at a pointwhen we are looking towards the possible review ofthe standards for teachers. Looking at what it says inthe White Paper, there is a shift in emphasis awayfrom relationships between teachers and parents and astrong focus on what happens in the classroom—withsubject knowledge and all the rest of it. In any reviewof the standards, I would like very strongly to seecontinuing emphasis given to beginner teachers’understanding of how to work with parents.

Q333 Chair: Do we have any evidence? Everyonewould like to engage with parents but the moredifficult the parental community, the more difficult itis. You are pouring resources into going out to engagewith people with whom it is very hard to engage,instead of concentrating on making sure that theschool is a safe haven and a place where children




come in and get the stability and the values that theydon’t get at home. Where should the emphasis be? Isit possible to run a great school with great behaviourand discipline without any engagement particularlywith parents, apart from those who voluntarily comeinto contact?Bill Gribble: No. Categorically no; it isn’t. It is oneof the key principles underpinning the Steer report aswell. Of the six core principles, I think two are givenover to parents.Dr Dunford: I was going to mention therecommendation in, I think, Alan Steer’s first reportfor home-school support workers particularly workingaround children with bad behaviour. Actually a lot ofsecondary schools employ home-school liaisonpeople, not just to work with people with badbehaviour. Good practice is that those secondaryschools share those people with local primary schools,because actually they are working with the samefamilies.

Q334 Charlotte Leslie: In our discussion before, Iwas interested in the idea of the professionalisation ofteaching. To what extent is it analogous to the medicalprofession, in which there is a canon of good practicethat is not prescriptive and specific, but one of basicprinciples that generally apply and to which peoplecan be referred when schools are in trouble? What isyour view on something that is professional-led, ratherthan politician-led?As an example, to see what comments you give inresponse, we visited a school that had a very difficult“hard to reach”—I don’t like those sorts of phrases—community. One of the things that happened was thatthey went into the homes and took the kids’ Xboxesand consoles away, which—surprise, surprise—dramatically improved behaviour. What struck mewas that, if you put the removal of Xboxes andconsoles into a prescriptive canon of good practice, itwould never work, but is it worth striving to achievea canon that says, “You should develop a relationshipthat is such that you are able to go into the home anddo that”?Chair: Who would like to reply to the Grinch?Andrew Winton: By taking the Xbox away, you areencouraging greater engagement between the childand the parent, which is a very positive thing. Youmention the professionalisation of teaching, but itmight be the professionalisation of all the otherworkers in the school that needs to be focused on first.Teachers already have a very robust graduate trainingprogramme. If you look at education welfare, home-school support work, learning mentors and so on, youwill see that many of them require no trainingwhatsoever.

Q335 Charlotte Leslie: I have experienced in mytime a great variety. One chap didn’t even knowwhether taking 48 paracetamol, which is what one girlclaimed to have done, was dangerous or not. I wasworking as a lifeguard and lots of people werejumping up and down, saying, “We must sort thisout!” Is there great variation?Andrew Winton: Huge variation.

Bill Gribble: And in terms of managing studentbehaviour, there are mass variations and a mass ofdifferent competency levels. We were sayingpreviously that there needs to at least be a basic levelof competence before going into the classroom, but Idon’t believe that exists, particularly in terms ofbehaviour.

Q336 Charlotte Leslie: Is it also the case that it isalmost better to have no one do it at all than havethe figure of authority prove themselves incompetent,because that encourages kids to say, “Authority isn’tworking—let’s rebel even more”?Bill Gribble: There lies anarchy.

Q337 Chair: We are nearing the end and we wantrecommendations. Bill and John, how do we get thatconsistency?Bill Gribble: You have a build-up of an initial levelof competence that is expected before you go into theprofession, and then there is an encouragement to takeon other competencies to lead to other levels.

Q338 Chair: So the TDA is not doing the job?Bill Gribble: It is doing the job.Jacquie Nunn: Can I just comment on that? Some94% of our beginner teachers—NQTs—completing asurvey in February after they qualify say that theirtraining has been satisfactory or better, and 67% atprimary and 69% at secondary say that it is eithergood or very good. What we have to get better at isthe join-up between initial teacher training and whathappens to them when they move into their full-timerole in school.Bill Gribble: Exactly.

Q339 Chair: Will the White Paper proposal to movefrom university-based to more school-based trainingimprove the quality or lead to a deterioration?Jacquie Nunn: I think it is to do with therelationships. At the moment, our employment-basedtrainees say that they are more satisfied with thetraining in behaviour. There are three reasons for that.The first is their status—they are employed in theschool and, therefore, their status is different from thatof the trainee teacher coming in for a 12 or six-weekpractice. That is the first thing. The second thing isabout continuity. Typically, a larger percentage of ouremployment-based trainees move on to do theirinduction year in the school in which they had theirinitial teacher training. For that reason, there is a pull-through—they are working within the same set ofexpectations, so we would expect them to be moreconfident.Thirdly, there is an issue about mentoring andcoaching. We know that the focus of the mentoringand coaching that they get tends to be more aboutbehaviour management and so on, whereas in theuniversity-led, rather than based, courses—they are allvery much school-based—there is a strong focus ontheir subjects. I would say that, in teaching andlearning, strong focus on subjects is as much aboutwhat we are here for in terms of engagement ofchildren and young people in their learning. There isall to play for. I think there are enormous strengths in




it, but it is not a simple equation between whathappens in a university-led partnership and a school-based one.

Q340 Chair: John, is this initiative going to make itbetter or worse in terms of quality and consistency?Dr Dunford: I think it’s going to make it better,because you have longer in a school-basedpartnership. You are in the same place for a longertime. In the end, behaviour is about buildingrelationships with the pupils, and you can do thatmuch better in the institution than you can as a studentjust there for a short time. I think that it is importantto keep a link to theory and to understand a bit aboutchild psychology.

Q341 Chair: Is it your understanding that that isgoing to happen?Dr Dunford: I would hope that it is. I hope that thependulum does not swing too far.

Q342 Chair: So, in your view, we need to make arecommendation that the university element needs tobe maintained and that there needs to be a constanttransfusion into the school system?Bill Gribble: Absolutely. And, at the other end, thestrength of the mentoring in school is vital for thenewly qualified teacher. If the mentoring is just anadd-on to somebody’s job within the school, it willfall by the wayside. The quality of mentoring inschools is very important.

Q343 Craig Whittaker: I have two points. First, theWhite Paper clearly states that they are continuingwith some of the pilots for university-based training,so that is not being done away with. Secondly, andmost importantly, I want to challenge what Jacquie issaying, because we have heard very clearly thatcompanies such as Marks & Spencer initially traintheir staff in customer service issues for 10 timeslonger than teachers, who get a half day’s training atthe end of their initial teacher training. That doesn’tsquare with me.Jacquie Nunn: That’s not true. There may be a halfday’s taught session in a university-led partnership,which might be about code of practice for specialneeds, or what a typical school behaviour policy lookslike, but the substantial training in behaviour takesplace in the 24 weeks out of the 36 weeks that theyare in school. From the moment that they walkthrough the door, they are expected to function as ateacher and as a member of the teaching staff. Theyare expected to operate the school’s behaviour policy,and one of the school’s senior teachers will sit downwith them and deliver a taught session on what isexpected of them. They will be operating exactly thesame as any other teacher in the school.

Q344 Craig Whittaker: Is that not the point? A lotof teachers are saying that they go into the workplacevery inexperienced and have very little background inbehaviour and attendance. One of the reasonsbehaviour and attendance can be so bad is becauseteachers can’t cope and don’t understand the

fundamental principles of behaviour and attendancegood practice.Jacquie Nunn: That’s an issue to do with the designof the training and when things happen in the course.Teach First has the summer institute front-loaded, sothat they have those six weeks before they move inand before they begin teaching in September. In othercourse designs that would be stranded differently. Thatis one of the things that we are beginning to look at,because, within that broad picture of generalsatisfaction about what they’re getting, there are someanomalies. There are trainers and providers that aredoing it better than others, so we need to find out thereasons for that.

Q345 Craig Whittaker: In regard to generalsatisfaction levels, is that actually because they do notunderstand what they need to understand?Jacquie Nunn: We would need more time to explorethat. We look at that in terms of special educationalneeds and their knowledge of diversity, English as anadditional language, and so on. There is a whole rangeof issues on which, in some ways, the deeper they getinto it, the less skilful they feel, because they begin toappreciate fully the range and complexity of the issuesthat they will face on a day-to-day basis.Chair: After three-and-a-half years on thisCommittee, I know how they feel.Bill Gribble: The other question is: is it desirable tohave everybody as a super behaviour managementinitiative-type person? Do you not need academics,too? That is why I go back to your professionalismidea. Could somebody not develop such skills overtime in their career route to become better in the fieldsof behaviour management, English, or whatever? It isjust another aspect.I think that there are two levels. There is the initialcompetency level, which is what you are talkingabout, that needs to be consolidated through thementoring process in school and through doing thejob. Then there is the next level, which is part ofmanagement and those further advanced skills inmanaging pupil behaviour. That level needs to betaken on board as part of headship or senior teaching.Andrew Winton: Often those skills related to dealingwith behaviour don’t need to be done by teachingstaff; they can be done by a school’s pastoral staff.Dr Dunford: I have two quick points, both of whichrelate to Charlotte’s point on, as it were, a canon ofprofessional knowledge. This area of behaviour isalmost the one area in which the previous Governmentproduced such a canon, because they got Sir AlanSteer to produce his excellent report. There arechapters in that report that are of direct use, so thereis a professional canon. In more general terms, it isback to the point I was making last week about theneed for a chief educational officer, which Ianmentioned earlier.The other point in the White Paper, which I think youought to pick up in relation to this, is the proposal forspecialist leaders of education. These won’t be justheads of history; these could be expert behaviourmanagers as well, who could be people who arefunded to go and support behaviour in other schools.You would have national leaders of education and




local leaders of education and this new idea—it’s avery good one—is for these specialist leaders.

Q346 Chair: Why would they be better than SIPs?They were a great idea; it’s just that no one seemsvery happy with the way they have worked out.Dr Dunford: I thought they were a great idea too, butthey were very generalised. Here you are talking aboutspecialist leaders of education who will go round andhelp schools in specific ways.

Q347 Chair: Do you all think that they sound like agood idea?Bill Gribble: Absolutely.Chair: I’m getting nods from all four.

Q348 Pat Glass: I have two points around the shiftfrom higher education initial teacher training toschool-based initial teacher training. First, at leastuniversity courses look at things like childdevelopment and pedagogy. I am concerned that if wegot more school-led initial teacher training then, yes,training on behaviour may be better, but training forspecial needs, which is very poor at the moment, willsuffer. So I’d like your comments on that. Secondly,the chief inspector of Ofsted published a report lastweek that said that our university-led initial teachertraining was twice as likely to be good or outstandingthan school-led initial teacher training. Why would itsay that if it’s not true?Bill Gribble: A student going into teaching who hasa degree has done three, sometimes four years in theuniversity education environment already. Because ofthat they have an expertise which they take with them.The next phase should be this initial competencylevel, which I keep bashing on about, which is to geta person ready to go into a classroom with a set ofskills which will give them a whole concept. Theyshould be creating an inclusive educationalenvironment for the young people they are workingwith. That should be fundamental.

Q349 Pat Glass: But is child development notfundamental to that?Bill Gribble: Absolutely.

Q350 Pat Glass: And will we not lose some of that?Bill Gribble: I don’t think so if we are looking for thebasic competency which is already being run verywell by TDA. It is taking that further. It is encouragingthe professional development of teachers and thecontinuing professional development of teacherswhich hasn’t been well done.

Q351 Pat Glass: I’ve seen lots of good childdevelopment practice in primary schools but virtuallynone in secondary schools.Jacquie Nunn: I think that is to do with successiveiterations of the standards over time. Circular 4/98and, to a lesser extent, the two succeeding versions ofthe standards have represented subject knowledgequite differently. I think that under the current versionof the standards there is far more scope for courses toencompass the range of issues around childdevelopment and notions about how children learn

and develop within different domains of learning,which are crucial to the whole debate aroundpedagogy, which is coming live at the moment in away that I think is extremely helpful. In terms of thisrather stark delineation that you portray betweenschool-led and HEI-led—

Q352 Pat Glass: Well that’s what Ofsted said.Jacquie Nunn: I think first of all, much of the workthat we are doing in CPD now, particularly in the areaof SEN, is underpinned by the principle that it will allbe at masters level. Nick1, who has been workingwith you, has led for us considerably on a significantswathe of this work. The specialist qualification forSENCOs, which derives from the recommendation ofearlier work of the Select Committee on specialeducational needs, is a masters level qualification.That is the first time that an M level has been aparticular requirement of any role within the schoolwork force. So it is very significant. But the work weare doing on mandatory qualifications, dyslexia andall of the others, all have M level credit attached tothem. So there is intellectual challenge in there anduniversities have to be engaged in all of that work.If we look at this shift notionally from HE-led toschool-led, the best partnerships, and in Ofsted’s termsthis would be true, are the ones where that partnershipis very strong. I suppose the paradigm case of anemployment-led programme at the moment is TeachFirst, where it gets an awful lot of publicity and focus.That is hard wired to what goes on in universities. TheInstitute of Education and the University of Warwickare involved in that. Thirteen university departmentsof education are providing the training on thatprogramme. They come in with tutors and work overthe summer recess.

Q353 Chair: Why did Ofsted say that university-ledis twice as effective as schools-led when the WhitePaper suggests that we are now going to do more ofthe latter rather than the former?Jacquie Nunn: It is because of the maturity of thesystem. Our employment-based providers have beenaccredited since 2004, so new provision is beingmeasured against higher education-based provision,which has a track record that, in some cases, goesback to the 19th century. The pace of progress hasbeen strong. We know that some of thoseemployment-based training routes are producing verygood teachers. Ofsted’s survey report when it did thatfirst review of what were then designatedrecommended bodies said that they were taking high-calibre entrants and turning them into averageteachers. We don’t want that. We want all teachers tobe excellent.

Q354 Pat Glass: So you are saying that school-basedITT will catch up with experience and produce verygood teachers.Jacquie Nunn: The pace of progress so far—

Q355 Chair: Can you quantify that for us?1 Nick Peacey (Institute of Education, University of London),

and Specialist Adviser to the Committee




Jacquie Nunn: I cannot quantify it for you becausethe employment-based routes are in their first Ofstedinspections. They have never been inspected before.We are in the second year of a three-year round. Later,I can supply the Committee with the data we have atthe moment about the outcomes of those inspectionsin terms of the numbers that have been designatedas outstanding by Ofsted for their achievement andcapacity to improve. We do not have the completethree-year picture yet, because Ofsted are justembarking on the third year of the cycle.

Q356 Pat Glass: Could you let me have that?Jacquie Nunn: I will do, with pleasure.

Q357 Charlotte Leslie: I did a bit of work withTeach First. It was very interesting the way it wasvery work-based but they used universities as the coreof what they do. It seems to make a lot of sense.Forgive me if this already happens and I am beingignorant, but I am concerned about the level ofunderstanding of and catering for special educationalneeds in mainstream schools. Would there be anybenefit to mandatory placements in different types ofspecial school for any teacher? Does that alreadyhappen?Jacquie Nunn: There is a mythology that you cannotcarry out a placement in a special school in initialteacher training. That is false and the agency isworking very hard to overcome it. Again, Nick’s fullyaware of this and can give you more information. Wehave made it very clear that you can do your initialteacher training in any setting that enables you to learntowards demonstrating standards. There are someexamples of really good practice in that.

Q358 Charlotte Leslie: Given that the child withspecial needs, particularly if they are from adisadvantaged background and their needs have notbeen picked up, could crop up in any school, do youthink there is merit in having a mandatory placementin a special school so that it is part of the process,even if it is just for a few months? This is a genuinequestion because I have not seen teacher training upclose.Jacquie Nunn: I can only give a personal response tothat. I am not speaking on behalf of the agencybecause we have not discussed it. Personally, I wouldthink it is highly beneficial because engaging with thelearning of youngsters who are having particulardifficulty hones, develops and extends yourknowledge and understanding of how all childrenlearn and makes you a better classroom teacher inmainstream. My personal view would be very stronglyin favour of that as an approach.Pat Glass: I just think I would have been completelyopposed to that.

Q359 Chair: I just want to follow up on the SENissue. SEN identification and its consistency are notadequate now. Why should we believe that they willbecome more consistent in the new system, which willbe more school-based and less HE-based? Whatevidence is there that it may not even deterioratefurther? That is directly relevant to behaviour, because

people with SEN are about eight times more likely tobe excluded and so on than other children. Isn’t thispretty fundamental and don’t we need to haveevidence rather than just a hope that it will get better?Andrew Winton: From my point of view, I would lookat it more from the pastoral side. We don’t trainpastoral staff sufficiently to be dealing with thoseissues outside the classroom environment. Whereparents are struggling in the home to work with theirchildren, more support there would be very helpful,and we don’t train our staff at all.Bill Gribble: And we don’t encourage the evidencetrail to be consolidated and shared.

Q360 Chair: So what recommendations could wemake to make a difference?Bill Gribble: Create an evidence trail as a norm, soall staff are feeding their views and ideas on a regularbasis through their departments to a central source—to their SENCOs in schools.

Q361 Chair: But if they’re not trained properly inthe first place, they don’t know how to identify it.Bill Gribble: Well, their SENCO can do a lot withinthe school. A lot of that can be school-based.

Q362 Bill Esterson: I was going to ask about troopsfor teachers, and I can guess the response. Gimmickor good idea?Bill Gribble: We need people with life skills in theclassroom. If a member of the armed forces has gotlife skills to bring to the classroom, great, but theyalso need to bring other things as well. It is not justconfrontational styles of discipline.Dr Dunford: It betrays a misunderstanding of therelationship between the teacher and the pupil to thinkthat these troops can very easily move into teaching.It won’t be easy for them, but some of them will nodoubt turn out to be very good.

Q363 Chair: There’s probably no other organisationin Britain with a better record of turning around thelives of children who have had a disrupted anddisordered childhood, and turning them into decentcitizens with self-esteem, pride and achievement, thanthe Army. Why would you not wish to allow peoplewho come from that culture with that excellent recordto come over and be involved in education?Andrew Winton: I’d challenge that.

Q364 Chair: Or am I talking rubbish? Andrew thinksI am talking rubbish.Andrew Winton: Having served in the forces Iwouldn’t recognise that as being true. I think thatcertainly for some young people from somebackgrounds the forces are a very effective place tolearn discipline, but not for the broad range. I don’tthink it is necessarily transferable. As has beensuggested I think some people coming out of thearmed forces will make excellent teachers, but manywill not.Jacquie Nunn: I think there’s a technical issue. Ithink the idea is being borrowed from the States,where I think 40% of the armed forces are graduates.The proportion in our system is very much smaller




than that. If the present Administration have theambition of supporting the training of these people itwill be a long haul, in some cases from GCSE all theway through to graduate status, before they couldthink about acquiring QTS. There is an issue therewhich may be problematic in terms of the numberswho are actually eligible. I think this issue aboutbringing individuals into schools in other roles,possibly, has got some mileage. I am not sure whethereverybody who makes a difference in school has to bea teacher.

Q365 Bill Esterson: I was lobbied about this lastweek by two people completely separately, who gaveexamples going way back. One went back to the ‘50s,and made the point about behaviour then, whendiscipline was not the issue it is now, by any means.Former military personnel and former policepersonnel came into teaching and disappeared withouttrace very quickly, because they tried to impose asystem that was totally inappropriate. One of the moremodern parallels was that in the armed forces and inthe police you have a system where people are alreadyself-disciplined, and perhaps that is a fundamentaldifference. I would be interested in your comments onthe comparison there.Dr Dunford: My direct experience of bringing Armypeople into school, albeit not in a teaching role, wasthat they found it very difficult to adapt from theArmy culture—which they had had for 20 years orwhatever—into the school culture.

Q366 Nic Dakin: I want to come back to Sir AlanSteer’s work, which obviously is a big piece of work.Just to check, I think what you were saying was thatthat was based on sound and broad evidence that wehave a right to trust. I think you were also saying thatthe advice that comes out of that is a good templatefor taking forward a more consistent approach tobehaviour in schools. I just wanted to check that.Bill Gribble: Absolutely. The core principles aresupreme, and should underpin anything that we dowith behaviour.

Q367 Nic Dakin: That’s very helpful. On a differentissue, would you recommend a refresh of the inclusiondevelopment programme? Does that need to be re-looked at?Andrew Winton: Maybe not as a priority.

Q368 Nic Dakin: Not a priority, but worth a look.Andrew Winton: Yes.

Q369 Neil Carmichael: I want to go back to SEN.Who should be doing the commissioning of servicesand interventions, especially for those children whohave communication issues and so forth? How do weget a proper interface that is going to be effectivewith schools?Andrew Winton: Probably the school should becommissioning.

Q370 Neil Carmichael: The schools themselves?Andrew Winton: Yes

Q371 Neil Carmichael: Rather than, say, localauthorities?Chair: It is only the statemented children for whom,after the Academies Act 2010—although I supposethat that is specific to academies—local authoritieswill continue to have responsibility. For the others, itis devolved to schools. Is that right? Is thatappropriate?Andrew Winton: Yes.Bill Gribble: Yes. It safeguards the identity, if youlike, or the additional needs of the special child.

Q372 Neil Carmichael: I’m thinking about thecommissioning of the actual services of support thatSEN children might require.Bill Gribble: You’ve got to have a broker within localauthority to be able to do that, because they have therange and the extent of services available for thisspecific need. My wife used to do that as a seniorofficer for a local authority. Again, developing thelevel of trust between different schools to allow thosesorts of things to happen is a vital role that cannot bedone within one school. The local authority role inthat is very important.

Q373 Neil Carmichael: Is that one of the reasonswhy there are variable standards?Bill Gribble: Yes, very much so. It is often the extentof the quality of the brokerage, if you like, within thelocal authority.Tessa Munt: I want to go back to the statementingthing. We’re off the record aren’t we?Chair: No, we’re not. This is formally recorded andwill duly be published.

Q374 Tessa Munt: Fine, I come from a county whereit is very difficult to get a statement. I would like toknow what you think about statementing, because myexperience is that I have, perhaps, a number ofchildren who spend a bit of time in their week on afarm, and there are children who go off and work—this is at the age of nine, 10 or 11—and they clearlycan’t read. What is going to happen is that, if they gointo further education at the age of 16, the college willsay that the child is dyslexic or this or that. They arefree to say whatever the state of that child’s abilitiesor potential is. That is because no one is going to becharging anyone after 16, so it’s okay to discover thatyou have a problem at the age of 16.Some of these parents have been fighting and fighting.In my county, if you are poor, it is very difficult to geta statement. If you have £40,000 to go through thecourt system, get yourself a QC and so on, you canprobably get there, because you’ll battle them. I wantto know how we actually ensure that children whohave needs are identified, don’t disappear and don’tget farmed out—literally—and that they are actuallypicked up and given the support that they really need.Bill Gribble: There’s no short answer to that, but oneof the elements you’ve got in the White Paper now,which I said that you mustn’t lose sight of right at theoutset of today’s meeting, is for the excluded child.They have an additional need if they are excluded—for whatever reason. That need for them might be analternative educational provision.




Q375 Tessa Munt: Yes, but we have inclusion in mycounty, so we don’t do exclusion.Bill Gribble: But my point was, if money follows thechild for those additional needs, perhaps into furthereducation, that would be the future. At the moment,money following the child is an important aspect ofthis. For a weighting to be given to a child, so thatthey can get a certain amount of educationalexperience to meet those needs, is an importantaspect. You’ve started on it in the White Paper.Chair: We need to cover some other material, so Idon’t want to keep revisiting existing stuff. Charlotte?

Q376 Charlotte Leslie: A very quick one onexclusion and SEN. Is there any merit at all in theidea of having some kind of trigger system, wherebyif a child experiences more than a certain number offixed-period exclusions, this automatically triggers anassessment for SEN? Is that a mad idea, or does ithave some merit?Bill Gribble: No.Chair: Bill says no. Anybody else?Bill Gribble: It could be an emotional developmentalthing that hasn’t been picked up, which is anadditional need in itself. It may not be just aneducational need; it could be a broader need than that.

Q377 Charlotte Leslie: But some kind ofassessment?Bill Gribble: Some form of assessment, which shouldbe taking place naturally within a school anyway. If Iwas a head teacher and that wasn’t taking placenaturally in the school, I would be very concerned. Itcomes back to the evidence trial thing again—all staffshould be feeding into that sort of thing.

Q378 Chair: Jacquie, can I ask you in the firstinstance whether you agree that head teachers shouldbe regularly assessed for their suitability as schoolleaders? Who should conduct those assessments?Jacquie Nunn: As I say, I’m here to represent theTDA, not the national college.

Q379 Chair: The national college seems to be “in”at the moment.Jacquie Nunn: I would have thought that the nationalcollege would be the body that would be the naturalconstituency for being in the lead around any suchassessments of head teachers. We have performancemanagement going right the way through the schoolat all levels, and that is the role of the agency in termsof looking at how we are looking at everybody upthrough middle management to—

Q380 Chair: So national college for heads. Whatabout middle leaders? Do we do enough to supportthem and ensure that they have an understanding ofand consistently apply behaviour and disciplinepolicies within schools?Jacquie Nunn: I think so within the context ofperformance management for schools. The extent towhich people have enacted their responsibilitiesaround that is very variable across the system in termsof the use that has been made of the framework ofstandards that is in place now for teachers through

threshold, advanced and excellent teacher skills. Icertainly think that there is an infrastructure in place.

Q381 Chair: So middle leaders are getting all thetraining they need on behaviour and discipline. Is thatwhat you are saying?Jacquie Nunn: I’m saying that there is aninfrastructure in place that school leadership can useto assess those needs. The responsibility for meetingthose needs has been devolved to schools, andcontinues to be, so I think, as we have said elsewhere,that it is for school leadership to make decisionsaround that.

Q382 Chair: It may be for them to make thosedecisions, but the question is whether they areproviding middle leaders with the quality training theyrequire in order to be able to deliver the consistentpolicies throughout the school.Jacquie Nunn: The evidence that we have on that isthat there is a very variable picture nationally.

Q383 Craig Whittaker: Can I take you back to theinitial thing that we were talking about around thequality of the initial teacher training? You havementioned mentoring being a big part of it, but thereis no consistency in the mentoring process. I am surethat is a huge gap in provision.Jacquie Nunn: What we need is a consistent set ofexpectations around mentoring and how it isrepresented in the standards. Charlotte talked earlierabout professional responsibilities and theprofessionalisation of teaching. I think that theresponsibility of any profession for those entering itand moving up through is crucial. That is true of otherprofessions. I think that we have begun to build thatsystematically into the account of what it means to bea teacher. It is represented in the standards forteaching in terms of what they say at threshold levelabout the responsibility of working with those comingbehind you in the profession. But I think that we couldstrengthen it.

Q384 Chair: Does the role of education welfareofficers need to be promoted, and where should theirline management sit? This is an important issue.Andrew Winton: Clearly, I would say yes. At themoment, it is quite worrying that there are huge cutsof 50 to 80% across some areas. Historically, themanagement has rested with local authorities. A whileago, there was the opportunity for it to be devolved toschools and, where it was devolved to schools, it wasunsuccessful. Where staff were based in schools butwere managed centrally under a professionalmanagement structure, that worked well. So I thinkyes, that would probably be a good model to look atkeeping a central management within the localauthority.

Q385 Chair: Okay. Does anyone disagree with that?Bill Gribble: No.

Q386 Ian Mearns: On that point, at the outset of ourinquiry into behaviour and discipline, we suggestedthat we should look at the role of attendance in




conjunction with behaviour and discipline. Do youreally think that attendance can be disassociated frombehaviour and discipline in schools?Andrew Winton: Attendance is a behaviour.Dr Dunford: Yes, I do disagree with that, because Ithink that, in the current circumstances, schools maywish to do it in a different way. They may wish to tieit up with some other home liaison work and they maywish to work in, for example, a group of secondaryschools and a group of primary schools, as I saidearlier. But, none the less, they should tap into theexpertise that Andy has referred to, which hismembers have.Andrew Winton: Certainly, the exclusion work itselfcould be employed by schools, but they would needto have professional supervision from somebodyoutside the school.

Q387 Neil Carmichael: Given that the White Paperis talking about local authorities shaping their owncapacities and, let’s say, contributions to schoolmanagement policy, should they be thinking in termsof their intervention as, “You must do better”, orshould it be, “We’re here to help if you want us to”?In other words, what kind of relationship do you thinklocal authorities should be starting to build up withschools, with the new responsibilities and powers thatthey have?Dr Dunford: I’ve said this so many times over theyears, and I think it applies to this account in theWhite Paper about the role of local authorities; youreally have to think differently in relation to primaryschools and secondary schools. The kind of supportthat a primary school—and I am a governor of aprimary school—needs from a local authority is verydifferent from the kind of relationship that a secondaryschool should have with a local authority. I think thereare two quite different answers to your question.Neil Carmichael: I think you’re absolutely right,oddly enough.Chair: Why oddly enough? For the record, can I saythat John Dunford is frequently right? Far fromuniversally, but frequently.

Q388 Neil Carmichael: From what I can see,sometimes local authorities are reluctant to intervenein secondary schools in a decisive enough manner. Idon’t know; that is just my experience, and certainlyif things are going wrong, because of the complexity,size and so forth.Dr Dunford: Because of the way that the careerstructure has gone, many local authorities—there are150 of them now—have no expertise whatsoever insecondary schools and particularly in secondaryschool leadership, whereas they tend to have someexpertise in primary school leadership. It is just theway that different career structures have worked.

Q389 Neil Carmichael: One reason for that might bethat they simply do not have enough secondaryschools to be interested in, in their patch. Are localauthorities big enough to have the capacity to dealwith secondary schools?Dr Dunford: But even if they were, where do youwant the really good people in the system to work?

The answer is that you want them to work in schoolsand develop school-to-school support, brokered andcommissioned by the local authorities. That is wheretheir role lies in the future.Bill Gribble: That’s why those partnerships that wediscussed previously are so important.Andrew Winton: The notion of academies comes inthere.

Q390 Neil Carmichael: So, in a sense, we’re talkingabout a new relationship for local authorities to havewith schools, and they’re going to have essentially thecommissioning role—we mentioned expertise beforein connection with SEN—for extra support where it isappropriate and needed.One final question: just how much authority shouldeither governors or a local authority have over thehead in terms of his or her performance, and what sortof sanctions do you think are appropriate?Dr Dunford: In a sense, I’ve just answered yourquestion, haven’t I? I said that there is so littleexpertise there. I think that it’s a great pity that theWhite Paper has suggested the end of the schoolimprovement partners, because they were providingsome degree of external challenge to head teachers,and head teachers, on the whole, welcomed that.Where that external challenge will come from in thefuture to schools that are not going to be inspectedand are not going to have school improvementpartners and so on, I am not quite sure. That issomething that needs looking at within the WhitePaper. Is it going to come from governing bodies? Ifit is, we’re back to your earlier comment about theskills of governing bodies.Neil Carmichael: That’s a subject I’ve been pursuing.

Q391 Pat Glass: Can I move on to alternativeprovision? We have heard witnesses say that thecurrent situation is scandalous. My experience is thatPRUs are either very good or very bad, and there islittle in between. The balance of good ones and badones is not equal. I’ve come across PRUs where theydon’t teach children with behavioural problems, andthey won’t have this one or that one. Given that theWhite Paper is talking about giving PRUs the samekind of governing bodies and establishing them asschools, and yet these are the schools of last resort,how do you think that will work? Will it work?Bill Gribble: I think any opportunity to enhance theprofessionalism that does or does not exist in somePRUs at the moment is an important development.Chair: Can you speak up please, Bill?Bill Gribble: Sorry. Any opportunity to enhance theprofessional development of the pupil referral unitsystems at the moment is important. However, I stillfeel that they should be very much within the localauthority auspices and have direct links to localauthority oversight, if you will, because they are thealternative provision, often funded greatly by the localauthority. Having said that, I found that when I wasthe head of a PRU I didn’t want a pupil referral unit.What I wanted was a virtual pupil referral unit, if youget my drift. When I was working with head teachersand saying, “How do I stop your children coming tome?” they said, “Bring your expertise to us”, which is




what we did, and this was 20-odd years ago, so beforeoutreach was thought of. We found that by workingwith the pupils who were on the verge of exclusionwe could do a much better job than waiting for themto be excluded and ending up with us.

Q392 Chair: We visited a PRU in London that doesprecisely that.Bill Gribble: And it works so well. To develop theservice approach to the pupil referral unit systemwhere children get real alternative educationalexperiences would be a much better way than to over-formalise the system.

Q393 Pat Glass: Do you still think it needs to belargely with the local authority?Bill Gribble: I do.Dr Dunford: Yes, I think that’s right but there will besome groups of schools that will develop theirbehaviour and attendance partnerships to the extentthat they can do this.Bill Gribble: I agree, wholeheartedly.Dr Dunford: But not all schools will be able to dothat.

Q394 Pat Glass: A quick question. As an assistantdirector I always took the view that we should notprevent PRUs from taking children with statements ofSEN. Having moved away from that I have nowchanged my view. Do you think that one of therecommendations that we could make would be thatPRUs should not take statemented children?Bill Gribble: They should take statemented childrenif it does not disadvantage them for their additionalneed. If those children have a specific need, such asAsperger’s, and they do not have access to the clinicaland psychological service that they would desperatelyneed, that would disadvantage them even further. Soif they can still have their additional needs met thenyes, they can go to a PRU.Andrew Winton: Given that all alternative provisionhas to be registered as a PRU, then where would thosechildren go?Pat Glass: I think that local authorities should makealternative and proper provision for statementedchildren and that PRUs are used too often.Chair: I should put it on the record that John Dunfordis an adviser to this Committee.

Q395 Craig Whittaker: New Woodlands school thatwe went to in Lewisham has—I think this is thecorrect terminology—powers to innovate as issued bythe Secretary of State. It is one of the few schoolsin the country with that. Should that be more widelyavailable for PRUs or that kind of model?Bill Gribble: It’s a great model but if that sort ofmandate is given without some form of assessment ofthe ability to deliver, it would be a disaster. It couldspread poor practice.

Q396 Chair: I just want to ask about the WhitePaper’s requirement for schools to provide full-timeeducation for all excluded pupils. Do you think thatwill lead to an improvement and what might be therisks of that approach?Bill Gribble: If the funding stream were there for theindividual pupil, in other words the money followedthe child, that is realistic.

Q397 Chair: But why should it be particularly? It iscoming out of the school budget and the schoolremains responsible. In what way will the money beavailable?Bill Gribble: The money should be available for thealternative provision to be made.Andrew Winton: £15,000 is what it costs in a PRU.Normally for four or five students—Bill Gribble: So we are going to have a disparitybetween costs.

Q398 Chair: If the school gets the budget by dint ofexcluding, does that not create some perverseincentives? That would be the opposite of what Johnis suggesting. If the school can exclude and thentrigger additional monies to support that pupil, does itnot have quite an incentive to do so?Bill Gribble: Not if the money is ring-fenced for thepupil. The money has to stay with the pupil.Andrew Winton: It is about having independentassessment of the needs of individual students. Thatdoesn’t have to be at the point of exclusion.

Q399 Chair: But if excluding a pupil you are findingtroublesome means that you can instantly get a bigchunk of cash, which is exclusively for the use of thatpupil but means that you can provide for them in away that you otherwise couldn’t, is there not a bit ofan incentive to start excluding away? They are notreally excluded, because they are still with you—youjust get more money to look after them. You’ve stillgot them, but you get more cash.Bill Gribble: But if the school still has ownership andit is going to affect their league table, or whatever,they certainly will have some incentive to make surethat the provision for that child is met.

Q400 Chair: They have ample incentive, becausethey get the cash. So surely they would exclude more.I am just trying to understand the incentives for themin the system.Dr Dunford: I think the cost of dealing with this ismuch more than the money that they’ll get. So it willstill cost them.Chair: Sorry Charlotte, but I am going to bring thesession to a close. Thank you all very much forcoming and giving evidence to us today. We reallyappreciate your taking the time. Bill, it would be veryuseful if you could leave with us the paper that youhave prepared.

Processed: 01-02-2011 14:42:40 Page Layout: COENEW [SE] PPSysB Job: 006766 Unit: PAG5


Written evidence

Memorandum submitted by Tom Burkard

Summary

Current efforts to “manage” the behaviour of disengaged pupils are unlikely to make much difference. Theunderlying assumptions of modern education virtually guarantee that a substantial minority of pupils will findschool such an unrewarding experience that they will become chronic truants or school-refusers (if we arelucky) or violent and disruptive (if we aren’t). The crucial factors are:

1. Discovery learning—described by Jerome Bruner as “the most inefficient technique possible forregaining what has been gathered over a long period of time”—poses insurmountable obstacles forpupils with poor working memory; deficits in this area are central to hyperactivity and lowattainment in literacy and maths.

2. The Early Years Foundation Stage has reinforced teachers’ perception that children must reachdevelopmental milestones before reading instruction can begin. This is disastrous for low-abilitypupils with any kind of learning difficulty: for them, keeping up is a challenge, and catching up isall but impossible. Effective reading instruction is the key to social and intellectual development.

3. The curriculum has been progressively stripped of declarative knowledge—which virtually allchildren can master—and replaced with a “problem-solving” approach. In fact, problem-solvingdepends upon knowledge bases which children of poorly-educated parents are unlikely to have.

4. Mixed-ability teaching necessitates “differentiation”—the personalised learning agenda promotedin the Gilbert Review is the ultimate expression of this absurdity. High school teachers often havemore than 150 pupils, and it is sheer fantasy to assume that they can “personalise” instruction forall of them. Pupils with low ability, as well as those who are very bright, frequently become boredpast all endurance.

5. “Inclusive” policies put low-ability children in daily contact with pupils who are far more able.Low-ability pupils have a very high incentive to disrupt any activity which will expose theirinferiority.

6. The SEN Code of Practice ensures that teachers and psychologists explain educational failure interms of problems within the pupil, rather than failings in the educational environment.

7. Contrary to the assertions of ideologues, competition does not demotivate low-ability pupils. Infact, nothing motivates them more—my SEN pupils used to beg for quizzes and contests.

8. Continual exhortations for pupils to “aim high” and “don’t settle for a dead-end job” demeanmanual work, and ensure high continuing rates of immigration.

9. The consensual or corporate model of authority has weakened the authority of teachers.

1. Discovery learning

Discovery learning relies upon children’s inclination and ability to conduct their own learning with limitedinput and guidance from the teachers. If the work is to be of anything more than the most trivial significance,the pupil must be able to entertain complex material, weigh the importance and relationship of variouselements, and form judgements and new hypotheses to guide further investigations. Pupils who lack thisability are often considered to have an attention deficit disorder; alternately, they may be dismissed as “lazy”.

Psychologists now recognise the key role played by working memory in behaviour and academicachievement. As a recent Canadian study summarised,

What this new research has shown is that the primary problem with ADHD is not behaviour, but rathercognition. That is, the underlying deficit in ADHD is a cognitive control problem that effects both cognitivefunctioning and behaviour. One of the primary cognitive control mechanisms is working memory. Workingmemory plays a major role in helping the mind focus on task while screening out distractions. Workingmemory functions as temporary storage of knowledge that is applied to tasks of comprehension,computation and planning. As a result, researchers have shown that poor working memory is related to pooracademic achievement, especially in subjects associated with language arts and mathematics.1

Children with poor working memory normally make good progress when taught with direct instruction.Basic sub-skills must be thoroughly mastered before attempting higher-level work. For instance, whennumber facts are learnt to the point of automaticity, the pupil’s working memory is freed to master basicalgorithms. When these have been mastered, the pupil’s attention is thus freed to apply these algorithmsto problem-solving. The current practice of encouraging children to “explore” number by using alternative

1 Comments posted on http://www.ldrc.ca/contents/view article/215/by Peter Chaban, in reference to “ReconceptualizingADHD”, by Dr. Rosemary Tannock, Senior Scientist, Brain and Behavior Program, The Hospital for Sick Children,Associate Professor of Psychiatry, University of Toronto, and Rhonda Martinussen, doctoral candidate, University ofToronto

Processed: 01-02-2011 14:42:40 Page Layout: COENEW [O] PPSysB Job: 006766 Unit: PAG5


methods of computation—which supposedly teaches “concept of number”2—places an almostinsurmountable obstacle in the way of pupils who have enough trouble mastering standard algorithms.However, modern educators will do almost anything to avoid “rote learning” (once described as “learningsomething so that it may be reliably recalled at a later date”).

It is difficult to judge the extent to which our teachers rely upon self-directed learning. Obviously, thereis a direct contradiction between meeting mandated curriculum requirements and allowing children thefreedom to pursue their own investigations. In practice, teachers probably rely on direct instruction morethan is commonly assumed; as Robin Alexander once observed, discovery learning can degenerate into “acharade of pseudo-inquiry which fools nobody, least of all the children, but which wastes a great deal oftime”.3

We suspect that infant teachers are the worst offenders: they are the most likely to have completed athree—or four-year ITT course, and hence most likely to identify emotionally with modern learning theory.The success of our own Wave 3 intervention rests largely on the fact that it is normally delivered by teachingassistants, who seldom have a problem with direct instruction.

But for most children with poor working memory, infant school sows the seeds of future behaviourproblems. A USDoE study concluded that “What brings about the delinquency is not the academic failureper se, but sustained frustration which results from continued failure to achieve selected academic goals.”4

Recent research on working memory, ADHD and cognition can be reviewed at http://www.cogmed.com/adhd-working-memory

2. Early Years Foundation Stage

If the decision to introduce synthetic phonics was a massive setback for the educational establishment,with the introduction of the EYFS in 2008 they managed to claw back a lot of ground. In 2007, we had littledifficulty convincing quite a number of infant schools to introduce our synthetic phonics materials inReception Year: but with the EYFS, this is no longer possible. Now, pupils in Reception must “learnthrough play”.

The EYFS has also re-introduced the concept of “reading readiness”. The old National Literacy Strategy,for all its faults, at least recognised the overwhelming evidence that children who fall behind in reading havevery little chance of catching up. The EYFS has introduced a developmental inventory to classify childrenwho are deemed to be unready to engage the National Curriculum. Once more, schools have ready-madeexcuses for failure. As the Southampton evaluation of our Bear Necessities Wave 3 intervention pointed out,literacy instruction facilitates development:

A noticeable development in children’s ability to concentrate and focus was also noted by severalschools, a difficulty which had been initially identified as a barrier to children’s success in reading…At the start of the pilot, teachers had cited speech difficulties as one reason why some pupils werenot being successful at reading. Interestingly, data confirmed that whilst 37% of pupils did showsome speech difficulties at the start of the intervention, this did not continue to intrude as a barrierto learning… Furthermore, the number of pupils manifesting initial speech difficulties, fell to 16%after six months, suggesting that the programme itself had alleviated some symptoms. Thesefindings highlight the importance of maintaining high expectations for these pupils and not usingspeech difficulties as an excuse for poor attainment.5

Advocates of delaying reading instruction point to the low rates of reading failure in Germany andScandinavia, where children don’t start school until age six or even seven. They neglect to mention that theirlanguages are phonetically very regular, and synthetic phonics has always been the norm—it would beperverse to teach reading with any other method. Indeed, teaching children to read these languages is sosimple that most children have mastered basic decoding skills before they start school. A recent CfBT reviewof studies from around the world came down firmly on the side of direct instruction for very youngchildren.6

Few would doubt that success in learning to read is a crucial element in pupil behaviour. An Americanstudy of youthful offenders arrested for violent crime reported that:

…The present study was unsuccessful in attempting to correlate aggression with age, family size,or number of parents present in the home, rural versus urban environment, socio-economic status,minority group membership, religious preference, etc. Only reading failure was found to correlatewith aggression in both groups of delinquent boys. It is possible that reading failure is the singlemost significant factor in those forms of delinquency which can be described as anti-sociallyaggressive. I am speaking of assault, arson, sadistic acts directed against peers and siblings, majorvandalism, etc.7

2 I have yet to find a succinct definition of this fuzzy concept.3 Quoted in Phillips, M (1996) All Must Have Prizes, Little Brown & Co, London, p 594 Brunner, MS (1993) Retarding America: the Imprisonment of Potential, Halcyon House, Portland, Oregon, p 305 Claire Belli (2009) “Next Steps in Literacy”, unpublished thesis, University of Southampton, pp 60–616 http://www.nurseryworld.co.uk/news/1028252/Analysis-Teacher-led-activities-produce-better-results/?DCMP%ILC-

SEARCH7 Hogenson, D (1974) “Reading Failure and Juvenile Delinquency”, Bulletin of the Orton Society, 24, p 167

Processed: 01-02-2011 14:42:40 Page Layout: COENEW [E] PPSysB Job: 006766 Unit: PAG5


If reading failure is strongly indicated the most significant factor in violent anti-social behaviour, there isgood reason to believe that success in learning to read acts as a prophylactic. Durand Academy in Stockwellhas 900 pupils, 95% of whom are Black Minority Ethnic, and all of whom can read. Head Greg Martinreports that “…in my 23 years as Head Teacher, only one child was ever excluded.”8

3. The corruption of the curriculum

Michael Gove acted swiftly to suspend the new National Strategies, but it will take quite some time topurge the system of the intellectual poison contained in the Gilbert Review. As Colin McKenzie—anoutstanding science teacher in Cumbria—put it:

The drift away from content has become so pronounced in recent years that many young and“successful” teachers find it laughable that we might want to reinstate knowledge andunderstanding as the central tenet of education.9

The young and “successful” teachers he refers to are those who have completed the new Masters inTeaching and Learning. The notion that children can be taught all-purpose “critical thinking skills” isabsolute moonshine: understanding how a historian or a biologist works will be of very little use to amathematician. Knowledge and understanding are inextricably intertwined. Our ability to evaluate newinformation from any source is absolutely dependent upon our prior knowledge of the subject. There areno short-cuts to wisdom. The intellectual pretensions of the “21st century skills” lobby have been mercilesslyexposed by the eminent American cognitive scientist Daniel T Willingham in Why don’t students like school?.This book should be required reading for anyone with an interest in education.10

The children of educated parents are spared the worst consequences of modern educational follies.Unfortunately, these theories have been dominant in England’s schools for over two generations, and manychildren born today have grandparents who can barely read and write, and know nothing of the worldbeyond what they see on television. The problem of the underclass has nothing to do with “resources”: inthe last 45 years, the United States has spent $150 billion on Head Start and other Title 1 programmes, andthere is very little to show for it. According to Head Start Impact Study—by far the largest evaluation todate—“the benefits of access to Head Start at age four are largely absent by 1st grade for the programpopulation as a whole.”11

We should not discount the possibility that there is a substantial genetic component to IQ. But whateverthe explanation for low ability, to date all attempts to raise it have proved disappointing, and low-abilitypupils simply are not good at the “problem-solving” activities favoured by educators. Bearing this in mind,it is clear that a curriculum which devalues declarative knowledge—rote-learning, if you will—dooms low-ability pupils to failure.

On the other hand, low-ability pupils can achieve far more than they do now. My proposals to train ex-soldiers as teachers came as a result of seeing what the Army can do with the most unpromising recruits,young men who have left school with absolutely nothing to show for it except attitude problems. Havingserved as a military instructor in the Royal Pioneers, and having taught in a Norwich comprehensive, I haveno hesitation whatever in claiming that the military’s training methods are vastly more effective and humanethan the supposedly “child-centred” practices advocated by our educational establishment. Militaryinstructors are given freedoms that teachers in state schools can only dream about. The prestige of Britain’sarmed forces contrasts starkly with the reputation of England’s “bog-standard” comprehensives.

4. Mixed-ability teaching

There is very little evidence to indicate that pupils in mixed-ability classes learn more than those who aregrouped by ability. Jo Boaler and Dylan Wiliam have published results of interventions which have shapedthe “personalised learning” project that was heavily promoted by New Labour, but Boaler’s ideas are, toput it politely, original. Her big idea is “ethnomathematics”—a creed which, according to a Wall StreetJournal article by Diane Ravitch, argues that:

…traditional mathematics—the mathematics taught in universities around the world—is theproperty of Western Civilization and is inexorably linked with the values of the oppressors andconquerors.12

A more sober assessment of mixed-ability teaching can be found on the Teaching Battleground blog:

…the movement for mixed ability classes is indistinguishable from the movement against teaching.The mixed ability class teacher is not a teacher at all. They are, often quite explicitly, a facilitator.They are a person who designs educational activities for children but doesn’t actually tell themwhat they need to know. They are a friend to the child, but not an expert on an academic subject.13

8 e-mail to author, 9 Oct 20109 e-mail to author, 12 May 201010 Willingham, Daniel T (2009) Why don’t students like school?, John Wiley & Sons Inc, San Francisco11 http://blog.heritage.org/2010/01/15/head-start-a-150-billion-failure/12 Ravitch, D, (June 20, 2005) “Ethnomathematics”, The Wall Street Journal13 http://teachingbattleground.wordpress.com/2007/04/15/mixed-ability-teaching-doesnt-exist/



It is usually argued that ability-grouping condemns the least-able to an inferior education. Insofar as thebottom sets are taught by low-ability teachers, this is undoubtedly true. Giving heads enough incentives tosack useless teachers is, alas, probably beyond the reach of any government.

However, it is far from clear that low-ability pupils fare any better in a mixed-ability class, where groupwork and project work frees teachers from the impossible task of “differentiating” or “personalising”learning for all pupils. As the Teaching Battleground blog notes:

[Group work] is actually misnamed as it is highly impractical for an entire group to do the work.A better name for it would be “Sarah, the bright girl and her friend Lucy’s work”. However as longas Kevin, who sat at the same table picking his nose, is allowed to write his name on the back ofthe piece of work then the teacher can claim that Kevin has also worked in the lesson.14

Ever since mankind discovered the advantages of trade, increasing specialisation of function has createdcontinuous advances in productivity—a lesson which is lost on our ideologically-motivated educators.

5. Inclusion

The violent aggression of a single pupil can be enough to ruin a teacher’s career and blight the educationof hundreds of pupils. It gives entirely the wrong message to all parties concerned: extreme anti-socialbehaviour pays, and the laws governing human society don’t really mean anything. “Inclusive” policies haveexactly the opposite of their intended effect—they destroy social cohesion, ripping apart humancommunities which supposedly play a critical role in socialising young people. Other pupils who would nototherwise have the courage to misbehave are encouraged to emulate and follow the worst examples.

The reluctance of headmasters and school governors to permanently exclude violent pupils is in part afunction of the fact that they don’t have to directly experience the consequences of their decisions, but mostlyit is a function of moral cowardice. No one wants to be portrayed as the meanie who says “no”. Nor do theywant to take an action which could have unpleasant repercussions if the excluded pupils’ parents storm intothe school or take legal action. Nor do they want to jeopardise their chances of promotion within the localauthority.

Even the pupil who is spared exclusion does not benefit, save for the dubious following he will attract asa romantic anti-hero who has bested authority. He (and it is almost always a he) will be denied the possibilityof functioning as a useful member of society. When he is older, he will almost certainly supplement hiswelfare entitlements with the proceeds of crime. It is perhaps a small mercy that he will not expect to livelong.

The coalition is well aware of this problem, and Michael Gove has accepted our proposals to train ex-service personnel as teachers, and to encourage Skill Force to run pupil referral units. New Labour’ssolutions—such as school behaviour partnerships—were sticking-plaster measures which createdbureaucratic structures which had little function beyond preserving the fiction that inclusion was working.

We are currently working on a radical proposal to limit local authorities’ responsibility to excluded pupilsto the provision of a school voucher to the amount previously attached to the pupil—this is being presentedto the Department in our submission to the SEN review, and attached to this paper.

6. The SEN Code of Practice

It is hard to take seriously a document which claims that:

A child has Special Educational Needs if he or she has a learning difficulty which calls for specialeducational provision to be made for him or her.15

The Code specifies in great detail the procedures which local authorities and schools must follow, but isstrangely mute about outcomes. Its operating assumption is that educational failure is due to factors withinthe child or his home—and it never results from inadequate or misconceived teaching. The main purposeof the Code is to protect schools and local authorities from legal action for failing to meet pupils’ individualneeds, as required by the 1981 Education Act. It operates by conflating pupils with genuine medical needswith those whose problems only began once they crossed the school gate. This egregious legislation, for allits humane intentions, is unworkable and must be repealed.

At one SEN exhibition, our stall was next to that of a company that sold software which enabled teachersto create Individual Education Plans and other documentation by choosing alternative phrases from drop-down boxes. Their main selling point was that their software was continuously updated to reflect changingDCFS requirements: needless to say, they did a lively trade.

My submission to the Department on the SEN consultation suggests a market-led approach similar tothe system created by the MacKay Amendment in Florida.

14 ibid15 The Code, paragraph 2.1



7. Competition—the magic motivator

Unlike teachers, military instructors are advised to incorporate competition into lessons whereverpossible. However, competition works just as well in schools as it does in the Army. You just have to becareful when inspectors are around. Obviously, it won’t work well in mixed-ability classes. But wheneveryone in the class has an honest chance, losing is a powerfully-motivating experience. As a school in Essexdiscovered, competition can even get boys reading fiction.16

8. Aiming high

These days, no high school is complete without posters urging pupils to “aim high” and “don’t settle fora dead end job”. No doubt these are well-meant, but it is incredible that educators who claim to worry somuch about pupils’ self-esteem can be so crass when it comes to pupils whose lack of academic achievementwill limit them to low-status work. Insulting youths who decide that a “McJob” is better than signing on isnot an honourable way to encourage pupils to go on to further education.

Indeed, one wonders why no one bothers to warn them about “dead-end degrees”, such as a BA in MediaStudies at one of our newer universities. Nor why NVQs are known as “No Value Qualifications”. Or thatat least a half of those starting a university degree are worse off financially for their trouble.17

Contrary to what our educators would have you believe, Britain’s labour shortages are at the bottom endof the market: for every Indian doctor or Hungarian dentist, there are dozens of immigrants washing carsand cleaning offices. Our NEETs are a direct result of the insidious propaganda to denigrate honest work.

9. Authority

Teacher’s authority has been so badly eroded in recent years that it’s hard to know where to start. Themalign influence of courses in “behaviour management” has created conditions where teachers are assumedto be at fault when pupils misbehave. This is not just a reflection on education: in the real world, we are alluncomfortable with the idea of individual authority. Managers derive their authority from committees andconsensual mechanisms.

It doesn’t have to be this way. At the Durand Academy in Stockwell, Headmaster Greg Martin writes:

Discipline is incredibly important in schools if you hope to create an environment that is conduciveto concentration and effective learning. At Durand, from day one of a child’s education we makeour expectations for good behaviour explicitly clear. We expect children to wear their uniformscorrectly, move around the school in an orderly fashion, listen and focus in class and respect oneanother. Most importantly we ensure that all teachers, parents and carers are fully on board withthis holistic approach.

“So, the youngest child aged three enters into this whole-school culture, where the practices areobserved in every corridor, stairwell, dinner hall and of course classroom—it is part of our DNA.”

“With this consistent approach, new children or late starters quickly adapt and settle in. A markedeffect of this has been that those that have joined the school with alleged behavioural problems areled by the example of every one of their peers and class leaders, dinner ladies and teachingassistants, and we soon find that the bad behaviour is nullified.”18

Visiting Durand Academy, one is immediately struck by the lack of random movement and backgroundchatter. The pupils are very exuberant at break time, but their classes (unusually for a state primary school,all pupils are grouped by ability) are firmly led by teachers who have been recruited and trained the wayGreg Martin wants them trained.

Conclusion

The problems outlined above are systemic, and they reflect an ideology with an international dimension.They cannot be solved by creating more management structures: proposals to “professionalise” the SENworkforce would do nothing more than encourage teachers to look for excuses instead of solutions.

Politicians should reflect that the driving force behind the Gilbert Review did not come from those whoactually have to teach our children. They should scrutinise every proposal devised by experts, and askthemselves how many non-contact jobs they would create—and how much non-contact work it will createfor over-burdened teachers. As a veteran of the SEN industry, I can vouch that SEN professionals are verygood at consulting each other, and devising paper-chases that lead nowhere. School partnerships, integrateddelivery and inter-agency collaboration are merely devices for diffusing responsibility and creating excusesfor more meetings.

October 2010

16 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/7976044/Extraordinary-School-for-Boys-helping-boys-love-literacy.html17 http://www.popecenter.org/clarion call/article.html?id%174018 e-mail to the author, 8 Oct 2010



APPENDIX

Parents of pupils who are permanently excluded for behaviour problems should also be entitled to avoucher, but the local authority should have no further responsibility. This would concentrate theminds of parents with poorly-disciplined children—and it would stimulate the creation of effectiveprivate or third-sector provision.

The welfare state originated as a benign safety net for the weak, the poor and for people who were merelydown on their luck. Gradually, it has mutated into a monster which shields people from the consequences offeckless or anti-social behaviour. With the 1981 Education Act, the responsibility for violent and disruptivebehaviour in the classroom was effectively transferred from the pupil and his or her parents to the localauthority.

We now have a bizarre situation where local authorities are paying anything up to £150,000 per year tocontain a single pupil with severe behaviour problems—yet at the same time, hundreds of thousands of well-behaved children are not being taught the most basic skills they will need to survive as adults.

We should be careful not to demonise all violent and disruptive pupils. As much as it offends our senseof justice when young bloods swagger back into school after a short temporary exclusion for assaulting ateacher or a fellow pupil, few of them are beyond redemption. I’ve worked with kids at the margins of societyfor over 40 years—and very few of them are psychopaths.

Nearly all of them respond positively when they are taught by someone they respect. Almost all of themare pathetically eager when they are given a chance to excel. But in most mainstream schools, the only waythey can win “respect” is by misbehaving. From their viewpoint, a temporary exclusion—like an ASBO—is a badge of honour.

We have proposed that Skill Force—who train ex-service personnel to work with pupils who are at riskof exclusion—should be encouraged to run PRUs. This proposal has been greeted enthusiastically by theGovernment. We desperately need more PRUs which are run by people who are untainted by defeatist“behaviour management” training—in other words, we need people with the guts to say “no”.

As a practical matter, we are not going to get very far unless we create conditions where for-profit venturescan compete successfully. Ironically, the only barrier to Skill Force’s participation is their own Board ofDirectors. Directors of charities are almost always extremely risk-averse. When you serve for no pay, the lastthing you want is to be held accountable if something goes wrong.

As positive as this idea is, it will not really get to the heart of the problem. We believe that the responsibilityof local authorities for excluded pupils should be limited to providing their parent(s) with a voucher to thevalue of mainstream education. This could, and probably would, be topped up by businesses and charitablefoundations. Other than providing the parent with a list of potential alternative schools, the LA should bearno further responsibility whatever.

It is obvious that there will be casualties. There will be some feckless parents who don’t get the message,and a few pupils who will become full-time criminals on the street instead of part-time thugs in the school.

But where are we now? Policy-makers are fond of creating systems where there is a theoretical safety-netin place to cover any eventuality: witness America’s “No Child Left Behind” and our own “Every Child aReader”. These policies fail miserably to achieve their goals, and we just take it for granted. But suggest aplan which might actually work with 99% of your pupils, and you still will be crucified if you haven’t createdthe fiction that no child will slip through the net.

But in the long run, it will be worth it. England is littered with council estates where people live hopelessand servile lives, which are rendered meaningless because their betters have decided that they can’t possiblybe responsible for their actions or for themselves.

October 2010

Memorandum submitted by The Association of Education Psychologists

The Association of Educational Psychologists and Educational Psychology

The Association of Educational Psychologists (AEP) is the professional association and trade union foreducational psychologists (EPs). It is the only organisation in the UK run exclusively for and by EPs,representing around 90% of the professional work force. The AEP seeks to promote the overall well-beingof children and young people, represents the collective interests of its members, promotes cooperationbetween EPs, and seeks to establish good relationships between EPs and their employers. The AEP currentlyhas 3250 members across England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

Educational psychology is a key frontline education service that underpins the understanding of howpupils develop and learn. Many practicising educational psychologists undertake doctoral study as part oftheir continuing professional development and three year doctoral level initial training has been developedfor all new entrants to the profession. EPs work with children and young people aged from 0–19 but themajority of their time is spent with school-aged children.



Executive Summary

The AEP’s membership works on a daily basis across a range of educational settings that include schools,early years, Pupil Referral Units and within multi-disciplinary settings with close colleagues from the NHSand Children’s Social Care. As such, EPs are uniquely placed to ensure consistency and continuity whenmanaging challenging behavior, which is the bedrock of any effective behaviour or discipline policy.

In this response, the AEP will focus on the role, associated benefits, and additional resources thateducational psychologists can provide to schools in order to effectively manage challenging behaviour anddiscipline. EPs play a key part in helping shape how educational settings approach a vast range ofeducational issues training in child development, curriculum development and special educational needs, allof which impact on schools’ abilities to manage behaviour.

However, despite these benefits, the impact of EPs is being undermined by the lack of resources on thefrontline. This is attributable in part to a lack of understanding about the range of work across educationalsettings that EPs perform, and the unclear and unsustainable funding mechanisms for trainees that translateas a result. This is leading to a shortfall of trained EPs able to undertake statutory work, and equallyimportant preventative work that has a real impact on children’s outcomes, especially in areas such asbehaviour management.

The AEP recommends that the Department for Education strongly addresses these areas of concern byreviewing the current training arrangements for EPs and how they are funded. Crucially, this would notrequire any increase in funding budgets.

Behaviour and Discipline in Schools

The AEP noted with interest that this inquiry will look at the strategies that schools have in place tomanage both positive and challenging behaviour, and how to identify the root causes of challengingbehaviour; inviting views from the professional children’s workforce to share examples of best practice andoffer recommendations. As such, we would like to comment on what steps the Government should take tomaximise the input of EPs, who as a key part of the children’s workforce whose skills are currently underutilised, can make effective interventions towards improving behaviour and discipline in schools.

We would in particular like to comment on the following aspects of the inquiry:

How to support and reinforce positive behaviour in schools

(1) All children and young people, particularly those within vulnerable circumstances, need access toa range of well trained and highly skilled professionals who can recognise, manage and supporttheir individual needs. This is especially important for those children with disabilities or complexspecial educational needs, as they often move between settings.

(2) EPs work on a daily basis across a range of educational settings that include schools, early years,Pupil Referral Units and within multi-disciplinary settings with close colleagues from the NHS andChildren’s Social Care. As such, they are uniquely placed to ensure consistency and continuitywhen managing challenging behavior, which is the bedrock of any effective behaviour ordiscipline policy.

(3) An AEP investigation in 2008 found that the EP’s role was often different across the country,indicating their ability to respond to local need. EPs work across the full range of educationalsettings and are well positioned in Local Authorities to identify and analyse trends across localitiesand implement strategies to address local need accordingly.

(4) EPs are a highly skilled section of the children’s workforce, who are trained in applied scientificmethods, diagnostic and assessment skills, and have a thorough understanding of childdevelopment. As such, an EP’s skills are most effective when used to identify children who causeconcern early on and implement preventative strategies, rather than through, what is very often,reactive statutory assessment work.

(5) A school’s approach towards managing behaviour and discipline should develop from a soundunderstanding of child development and an awareness of the root emotional, wellbeing or socialcauses that precipitate challenging behaviour. EPs are ideally placed to raise a school’s capacity toshare best practice and provide support to teachers based on these principles.

(6) The AEP is concerned by the level of knowledge and training in basic child development held bymainstream elements of the children’s workforce. The AEP has found that EPs are often told byteachers that the pupils they are expected to teach now would not have been in school five to tenyears ago. The expectations on teachers, especially in secondary settings, do not seem to bematched by effective training.

(7) EPs are vital in ensuring that the principles of child development are recognised in schools’strategies for all children, but especially those with generalised and complex special educationalneeds. The root causes of behavioural difficulties among these vulnerable groups are oftendevelopmental and behavioural assessment is more effective if understood in terms of an individualchild’s needs.



(8) The most effective behaviour interventions are those that are taken at a systemic level via a wholeschool approach, involving teachers, parents and the pupils themselves, in order to improveproblematic elements of a school’s ethos/culture and to promote the emotional wellbeing of theentire school. It is essential that senior management teams in schools communicate behaviourpolicies to all staff members and ensure that its principles are adhered to at all times.

(9) Schools should move the focus away from individual referrals around behaviour, and be challengedto look at their practice as a whole. Such systemic approaches on a preventative scale are moreeffective than reactive individualised casework. This not only helps to support teachers and pupilsin dealing with and reacting to challenging behaviour, but it also creates a healthy schoolenvironment that prevents such behaviour developing to levels when the most serious interventionsare required.

(10) EPs play an integral role in helping schools to adopt such a holistic approach towards behaviourmanagement. By working as part of multi disciplinary teams and in close liaison with otherelements of the children’s workforce, EPs ensure a continuous and consistent multi-agencyapproach when dealing with vulnerable children across the range of educational and care settings.

(11) From their knowledge of child development, EPs are also essential in delivering in-house trainingto build the capacity of the workforce to recognise and address the causes of challenging behaviour.This can include conducting and providing feed back on classroom observations, designing andrunning INSET across the workforce and setting up training workshops. As a result teachersbecome able to identify and mitigate the effects of potentially problematic situations more readily.Training should also focus on how certain adult behaviours can trigger challenging behaviours.Initiatives such as learning and reflection groups can cement this awareness.

(12) Basing teacher training and behavioural management on an understanding of child developmentnot only provides teachers with strategies to deal more confidently and appropriately withindividualised instances of challenging behaviour but more importantly it prevents escalation to alevel when physical intervention becomes necessary.

(13) Schools should not just have in place measures to penalise bad behaviour. School strategy shouldbe refocused to build resilience, reduce risk and promote emotional wellbeing. Guidelines shouldoutline how teachers themselves can consistently model positive behaviour to reinforce and rewardgood behaviour. Personal assessment of work, individual appraisal and peer support all contributetowards pupils developing an intrinsic sense of responsibility and ownership of their behaviour.This also helps to reinforce and address the link between behaviour and learning outcomes, whichalthough related is often addressed by schools as separate concerns.

(14) Schools should develop positive management strategies, which train teachers to manageclassrooms in a proactive manner. A key element of this approach is positive feedback and toacknowledge appropriate behaviour when it occurs. It is important that disruptive behaviour is notcondoned, but dealt with in a graduated way. Pupils who fail to respond to directions should neverbe ignored, but caught early. Teachers should redirect behaviour by acknowledging the appropriatebehaviour of pupils around them and giving clear choices as to what will happen if they continuenot to do as they are told.

(15) These changes to teacher practice have been found by the AEP to reduce the number of fixed termexclusions and improve long term outcomes for all children and young people, although especiallythose who show signs of challenging behaviour.

(16) Despite the positive contribution that EPs can make towards helping schools to manage behaviour,supporting schools to avoid the most serious interventions and ensuring improved outcomes forthe most vulnerable children, the AEP is concerned that this is undermined by a lack of EPresources delivering frontline services. The biggest challenge to supporting behaviour managementin schools is a lack of time and capacity, which results in attempting to show teachers whatstrategies to employ, but without necessary time to follow up on advice.

(17) A lack of frontline capacity is in part caused by the unclear and uncertain arrangements that arein place to fund the training of EPs. All trainees receive a bursary to cover the first year of training,securing a paid placement in their second and third years to complete their doctoral study.University fees and first year bursaries are currently paid through the Children’s WorkforceDevelopment Council (CWDC), funded by voluntary annual subscriptions from LocalAuthorities.

(18) Local Authorities are allocated non-ring-fenced funding for EP training, and this money shouldbe paid into the central pot administered by CWDC for this purpose. However, due to thevoluntary nature of the system, and pressures on budgets, Local Authorities are increasinglyreluctant to either pay their voluntary subscriptions or appoint trainee EPs.

(19) As with the training of other statutory front line service professionals, eg teachers and socialworkers, the joint training approach between employers and universities is crucial in order toensure that training is linked to the very real needs of children, young people, schools and families.



As guaranteed funding supports the training of other statutory front line children’s servicesprofessionals it seems anomalous that a similar system cannot be implemented for educationalpsychologists.

(20) This is precipitating a shortage of trained EPs who are able to carry out statutory work and equallycrucial preventative interventions. This is an immediate problem that needs to be resolved urgently.Current figures from the CWDC indicated that approximately 33% of first year trainees only hadtheir placements for September 2010 finalised in July and August. Additionally, the CWDC hasannounced that recruitment for the 2011 course is frozen. This not only affects those wanting toenrol, but those already in the training system, leaving them with no guarantees that training canbe completed.

(21) It is crucial to note that no increase in funding is required to address this issue; rather funds thathave always been intended to support the training of EPs are used for that purpose in an efficientmanner. The previous funding model, which was to top-slice all Local Authorities rather than seekvoluntary contributions, provided for a steady uptake of training places.

(22) These developments threaten to restrict an EP’s work to statutory assessment and reactivecasework. This reduces the capacity of staff to be involved in equally vital, but non-statutorypreventative work. This includes working with teachers and parents to manage behaviour anddiscipline, in spite of the demonstrable outcomes and expertise that EPs can deliver.

Ways of engaging parents and carers in managing their children’s challenging behaviour

(23) The AEP has found that changes to a home environment often affect children’s behaviour in moreways than changes to a school environment, making the involvement of parents in managing achild’s challenging behaviour essential. Early intervention and identification when a child is youngis equally important when involving parents and carers because intervention can occur when thechild and parents have more changes to turn behaviour around and see results. However, thisrequires sensitive handling and mandating parents to attend parenting classes should not be viewedas the only available strategy to engage parents.

(24) Parents are less likely to support schools if they perceive that schools are being unfair to their child.Schools can negate this by having a clear set of values and procedures for dealing with challengingbehaviour and discipline. If parents are aware that their child is rewarded for appropriatebehaviour, it is more likely that they will support the school over matters of discipline. Initiativessuch as use of parent letters, merit stars and personal appraisal can cement this approach.

(25) However, even more importantly, behaviour management strategies should incorporate the child’sperspective in order to work on targeting the reason for behaviour and addressing these points.This work is usually undertaken in consultation with a teacher who can then devise a strategy todeal with these difficulties. An EP is crucial in eliciting the child’s perspective and addressing theroot causes of problematic behaviours.

How special educational needs can best be recognised in schools’ policies on behaviour and discipline

(26) The AEP has found that the consistency provided by adopting holistic, whole school approachesfor behaviour and discipline will benefit all children, including those with SEN. However, schoolpolicies should at the same time take account of the individual child, their particular generalised orcomplex SEN needs and the root causes, often developmental, that trigger challenging behaviour.

(27) Nurture Groups, which are school-based educational resources that try to meet the underlyingneeds of children who have not had the opportunity to develop the necessary skills to be successfullearners, can also help to reintegrate children successfully into the mainstream classroom, whilesupporting their individual needs in a specialised setting.

(28) Typically, children participating in Nurture Groups have difficulties in accessing the curriculumwithin the mainstream classroom. A Nurture Group will always have a teacher and supportassistant who work closely with between eight to ten children, meaning that the teachers candevelop a close relationship with each child, anticipating difficulties, intervening quickly andtailoring their approach to each child’s particular needs. All children will spend some part of eachday in their own mainstream classroom.

(29) Nurture Groups can also provide parents with a clear point of contact within the school to providesupport and advice as well as follow up on the positive reinforcement that takes place in theeducational setting.

(30) The benefits of Nurture Groups should be more widely communicated across schools and LocalAuthorities as they ensure close liaison and joint planning between class teachers and othermembers of the workforce who are responsible for the child’s needs in school and at home.



Recommendations

In order for EPs to be able to contribute to improving the performance and ability of schools to managechallenging behavior, the Government should:

— look at how the children’s workforce can be trained appropriately in child development so as tobetter equip teachers with the skills and knowledge to identify and address the root causes ofproblematic and challenging behaviour

— encourage schools to adopt a holistic, consistent whole school approach towards behaviour anddiscipline that focuses on positive classroom management and acknowledges how behaviour isrelated to learning outcomes

— give direction to Local Authorities that educational psychology services should not only beavailable to all children but also parents and teachers, so that the children’s workforce can drawon the added resource offered by EPs to provide support and advice on how to identify causes ofchallenging behaviour correctly and implement strategies accordingly

— look at the voluntary and unsustainable funding of EPs and ensure that national funding is madeavailable to train EPs and ensure there is no reduction in their current number.

September 2010

Memorandum submitted by The British Psychological Society

The British Psychological Society thanks the Education Select Committee for the opportunity tocontribute to this inquiry.

The British Psychological Society (“the Society”) is the learned and professional body, incorporated byRoyal Charter, for psychologists in the United Kingdom. The Society has a total membership of almost50,000 and is a registered charity.

Under its Royal Charter, the key objective of the Society is “to promote the advancement and diffusionof the knowledge of psychology pure and applied and especially to promote the efficiency and usefulness ofmembers by setting up a high standard of professional education and knowledge”.

The Society maintains the Register of Chartered Psychologists and has a code of conduct andinvestigatory and disciplinary systems in place to consider complaints of professional misconduct relatingto its members. The Society is an examining body granting certificates and diplomas in specialist areas ofprofessional applied psychology.

This response was prepared on behalf of the Society by Professor Pam Maras (University of Greenwich),and Dr Patrick Leman (Royal Holloway, University of London), with specific expertise in the area of pupilbehaviour and discipline.

Professor Judi EllisChair, Research Board

The Society represents a wide range of expertise in the field of education and behaviour, both at academiclevel and on the ground via the Educational Psychologists’ community currently advising schools and LocalAuthorities. As such, we welcome the opportunity to contribute to these discussions. The response is basedupon evidence from psychological and related research.

Executive Summary

— Educational Psychology Services work closely with other agencies at individual, organisationaland policy levels.

— The term anti-social behaviour can be unhelpful because it implies a punitive approach and doesnot take account of the range and complexity of causes.

— Over-individualisation of pupils’ behaviour fails to take account of the social context or pupils’individual agency and responsibility.

— Young people can become more negative about school at a time when they are required to makeimportant educational and personal choices

— Schools are not independent of communities—there is evidence that clusters of schools operatingtogether can impact on exclusion rates.

— Engaging parents and families is crucial: this engagement needs to be carried out within the contextof the communities within which schools are located.

— Individual agency (and consequential responsibility) within a welfare context is likely to be themost conducive to positive change.

— Research has shown that pupils with behavioural problems are not a homogenous group and thatsuch pupils can be identified within at least eight different categories.



— The disciplinary climate of schools, school ethos and school leadership is an important factor.

— Psychologists have a key role in bringing scientific rigour to the design and evaluation ofinterventions.

— Psychologists have documented successful interventions working at the institutional, theclassroom and the individual pupil levels, with teachers and with pupils and parents.

— Psychological interventions address both pragmatic strategies and the intense emotions that oftensurround serious behaviour difficulties.

— Published accounts document psychologists’ involvement in successful mediation betweenteachers and parents and in devising joint strategies that have produced significant improvementswith KS1 & 2 pupils originally judged by their teachers as the most difficult they had encountered.

— Pupil educational choices and opportunities at Key Stage 3 and 4 need to allow for those pupilsnot Able and/or inclined to follow single routes to higher and further education post 18.

Introduction

Psychological research can make a central contribution to this inquiry through both empirical researchand the systematic collation of the experience of practitioners such as educational psychologists and clinicalchild psychologists. As a scientific discipline, psychology is well-placed to provide an evidence base foreffective intervention to improve pupil behaviour and learning at both the individual and school level, andmore widely to inform policy decisions. The Society has been active in linking scientific evidence in relationto different types of behaviour difficulties and guidelines for practice (eg British Psychological Society, 1998;2000; 2008).

1. Supporting and reinforcing positive behaviour in schools

The Society welcomes the focus of the inquiry on supporting and reinforcing positive behaviour; well-established evidence from psychology suggests that this is most likely to be fruitful. The following pointsreflect psychological research in this area:

1.1 Over-individualisation of pupils’ behaviour, fails to take account of social context or pupils individualagency and responsibility (Norwich, in press*). Approaches located in restorative justice principles, whichrequire engagement of all and focus upon restoring relationships address this deficit.

1.2 Teachers’ perceptions about the causes of pupils’ behaviour are important factors in the way theysubsequently respond (Maras, 1996; Maras et al., 1997, 2000; Mavropoulou & Padeliadu, 2002; Pintrich &Schunk, 2002; Weiner, 1992).

1.3 Research on effective interventions includes: peer mediation around bullying (Smith, 1999), “Circlesof Friends” interventions (Newton et al., 1995, Frederickson & Turner, 2003), social skills training (Maddernet al., 2004), peer tutoring and mentoring (Maras, 2001; Maras et al., 2000; Southwick, Morgan,Vythilingam, & Charney, 2005) and moral reasoning (Kuhn & Udell, 2003; Leman & Bjornberg, 2010).

1.4 Psychologists have found that early intervention work with teachers reduces disaffection andimproves pupils’ behaviour (BPS, 2009; Cooper & Whitebread, 2007; Murphy, 2005). Clarity incommunicating successfully with pupils with conduct problems is essential; aggressive adolescents canattribute ambiguous teachers’ intentions as hostile and personal (Wyatt and Haskett, 2001).

2. Understanding challenging behaviour by pupils in schools and its impact

2.1 Challenging behaviour generates intense emotions in staff, parents and pupils. Psychologicalinterventions to help teachers manage deleterious and demoralising emotional responses have beenpositively evaluated (Bozic & Carter, 2002; Hanko, 1999; Stringer et al., 1992)

2.2 There is persistence of commonly reported sex differences in the prevalence and type of behaviourdifficulties; teachers’ perceptions of young men’s emotional difficulties are significantly lower than theirestimations of young women’s, compared with perceptions of behavioural difficulties (Maras & Cooper,1999).

2.3 The nature of difficult behaviour, and how to address it, change with age; teenagers tend to becomemore negative around the ages of 13 to 15 (Maras et al, 2007) and show stronger affiliation with their peersand lower affiliation with their schools or families (Maras, in press*). This is also the age when they are nowrequired to make important decisions about their education, including GCSEs, which will affect their futureeducational and employment opportunities. Life events such as school change, educational stress andgeneral life worries often co-occur at this time (Maras et al., 2006). If at this critical time pupils do not haveadequate support systems then anti-social behaviour becomes more likely.

2.4 Changes in adolescence, including neurological changes are likely to impact on emotions andbehaviour (eg see Eisenberg et al., 2005; Sisk & Zehr, 2005). Pupils struggling with the transitional processmay manifest their difficulties in sudden outbursts of inappropriate behaviour or detachment from their new



environment (Morgan (1999). Kee Tony (2003), found positive correlations between negative attributionalstyle and self-reported school discipline problems, such as the use of foul language, bullying, habituallateness, substance use, property damage, cheating and truancy.

2.5 DeWit et al. (2000) reported correlations between school culture characterised by perceptions of lowteacher and classmate support, pupil conflict, unfair school rules and disciplinary practices, and low pupilautonomy and low attachment to learning and peer approval of deviance.

3. Approaches taken by schools and local authorities to address challenging behaviour, including fixed-termand permanent exclusions

3.1 Professionals’ perceptions about young people are likely to affect young people’s attitudes towardsschools, subsequent behaviour and their own roles as agents in changing that behaviour in a negative way(Maras, Brosnan, Faulkner, Montgomery & Vital, 2006).

3.2 Reid (2008) suggests that at least 10 aspects are crucial to a framework and strategies for improvingschool behaviour and attendance: school leadership; school transitions; the quality of pastoral support;training and professional development; internal school structures and organisation; parental involvement;pupils’ voices; early intervention; multi-agency working; and finally, the role of the education social workservice.

3.3 Young offenders sentenced in court have often been excluded from school. Parsons (2009) has shownthat an alternative curriculum, whether managed in school or at other sites, is a key strategy for keepingyoung people involved with education where they might otherwise be on the streets.

3.4 School ethos is important. Well-disciplined schools create a whole-school environment that isconducive to good discipline rather than reacting to particular incidents. Prevention rather than punishmentis central. Head teachers play a key role in developing policies and practices alongside other key membersof staff, and teachers as a whole are committed to the pupils and their work. Most routine disciplineproblems are dealt with by teachers themselves, and there are strong links with parents and communityagencies (Wayson et al., 1982).

3.5 Schools with high levels of communal organisation show more orderly behaviour. Schools differ intheir degree of community, collegial relations being central to this, coupled with a role for teachers whichfrequently bring them into contact with other staff and pupils outside of the classroom (Bryk & Driscoll,1988).

3.6 Attitudes of staff, particularly senior management and head teachers, are important in explaining thedifferent rates of exclusions between similar schools (Maras et al., in press*19). There is a tendency for higherrates of exclusion in schools where staff believe that they do not have the power to address issues of poorbehaviour (Maxwell, 1987).

3.7 Secondary schools with low levels of disruptive behaviour have pastoral care systems with the aim ofenhancing educational progress. Tutors are the core of pastoral care, pastoral care for teachers is in evidenceand the school climate promotes discussion of disruptive behaviour without recrimination (Galloway, 1983).

3.8 Positive outcomes have been documented from the adoption of multi-disciplinary teams withinschools, and on-site learning support (Hallam & Castle, 1999a; 2001) as well as following the employmentof home-school links workers (Hallam & Castle, 1999b; Castle & Hallam, 2002).

3.9 Behaviour audits enable schools to identify particular difficulties, allowing schools to explore issuesrelating to school climate, policies and practices across the school, as well as identifying those pupils at riskof exclusion who may then be offered additional support.

3.10 Benefits have been identified from the appointment of lead behaviour professionals, learningmentors, home-school links workers, Behaviour and Educational Support Teams, nurture groups,alternative curricula, parenting programmes and therapeutic activities. The most effective schemes are thosewhere there is whole school support, and which are integrated into whole school policy.

3.11 Classroom teachers need to establish an “activity system” which includes attention to goals, tasks,social structure, timing and pacing and resources. These activities need to be planned and managed tosupport good behaviour (Doyle, 1990). Where teachers are pressured to take increased responsibility forstandards of attainment they tend to become more controlling and the development of learner autonomy isreduced with potentially negative effects on behaviour (Ryan et al., 1985).

3.12 Pupils can participate in addressing behaviour issues by engaging with school councils and schoolleadership programmes. Pupils need to internalise the need for responsible behaviour and value it for thebenefits which accrue to themselves as well as others. Strategies for fostering and developing prosocialattitudes should be explored and developed alongside those targeting antisocial behaviour.

19 References marked “in press*” in this response, refer to British Journal of Educational Psychology Monograph: Psychologyand anti-social behaviour in schools (Maras, Demetre & Tolmie (Eds) forthcoming), see end of our submission for fullreference list



4. Engaging parents and carers in managing their children’s challenging behaviour

4.1 Tensions can often exist between teachers and parents around instances of difficult behaviour(Hanko, 1999, Dowling & Osborne, 1995). Psychological research has demonstrated that teachers, parentsand pupils can often hold clashing beliefs about:

— the major causes of difficult behaviour in schools (Miller et al., 2000, Miller et al., 2002; Norwich,Cooper & Maras, 2002); teachers consistently see home backgrounds as the principal cause of themisbehaviour and a large scale national study involving the parents and teachers of over 2,000pupils found that parents and teachers differed significantly in their estimations of the extent of anindividual child’s difficulties;

— the ways in which parents can most effectively support schools in managing behaviour, (Miller etal., 1998); and

— the persons who are most able to effect positive changes (Miller & Black, 2001).

4.2 Systematic collations of highly successful interventions involving educational psychologists, teachersand parents have revealed the nature of the consultative skills displayed by psychologists in movingpotentially explosive situations towards positive outcomes valued by all parties (Miller, 2003).

4.3 Studies highlight the value of incorporating support for parents or caregivers into interventions. Awide range of proven parenting programmes is now available including Parent Support Advisers, dedicatedexpert parenting practitioners and the increased availability of “Think Family” services. although themajority of parents attend these programmes voluntarily, some must to do so because they have been issuedwith a Parenting Contract or Order (DCFS, 2010a).

5. How special educational needs can best be recognised in schools’ policies on behaviour and discipline

5.1 Pupils with behaviour difficulties are not a homogeneous group but can be typified under at least eightheadings, including: delinquency, emotional difficulties, behavioural difficulties, emotional and behaviouraldifficulties, social problems, challenging behaviour associated with learning difficulties, and mental healthproblems (Maras, 2001). Individual pupils rarely fall under one category and they therefore require differentand targeted interventions.

5.2 The term anti-social behaviour has a generality about it that encompasses both disturbed anddisturbing behaviour (Norwich, in press*). The 2009 Home Office definition of anti-social behaviour whichinformed a policy framework with powers to address the regeneration of disadvantaged areas, gave powersto antisocial behaviour that could be applied to 10–17 year olds (Norwich, in press*). This definition doesnot lend itself easily to a special needs framework within which the types of difficulties encountered by manypupils with disturbed behaviour might be best located.

5.3 It is important to distinguish between school level processes and the exceptional needs of certainindividual pupils. Today, most pupils with SENs are educated in mainstream schools; mainstream educationand the nature and level of support that they receive will vary from region to region.

5.4 Research shows that young people attending behavioural support units and Pupil Referral Units(PRUs) have accurate perception of their behavioural and conduct difficulties. In the same study, youngpeople scoring high on the hyperactivity tended to attribute significant amounts of blame to themselves fornegative events, suggesting a greater tendency towards problems in these areas (Maras et al., 2006); evidencesuggests that high levels of negative attributional style in childhood are linked to later depression inadulthood (Hilsman & Garber, 1995).

5.5 Current methods of identifying young people’s difficulties in school and the subsequent targeting ofappropriate interventions remain very much dependent on teachers’ and others’ judgements rather thancommon agreed criteria.

5.6 Tabassam and Grainger (2002) found that pupils with learning disabilities and/or AD/HD had anoverall negative attributional style, whereas typically achieving pupils report an overall positiveattributional style for academic success and failure.

5.7 Ofsted (2003) reports that only one third of secondary schools adequately meet the needs of pupilswith social, emotional and behavioural difficulties; in fact 64% of the pupils given permanent exclusions inthat same year had special educational needs (Boyle & Goodall, 2005, as sited in McIntyre-Bhatty, 2008).

6. Alternative provision for pupils excluded from school due to their behaviour

6.1 Improving behaviour in school depends on addressing a range of inter-related issues at the whole-school, classroom and individual pupil level (Gottredson et al., 1993).

6.2 A distinction is commonly made between the extent to which orderly behaviour can be brought aboutby effective school policies and classroom management skills, and the size of that proportion of pupils whorequire specialist and individualised interventions.

6.3 Research in primary schools has shown that even pupils judged by their teachers to be most extremein their behaviour can be “brought around” by effective interventions devised between teachers andeducational psychologists (Miller, 2003).



6.4 Opportunities for pupils who are not inclined, or best suited, to follow current conventionaleducational routes geared toward further education are common across Europe and elsewhere; however,they are more generally only offered to pupils as a last resort as part of a portfolio of alternative education.

6.5 Research and practice in psychology has shown that effective school level processes can positivelyinfluence some pupils judged extremely difficult to manage (Miller, 2003). Conversely, some detailedindividual management strategies, with their roots in psychological research, have been shown to have widerimplications for more general practice within schools (Maras, 2001).

6.6 In terms of these interventions with individual pupils, a large and convincing evidence-basedemonstrates the effectiveness of approaches based on Cognitive Behaviour Therapy (Graham, 2004) andSolution Focused Brief Therapy (Rhodes & Ajmal, 1995, Young & Holdrof, 2003).

7. Links between attendance and behaviour in schools

Lloyd-Nesling (2006) provides evidence linking pupil disaffection in areas of socio-economicdisadvantage to effective or ineffective school leadership. The evidence from research suggests that effectiveschool leadership can be improved in terms of managing pupils’ behaviour and attendance by:

— Encouraging parents and the wider community to feel part of the school process;

— Creating stability in the school’s organisational structure;

— Being consistent with disciplinary, behaviour and attendance policies;

— Encouraging senior pupils to act as role models;

— Encouraging pupil involvement in the day-to-day school life and implementing a culture of sharedvisions and goals, high expectations and a positive ethos; and

— Addressing issues of bullying, including verbal and cyber bullying (as cited in Reid, 2008).

8. The Government’s proposals regarding teachers’ powers to search pupils, removal of the requirement forwritten notice of detentions outside school hours, and the extent of teachers’ disciplinary powers, as announcedby the Department on 7 July[MU1].

8.1 We recognise perennial concerns about the balance between pupil behaviour and discipline and theappropriate provision and tensions between the care/welfare and the justice/control approaches (Macleod,2006; Norwich, in press*).

8.2 There may be times that require urgent school action. A key factor in managing pupil behaviourrelates to the disciplinary climate of schools. Longstanding but still valid research identified four types ofclimate: controlled (low misbehaviour, severe punishment); conflictual (high misbehaviour, severepunishment); libertarian (high misbehaviour, light punishment); autonomous (low misbehaviour, lightpunishment) (Cohen & Thomas, 1984).

8.3 It is clear from work in low and zero excluding schools and Local Authorities that managed movesand/or alternatives to exclusion, that these approaches are likely to be more fruitful and less socially andfinancially costly.

We hope that these initial comments are useful to you. We would be happy to provide a more in-depthsubmission if that would be of use to the Select Committee Inquiry.

October 2010

References

Boyle, D, and E Goodall (2005). School’s Out? Truancy and exclusion: A guide for donors and funders.London: New Philanthropy Capital.

Bozic, N & Carter, A (2002). Consultation groups: participants’ views. Educational Psychology in Practice,18(3), 189–203.

British Psychological Society (2009). Better behaviour in class. Available online at: http://www.thepsychologist.org.uk/blog/11/blogpost.cfm?threadid%655&catid%48

Bryk, A S & Driscoll, M E (1988). An Empirical Investigation of the School as a Community. Chicago IL,University Chicago School of Education.

Castle, F & Hallam, S (2002). A School-Home Liaison Project: Supporting and Involving Parents; ReducingTruancy and Exclusion, TOPIC, 27(4), 1–5, Slough, NFER.

Cohen, B & Thomas, E (1984). The disciplinary climate of schools, Journal of Educational Administration,22(2), 113–134.

Cooper, P & Whitebread, D (2007). The effectiveness of nurture groups on student progress: Evidence froma national research study. Emotional and Behavioural Difficulties, 12(3), 171–90.

DCFS (2010a). Parenting and family support: Guidance for local authorities in England. Nottingham: DCSFPublications.



DeWit, D J, Offord, D R, Sanford, M, Rye, B J, Shain, M & Wright, R (2000). The effect of school cultureon adolescent behavioural problems: self-esteem, attachment to learning, and peer approval of deviance asmediating mechanisms. Canadian Journal of School Psychology, 16(1), 15–38.

Dowling, E and Osborne, E (eds) (1985). The Family and the School: A Joint Systems Approach toProblems with Children. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

Doyle, W (1990). Classroom knowledge as a foundation for teaching, Teachers CollegeRecord, 91(3),347–60.

Eisenberg, N, Cumberland, A, Guthrie, I K, Murphy, B C, & Shepard, S A (2005). Age changes in prosocialresponding and moral reasoning in adolescence and early adulthood. Journal of Research on Adolescence,15(3), 235–260.

Frederickson, N & Turner, J (2003). Utilizing the Classroom Peer Group to Address Children’s SocialNeeds. An Evaluation of the “Circle of Friends” Intervention Approach. Journal of Special Education, 36.

Galloway, D (1983). Disruptive pupils and effective pastoral care, School Organisation, 3(3), 245–54.

Gottfredson, D C et al. (1993). Managing adolescent behaviour: a multi-year, multischool Study. AmericanEducational Research Journal, 30(1), 179–215.

Graham, P J (2004) (Ed.) Cognitive Behaviour Therapy for Children and Families (2nd Edn.). Cambridge.Cambridge University Press.

Hallam, S & Castle, F (1999a). Evaluation of the Behaviour and Discipline Pilot Projects (1996–99)Supported under the Standards Fund Programme: Research Report RR163. London: Department forEducation and Employment.

Hallam, S & Castle, F (1999b) Evaluation of a School-Home Liaison Project—London Diocesan Board forSchools. Institute of Education, University of London.

Hallam, S & Castle, F (2001) Reducing Exclusion from School: What can help prevent it? EducationalReview, 53(2), 169–179.

Hanko, G (1999). Increasing competence through collaborative problem solving: using insight into social andemotional factors in children’s learning. London. David Fulton.

Hilsman, R, & Garber, J (1995). A test of the cognitive diathesis–stress model of depression in children:Academic stressors, attributional style, perceived competence, and control. Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, 69(2), 370–380.

Kee Tony, T S (2003). Locus of control, attributional style and discipline problems in secondary schools.Early Child Development and Care, 173(5), 455–466.

Kuhn, D & Udell, W (2003). The development of argument skills. Child Development, 74(5), 1245–1260.

Leman, P J (2001). The development of moral reasoning. In C. Fraser & B. Burchell (Eds.), Introducingsocial psychology. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Maddern, L, Franey, J, McLaughlin, V & Cox, S (2004). An evaluation of the impact of an inter-agencyintervention programme to promote social skills in primary school children. Educational Psychology inPractice, 20(2), 135–57.

Maras, P (1996). “I’d rather have dyslexia”: Perceptions of EBDs. Educational and Child Psychology,13(1), 32–42.

Maras, P (2001). Citizenship, mentoring and related schemes for children and young people with SEBDs:evidence from research. In P. Cooper (ed) “We can work it out” What works in educating pupils with social,emotional and behavioural difficulties outside mainstream classrooms. London: Barnados.

Maras, P, & Redmayne, T, Hall, C, Braithwaite, D, & Prior, P (1997). “Helicopter children” and “butterflybrains”. ADHD: perceptions, issues and implications. Educational and Child Psychology, 14(1), 39–49.

Maras, P & Cooper, P (1999). Sex differences, gender issues and EBDs. In P. Cooper (ed) Understanding andsupporting children with emotional and behavioural difficulties. London: Jessica Kingsley.

Maras, P, Edgecombe, D, Dobson, S & Tagoe, P (2000). “The bad kids are getting rewarded” Peer mentoringfor school pupils. London: National Mentoring Network.

Maras, P & Aveling, E (2006). Students with special educational needs transition from primary to secondaryschool. British Journal of Special Education, 33(4), 196–202.

Maras, P, Brosnan, M, Faulkner, N, Montgomery, T, & Vital, P (2006). “They are out of control”: Self-perceptions, risk-taking and cognitive attributional style of adolescents with and without Social Emotionaland Behavioural Difficulties. Emotional and Behavioural Difficulties, 11(4), 281–298.

Maras, P, Carmichael, K, Patel, S, & Wills, J (2007). “The trouble with Year 10”. 13–16 year old schoolstudents’ attitudes to higher education. Social Psychology of Education, 10, 375–397.

*Maras, P, Demetre, J, & Tolmie, A, editors (forthcoming) Psychology and antisocial behaviour in schools.British Journal of Educational Psychology Monograph Series: Psychological Aspects of Education—Current Trends.



Mavropoulou, S & Padeliadu, S (2002) Teachers’ causal attributions for behaviour problems in relation toperceptions of control, Educational Psychology, 22(2), 191–202.

Maxwell, W S (1987). Teachers’ attitudes towards disruptive behaviour in secondary schools, EducationalReview, 39(3), 203–216.

McIntyre-Bhatty, K (2008). Truancy and coercive consent: is there an alternative? Educational Review,60(4), 375–390.

Miller, A (2003). Teachers, Parents and Classroom Behaviour. A Psychosocial Approach.Maidenhead. OpenUniversity Press.

Miller A, Ferguson, E & Simpson, R (1998). The perceived effectiveness of rewards and sanctions in primaryschools—adding in the parental perspective. Educational Psychology, 18, 55–64.

Miller, A, Ferguson, E & Byrne, I (2000). Pupils’ causal attributions for difficult classroom behaviour.British Journal of Educational Psychology, 70, 85–96.

Miller, A, & Black, L (2001). Does support for home-school behaviour plans exist within teacher and pupilcultures? Educational Psychology in Practice, 17(3), 245–62.

Miller, A, Ferguson, E & Moore, E (2002). Parents’ and pupils’ causal attributions for difficult classroombehaviour. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 72, 27–40.

Morgan, A R (1999) (ed.) How to Create Useful Transition Activities: tips for principals. Reston, VA:National Association of Secondary School Principals.

Murphy, R (2005). Every child matters: Change for children, resources and practise. London: DfES.

Newton, C, Taylor, G & Wilson, D (1996). Circles of friends: An inclusive approach to meeting emotionaland behavioural needs. Educational Psychology in Practice, 11(4), 41–9.

*Norwich, B (In press). Anti-social behaviour: what contribution for psychology? British Journal ofEducational Psychology Monograph Series.

Norwich, B, Cooper, P & Maras, P (2002). Attentional and activity difficulties: findings from a nationalstudy. Support for Learning, 17(4), 182–186.

Office for Standards in Education (OFSTED) (2003) Special educational needs in the mainstream(London, HMSO).

Parsons, C (2009) Strategic Alternatives to Exclusion from School, Stoke on Trent: Trentham Books.

Pintrich, P R & Schunk, D H (2002). Motivation in education: theory, research and applications (2nd ed).Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill/Prentice Hall.

Reid, K (2008). Behaviour and attendance: the national picture; a synopsis. Educational Review, 60(4),333–344.

Ryan, R M, et al., (1985). A motivational analysis of self-determination and self-regulation in education. InC Ames & R Ames (Eds) Research on Motivation in Education Vol: 2. The Classroom Milieu, San Diego,Academic Press.

Rhodes, J & Ajmal, Y (1995). Solution Focused Thinking in Schools. BT Press: London.

Sisk, C L & Zehr, J L (2005). Pubertal hormones organize the adolescent brain and behaviour. Frontiers inNeuroendocrinology, 26, 163–174.

Smith, P K, Madsen, K C, & Moody, J C (1999). What causes the age decline in reports of being bullied atschool? Toward a developmental analysis of risks of being bullied. Educational Research, 41, 267–285.

Southwick, S M, Morgan, C A, Vythilingam, A & Charney, D (2005). Mentors enhance resilience in at-riskchildren and adolescents. Annual reviews of clinical psychology, 1, 255–291.

Stringer, P, Stow, L, Hibbert, K, Powell, J and Louw, E (1992). Establishing staff consultation groups inschools. Educational Psychology in Practice, 8(2), 87–96.

Tabassam, W & Grainger, J (2002). Self-concept, attributional style and self-efficacy beliefs of students withlearning disabilities with and without Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder. Learning DisabilitiesQuarterly, 25, 141–151.

Wayson, W W et al. (1982). Handbook for developing schools with good discipline. Bloomington IN, PhiDelta Kappa.

Weiner, B (1992) Human motivation: metaphors, theories and research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Wyatt, L W & Haskett, M E (2001). Aggressive and nonaggressive young adolescents’ attributions of intentin teacher/student interactions, Journal of Early Adolescence, 21(4), 425–446.



Young, S & Holdorf, G (2003). Using solution focused brief therapy in individual referral for bullying.Educational Psychology in Practice, 19(4), 271–83.

Supplementary memorandum submitted by the British Psychological Society

The British Psychological Society (the “Society”) welcomes the opportunity to provide additionalevidence to that already supplied to the inquiry. The additional points made relate to specific areas ofdiscussion arising out of the first witness sessions hosted by the Committee.

Degree of the Problem

Public perceptions and media suggestions of an increase in behaviour problems in schools are notsupported by data; evidence indicates a decrease in exclusions from school, and most schools and teachershave in place excellent strategies for working with disaffected youth. However, there will always be a numberof children and young people who find school challenging, and that schools and teachers find both difficultto teach and disruptive. Teachers generally find low levels of persistent disruption particularly difficult,especially when involving more than one pupil. There are though a number of strategies for dealing withthis issue, most of which relate to school management, leadership and behaviour policy. It is however likelythat even in schools without significant behaviour problems, a small number of children and young peoplewould benefit from interventions and advice from educational psychology services and in some instancesclinical psychologists involved with Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services (CAMHS). It is worthnoting that although Sir Alan Steer’s report offers a number of ways forward, no psychologists or any otherrepresentatives from allied professionals including psychiatrists psychologist are named as contributing tothe report—unlike the Elton report which has within it many interventions such as a nurture groups whichdid draw upon psychology (Norwich, in Maras, Tolmie and Demetre in press) It is also the case thatunderstanding of, and interventions for, such children and young people would be enhanced if psychologicalunderstanding and interventions including child development were part of initial teacher training andcontinuing professional development. The Society would be happy to advise on any moves towardaddressing this need. In addition, the Society will publish a monograph containing contemporary papers onpsychology and anti-social behaviour in schools as part of the British Journal of Educational Psychologymonograph series on current trends in education in spring 2011.

Mixed Ability and/or Ability Streamed Teaching

Evidence from psychology has shown that neither mixed ability nor streamed teaching is preferable interms of reducing behaviour difficulties in classrooms. Rather more relevant is the style of teaching inrelation to the topics covered and needs of peoples. Indeed research has shown that streaming can reducethe academic opportunities for less able students in some situations. For example, when comparing teachers’methods of teaching in mixed ability class and classes grouped by abilities, evidence suggests that the laterintends to differentiate resources for groups of students with differentiating abilities more than teachersworking in mixed ability classes (Hallam & Ireson, 2005). Teachers felt that they had to spend more time tomanage disruptive behaviour, and reported to be stricter with the lower ability pupils when working inclasses grouped by ability rather than mixed ability classes. Less able pupils seem to have fewer curriculumopportunities, more structured work and repetitive work with fewer opportunities for discussions. The laterscenario might be perceived by students as boring and could feed into disengagement with academic workas well as more disruptive behaviour. Ireson and Hallam’s (2009) longitudinal study of 1,600 students aged14–15 years showed that the extent of ability grouping within a school had an effect on students’ academicself-concept; in regards to their general self concept, students in the most stratified schools had less positiveacademic self-concept. Interestingly this academic self-concept was not subject specific—the extent of abilitygrouping for students from Year 9 to Year 11 did not affect their self-concept in mathematics, science orEnglish.

Literacy and Anti-social Behaviour

The body of evidence showing large numbers of young people and adults in the judicial system with lowerlevels of literacy and numeracy than the general population should be treated with caution, as the dataunderpinning them are not causal and much is linked to social backgrounds. Trzesniewski and colleagues(2006) (in a sample of twins tested at the ages of five and then seven) found that relationship between readingand antisocial behaviour was primarily due to environmental factors (eg stimulating home environment,child neglect, mother’s reading skill, parental income, education, social class, deprivation, family size,maternal depression, and young maternal age) which were common to both variables (reading and antisocialbehaviour). Clearly low levels of literacy are problematic in all walks of life and education. Antisocialbehaviour was an important predictor of reading problems, even after controlling for comorbidity betweenADHD and conduct problems.

Literacy difficulties may trigger problem behavior and vice versa. However, there is no scientific evidenceto support a view that poor literacy is the sole or most common cause of discipline problems in schools.Rather, there are multiple reasons why children and young people may have behaviour problems, from social



background to biological and neuropsychological factors that may be genetic, or arise out of prenatal orbirth trauma, or as part of a young person’s development. However, in many situations young people’sdifficulties are caused by a combination of factors. This makes working with young people difficult and timeconsuming. It is therefore crucial that full assessments are made as early as possible and that these involveeducational psychologists as part or as well as behaviour support teams. In extreme cases, part of CAMHSare involved in assessing the needs of children.

Discipline and Teacher Strategies

Skiba and Peterson (2000) suggest that there is a gap between scientific research and practice with regardsto school discipline and behaviour in class. Evidence from the USA suggests that schools which implemented“zero tolerance” policies to tackle violence and disruptive behaviour in schools were perceived to be less safethan schools which did not rigidly implement “zero tolerance” policy. Doumen, Verschueren and Buyse(2009) argue that conflicting situations following an aggressive child’s behaviour could have an impact onteacher’s belief of their coping and management skills of disruptive children. Their research providesevidence to suggest that the main reason why a disruptive child’s behaviour leads to teacher-child conflictis teacher’s perceptions of lower control over that child’s behaviour. The introduction of child developmentinto teacher training, would allow teachers to better understand the complexities and possible nature ofchild’s disruptive behaviour and therefore restore their confidence in their abilities to manage classroombehaviour and improve teacher child interactions. In sum, practitioners in the school should not only focuson reducing children’s aggressive behaviour, but also on strengthening teachers’ belief in their own abilitiesto deal with this behaviour, and specifically in interactions with particular children in their classroom.

Professor Pam Maras

October 2010

References

Doumen, S, Verschueren, K, & Buyse, E (2009). Children’s aggressive behaviour and teacher-child conflictin kindergarten: Is teacher perceived control over child behaviour a mediating variable? British Journal ofEducational Psychology, 79, 663–675.

Hallam, S & Ireson, J (2005). Secondary school teacher’s pedagogic practices when teaching mixed andstructured ability classes. Research Papers in Education, 29(1), 3–24.

Ireson, J & Hallam, S (2009). Academic self-concepts in adolescence: Relations with achievement and abilitygrouping in schools. Learning and Instruction, 19(3), 201–213.

Maras, P, Demetre, J, & Tolmie, A, editors (forthcoming) Psychology and antisocial behaviour in schools.British Journal of Educational Psychology Monograph Series: Psychological Aspects of Education—Current Trends.

Skiba, R J & Peterson, R L (2000). School discipline at a crossroads: From zero tolerance to early response.Exceptional Children, 66(3), 335–347.

Trzesniewski, K H, Moffitt, T E, Caspi, A, Taylor, A, & Maughan, B (2006). Revisiting the associationbetween reading achievement and antisocial behavior: New evidence of an environmental explanation froma twin study. Child Development, 77(1), 72–88.

Additional Information on Related Documents of Interest

1. Responses from the British Psychological Society to Consultations

— Autistic Spectrum Disorders in Adults—draft scope consultation—May 2010http://www.bps.org.uk/publications/consultation-papers/consultation-papers home.cfm?frmAction%details&paperID%918&RegionID%0&iYear%0&open%

— A Better Future: A consultation on a future strategy for adults with autistic spectrum conditions—September 2009http://www.bps.org.uk/publications/consultation-papers/consultation-papers home.cfm?frmAction%details&paperID%806&RegionID%0&iYear%0&open%

— Autism Spectrum Disorders in Children and Young People—draft scope—July 2009http://www.bps.org.uk/publications/consultation-papers/consultation-papers home.cfm?frmAction%details&paperID%819&RegionID%0&iYear%0&open%

— Consultation on the Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) Strategic Action Plan 2008–09—2010–11—December 2008http://www.bps.org.uk/publications/consultation-papers/consultation-papers home.cfm?frmAction%details&paperID%734&RegionID%0&iYear%0&open%

— Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder: consultation—March 2008http://www.bps.org.uk/publications/consultation-papers/consultation-papers home.cfm?frmAction%details&paperID%644&RegionID%0&iYear%0&open%



— Generic and Specific Interventions to Support Attitude and Behaviour Change at Population andCommunity Levels (Behaviour Change)—May 2007http://www.bps.org.uk/publications/consultation-papers/consultation-papers home.cfm?frmAction%details&paperID%505&RegionID%0&iYear%0&open%

— Strengthening powers to tackle anti-social behaviour—Feb 2007http://www.bps.org.uk/publications/consultation-papers/consultation-papers home.cfm?frmAction%details&paperID%433&RegionID%0&iYear%0&open%

— The Society is currently in the process of responding to the Autism Strategy Scotland; however, thedraft document will not be available until the end of November.

— 21st Century Schools: A world-class education for every child/a school report cardhttp://www.bps.org.uk/publications/consultation-papers/consultation-papers home.cfm?frmAction%details&paperID%767&RegionID%0&iYear%0&open%false

— Mental Wellbeing of Children in Primary Education—Consultation on Synopsis on the Evidencehttp://www.bps.org.uk/publications/consultation-papers/consultation-papers home.cfm?frmAction%details&paperID%549&RegionID%0&iYear%0&open%false

— Statutory Guidance on Section 6 Education & Inspections Act (Positive Activities for YoungPeople)http://www.bps.org.uk/publications/consultation-papers/consultation-papers home.cfm?frmAction%details&paperID%463&RegionID%0&iYear%0&open%false

— 14–19 Education and Skills White Paperhttp://www.bps.org.uk/publications/consultation-papers/consultation-papers home.cfm?frmAction%details&paperID%222&RegionID%0&iYear%0&open%false

— Statutory Guidance for Local Authorities and Schools on Information Passports, PersonalLearning Plans and the Core Entitlement for All Pupils in Pupil Referral Units and OtherAlternative Provisionhttp://www.bps.org.uk/publications/consultation-papers/consultation-papers home.cfm?frmAction%details&paperID%879&RegionID%0&iYear%0&open%false

— Assessments Relating to Learning Difficulties—Guidance to Local Authoritieshttp://www.bps.org.uk/publications/consultation-papers/consultation-papers home.cfm?frmAction%details&paperID%804&RegionID%0&iYear%0&open%false

2. Related Guidelines and articles available on the Society’s website

— Challenging Behaviour: A Unified Approach—Good Practice Standards for Service Responses toChallenging Behaviour—Self Assessment Checklisthttp://www.bps.org.uk/dcp-ld/news/challenging behaviour.cfm

— Better Behaviour in Classhttp://www.thepsychologist.org.uk/blog/11/blogpost.cfm?threadid%655&catid%48

— Advancing the Technology of Behaviour change to Promote Health (Robert West)http://www.bps.org.uk/document-download-area/document-download$.cfm?file uuid%320FAD36-1143-DFD0-7ED2-6B682098268C&ext%ppt

— Autistic Spectrum Disorder—Guide for Chartered Psychologists working with Children & YoungPeoplehttp://www.bps.org.uk/document-download-area/document-download$.cfm?file uuid%4D7D91BC-1143-DFD0-7E2A-E443E780170C&ext%pdf

October 2010

Memorandum submitted by Dr David L Moore CBE

Managing Behaviour

Most teachers manage the majority of pupils well most of the time. Statistical information on exclusionsand schools internal documentation support this.

Permanent exclusions from school are around 10,000 per year out of a pupil population of over eightmillion. They constitute less than one-quarter of one percent of the total school population. Boys make upthe majority of permanent and fix term exclusions from primary and secondary schools. They are four timesmore likely to be excluded than girls.

The most common reasons for exclusions have not changed since the publication of Exclusions fromsecondary schools 1995–96, they are:

— Verbal abuse to staff.

— Violence to other pupils.



— Persistently breaking school rules.

— Disruption.

— Criminal offences, usually theft or substance abuse.

There are over 4,000 secondary schools in England of which some 1,500 have not permanently, or fix termexcluded any pupils in the last five to 10 years. Some 10–15% of all permanent exclusions come from about100 schools.

Fix term exclusion is used by many schools of a way of indicating to the pupil and parents that behaviouris declining. In nearly two thirds of such exclusions lasting between one and three days it is effective ensuringthe pupil does not reoffend in the following twelve months. Some schools use of fix term exclusion ispromiscuous. For example, some continue to exclude for pupils not wearing correct uniform.

A fact not published in the 1996–97 HMI Report as it was lost in the editing process was that two-thirdsof all pupils excluded from schools visited had reading ages between 8.5 and 10 years. HM Chief Inspectorof Prisons note in a report issued around the same time, that two-thirds of prisoners on remand had poorreading ages usually ten years or less.

While girls are less likely to be excluded, often the offenses they commit are often of a higher level thanboy’s, for example sustained and intense bullying and acts of sustained violence.

Assaults on teachers generally occur when a pupil attempts to leave a classroom and the teacher movesto stop them. Normally the pupil pushes the teacher away which is reported as assault. There are however,as unions will testify occasions when violence towards teachers occurs though it is not as commonplace assections of the media would have their readers believe.

Both the Elton and Steer reports on behaviour in schools noted and inspection evidence concurs that thebehaviours that concern teachers the most are low level disturbance, which groups around:

— General buoyancy as pupils move around the school and enter and leave classrooms.

— Idle chatter during lessons.

— Not following expected classroom routines, for example calling out and interrupting othersincluding the teacher.

— Pupils coming off task and interfering with their peers who are trying to work.

— Inappropriate social behaviours such as “answering teachers back”, attempting to have the lastword and displaying an acute disregard for the adults status.

Teachers have little training in managing behaviour. Since Kenneth Baker was Secretary of State forEducation 3 year teacher training courses have limited Child Development and Psychology programmes andfor students taking the PGCE courses they are lucky to receive between an hour to two hours on classroomand pupil management. Some professional associations for example the NASUWT organise training fornewly qualified teachers at summer schools before they begin at their schools which helps prepare them forthe challenges of managing young people.

The over-all lack of understanding about child development and psychology disadvantages our teachersand as a result many struggle to distinguish between what are termed “received” behaviour, that which hasbeen learnt at home and not modified to function in different settings and behaviours that indicatedisturbance and illness.

Clear and consistent classroom routines, linked to engaging teaching which takes into account the rangeof reading ages and offers tasks that support and yet challenge at the same time help most pupils to maintaingood behaviour. Pace of lesson gives a sense of urgency and helps maintain pupils focus. Inconsistencycreates opportunities for pupils to come off task. Where teachers do not settle classes well, the social chatterand group dynamics takes control so that teaching becomes an interruption to the social discourse of thepupils.

The introduction initially through the Excellence in Cities Programme and Behaviour ImprovementProgramme of Learning Mentors and In School Support Centres has been effective in preventing exclusionand improving behaviour. Increasingly schools outside of the programmes funding streams have from withintheir own budgets employed staff to take on these roles. Often these staff come from outside the teachingprofession. Primary schools have used support programmes such as Quality Circle Time, Nurture GroupProgrammes and more therapeutic approaches such as A quiet Place and Place to be. All such programmeshave their place, but cannot compensate for weak or inappropriate classroom organisation or teaching.

Most schools provide a safe haven for pupils; however, they are only as strong as their weakest teachers.Head teachers report that some staff do not follow expectations identified in the schools behaviour policy.They expect senior staff to sort out classroom difficulties and abdicate responsibility for what goes on intheir classroom or teaching area. Evidence from visits indicates that where senior staff have worked withweaker staff there is generally an improvement in classroom organisation and teaching. As a result staffbecome more self confident and manage pupils better. Some staff however continue despite support, tostruggle.



Effective links between home and school are pivotal in helping pupils to understand that the expectationsare the same irrespective of the setting and that the child cannot play one off against the other. However,there are a large number of parents for who school was not a pleasant experience and these are the ones whotend to challenge the schools if they perceive their child is being victimised by the school. Managing thesesituations is not easy, but some schools using Pupil, Parent Support Workers have found that earlierintervention where parents are approached and don’t feel blamed for their child’s behaviour are beginningto change attitudes to schools and teachers for the better.

There are however, behaviours and attitudes that test schools and all the adults that work within them.Some pupils have a limited understanding of personal danger, social convention and their role as a child.Often they challenge their parents and others in authority such as the police. They do test the supportsystems of schools and staff tolerance. Currently too few schools seek training for staff in managing orworking with other schools for joint training. Some schools have a handful of such pupils while others,usually serving very poor communities many have a higher number. They are not the majority causing chaosin our schools but the impact of this minority can be significant in influencing how teachers view behaviourover-all in theirs and other schools.

October 2010

Memorandum submitted by Carl Parsons, Visiting Professor of Educational and Social Inclusion, Centrefor Children, Schools and Families, University of Greenwich

Achieving zero permanent exclusions from school, social justice and economy

Introduction

Zero exclusion schools are possible. More realistically, clusters of schools, with support, coordination andbrokering by the local authority (LA) or through local partnerships, can organise and sustain an inclusiveeducational community. Exclusion from school is a quiet mockery of Every Child Matters. Even with thecoalition government’s abandonment of the requirements for local attendance and behaviour partnerships(due to be in place from September, 2010) and even with the Academies Act in place, it still makes sense interms of social justice, educational and child support and saving money to reduce exclusions. This paperlooks at the social justice case through secondary data and reports research and action about how committedlocal authorities along with their communities can successfully reduce or eliminate permanent exclusions.All political persuasions can sign up to this and prevent harm which is experienced disproportionately bysome groups.

The Strategic Alternatives to Exclusion from School project set out to explore not whether permanent orfixed period exclusions should be banned but whether they could become unnecessary. Focussing initiallyon three low excluding LAs and then on five high excluding LAs, this work shows that local authorities havea powerful influence on school exclusion levels. At the local strategic level, provision can be organised forall pupils through collective education and children’s services action.

Three factors motivated the Strategic Alternatives action project in 2005: a conviction that power andcontrol in education is exercised to an important degree at the corporate level in LAs through electedmembers and senior officers; the top 15 LA excluders had an average permanent exclusion rate (0.21%)seven times higher than the average for the 15 lowest excluders (national mean 0.11%—2004–05); lowexcluders appeared to be able to maintain their low excluder position over time. In the two year project(Parsons, 2009), three of the project LAs reduced fixed period exclusions, including one which had been thehighest permanent excluder in 2003–04. Some secondary schools used newly opened Inclusion Centres orLearning Support Units as substitutes for fixed term exclusion, recognising that the time off school usuallymeant that pupils, who were not generally on top of their work, would get even further behind. While fixedterm exclusions were increasing nationally, three of the LAs were able to reduce their rates.

Reduction in the permanent exclusions in the five high excluding LAs was through the efforts of the LAs,their schools, children’s services and some coordinated contribution from the voluntary sector, rather thanthe project. As well as the provisions mentioned above, managed moves (Abdelnoor, 2008) and alternativecurricula played key parts. All had reduced their rates from 2004–05 levels one achieving a reduction to onequarter of the national rate by 2008–09.

Advances made in reducing exclusions since 1997 by the Labour government should not be discardedlightly by the new administration. However, there are continuing concerns about current legislation andguidance and the operation of procedures at LA and school level. The main concerns are in relation to:

— the paradoxical logic of removing children from education, a state provision seen as important toindividual development as well as national economic and social progress;

— the treatment of vulnerable children;

— social justice in terms of the disproportionate exclusions of some groups; and



— the apparent tension between Every Child Matters and the use of permanent exclusion against asmall proportion of children, with fixed period exclusions applied to about 3% of the schoolpopulation, a proportion of whom receive multiple fixed period exclusions.

This paper is divided into a number of sections, mainly reviewing secondary data, in most instancesshowing data for TWO years to illustrate that inequities are recurrent, systematic and known. The sectionswhich follow are:

Zero and low excluding local authorities.

Social justice and exclusions.

Strategies for low or zero exclusions.

Zero and low excluding local authorities.

Table 1 shows that there were 17 zero excluding local authorities in 2008–09, up from 12 in 2007–08. Manyof these have sustained very low or zero exclusions for two or more years. It can be done. The advantagesof managing provision in a non-exclusionary way are massive in terms of reduced conflict and betteroutcomes at no net cost. The message can be more effectively spread using evidence even more than throughmoral exhortation! Of the LAs achieving zero exclusions in the latest figures, many have sustained thisposition over two or more years. 31 out of 150 LAs, 20%, count as low or zero permanent excluders.

Table 1

LOWEST RATES OF PERMANENT EXCLUSION 2008–09

Number of permanent Percentage of theLocal Authority exclusions school population

National average 6,550 0.091 Barnsley 0 0.002 Brighton and Hove x 0.003 City of London 0 0.004 Isles of Scilly 0 0.005 North East Lincolnshire x 0.006 North Lincolnshire 0 0.007 North Tyneside 0 0.008 Portsmouth x 0.009 Rotherham x 0.0010 Rutland x 0.0011 Sheffield x 0.0012 St. Helens 0 0.0013 Waltham Forest 0 0.0014 West Berkshire x 0.0015 Wigan x 0.0016 Wolverhampton 0 0.0017 York x 0.0018 Leicester 10 0.0119 Cambridgeshire 10 0.0220 Cornwall 10 0.0221 Cumbria 10 0.0222 Medway 10 0.0223 Slough 10 0.0224 Southend-on-Sea 10 0.0225 Blackpool 10 0.0326 Bolton 10 0.0327 Bradford 30 0.0328 Dorset 20 0.0329 East Riding of Yorkshire 10 0.0330 Kingston upon Thames 10 0.0331 Stockton-on-Tees 10 0.03

x is as given in DfE statistics. The three very small LAs are in italics

Table 2 shows that in Wales permanent exclusion rates have been fairly low and often at half the rate forEngland. Scotland and Northern Ireland have done better, with rates which are less than a quarter of those inEngland. It is clear from both the figures and the commentaries on those countries’ websites that a differentcommitment to the care and well-being of all children prevails.



Table 2

PERCENTAGE RATES OF PERMANENT EXCLUSION IN THE COUNTRIES OF THE UK

2006–07 2007–08 2008–09

Northern Ireland 0.02 0.01 0.01Scotland 0.04 0.02 0.02Wales 0.05 0.05 0.05England 0.12 0.11 0.09

Social Justice and Exclusions

Exclusion is a disciplinary response from a school and has no forward plan for the child and no coherentvision of the educational community’s responsibility for making provision to meet need. It is a punitiveresponse, however regretfully administered. It removes an alleged problem from the school, but it causesgreat anguish and hardship for the child and family and increases problems for other services to deal withthe child following exclusion. There are more effective, efficient and caring ways of managing the challengesat the level of the LA and school clusters with support from other agencies (Parsons, 2009). CamilaBatmanghelidjh (2005) and her work with Kids Company demonstrates another, more responsible andcaring ethical position.

Some groups are disproportionately excluded. Those from poorer backgrounds as indicated by free schoolmeals, those with special educational needs and some ethnic groups are excluded at up to three times theaverage rate. Figure 1 shows the rates for permanent exclusions of ethnic minorities for England as a whole.While within the White group Gypsy-Roma and Traveller children are excluded at even higher rates (notshown), the substantially higher than average rates for some ethnic minority groups stubbornly persist yearon year. There are arguments to be made about the education system not being adjusted to meet the needs,expectations and attributes of some parts of the citizenry (Parsons et al, 2005).

Figure 1

PERMANENT EXCLUSIONS IN ENGLAND BY ETHNICITY IN 2007–08 AND 2008–09

0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4

% rate of permanent exclusions

TotalWhite

White and Black CaribbeanWhite and Black African

white and AsianOther mixed

Black CaribbeanBlack African

Black Other

IndianPakistani

BangldeshiOther asian

ChineseOther

2007/08

2008/09



Figure 2

FIXED PERIOD EXCLUSIONS IN ENGLAND BY ETHNICITY IN 2007–08 AND 2008–09

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

% rate of permanent exclusions

TotalWhite

White and Black CaribbeanWhite and Black African

White and AsianOther mixed

Black CaribbeanBlack African

Black Other

IndianPakistani

BangldeshiOther asian

ChineseOther

2007/08

2008/09

There were 6,550 permanent exclusions in 2008–09 (down from 8,130 in 2007–08). 5,000 were white, 1,520were ethnic minorities. Of these, 360 were of “mixed ethnicity” and 540 were from the three Black groups.The disproportionate exclusions nationally of White and Black Caribbean, Black Caribbean and BlackOther are plain to see in the graphs.

DfES research on minority ethnic exclusions and the Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000 concludedthat “the disproportionalities, in terms of exclusion and attainment, are institutionally racist outcomesroutinely produced as a matter of organisational practice” (Parsons, 2008: 401). Looking at the graphscarefully, it would seem that for permanent exclusions, for those three highest excluded groups shown, thedisproportionality is significantly reduced, less pronounced for fixed period exclusions as shown in Figure2. Maybe there is some movement towards Getting it; Getting it Right (DfES, 2007) but the scale of thedifference has been, and remains, disturbing.

Figure 3

RATES OF PERMANENT EXCLUSIONS IN ENGLAND BY SEN STATUS IN 2007–08 AND2008–09

0.45

0.40

0.35

0.30

0.25

0.20

0.15

0.10

0.05

0.00

% ra

te o

f per

man

ent e

xclu

sion

s

2007/08

2008/09

SEN withstatements

SEN withoutstatements

No SEN All

SEN status



Seventy one percent of permanently excluded children in both years were on the special needs register. Asshown in Figure 3, they are two and a half times as likely to be excluded if they have a statement (many ofthese will be in special schools) and continuing to be three times as likely if on the register of special needswithout a statement. This is one of the clearest cases of not having an educational system designed to meetneed. Some refer to it as scandalous.

Deprivation measures are strongly associated with exclusions. Figure 4 shows that generally exclusionrates decline with affluence. Table 3 shows that, at the level of individuals, those with a free school mealentitlement are about two and half times as likely to be excluded permanently and a little over twice as likelyto be excluded for a fixed period than other pupils.

Figure 4

RATES OF FIXED PERIOD EXCLUSIONS BY DEPRIVATION QUINTILE OF SCHOOLS’INTAKE 2008–09

6

5

4

3

2

1

0

% ra

te fi

xed

perio

d ex

clus

ions

0-20% 20-40% 40-60% 60-80% 80-90%

Deprivation quintile

Table 3

EXCLUSIONS BY FREE SCHOOL MEAL STATUS

Exclusions 2007–08 Exclusions 2008–09Number of % of school Number of % of school

Permanent exclusions exclusions population exclusions population

Pupils eligible for free school meals 3,050 0.28 2,480 0.22Other pupils 5,020 0.08 3,900 0.06All pupils 8,130 0.11 6,550 0.09

Fixed period Exclusions

Pupils eligible for free school meals 126,920 11.56 124,190 11.10Other pupils 255,950 4.02 237,880 3.77All pupils 383,830 5.14 363,280 4.89

Strategies for Low or Zero Exclusions

It is important to recognise the pressures which give rise to high rates of exclusion such as:

— Implicit exclusionary and punitive cultures.

— The “standards” agenda of the DfE and the DCSF before it.

— Staff “training”.

— Behaviour that is very risky—knives or drugs.

— Delay in getting the multi-agency support.

— The myth of eliciting support for the child through exclusion.

— Parental non-cooperation.

— “Day 6” provision to be made by the school for a pupil after five days of exclusion.

— The one-off incident which could not be predicted.



— Distribution of deprivation funding between least and most deprived schools.

It is how an LA, its schools and children and families services work to confront these pressures that iscrucial. In low excluding LAs, trust, speedy response and constructive, non punitive layers of provision arerobustly coordinated.

Exclusions are applied disproportionately to lower socio-economic groups and some ethnic groups, whichraises social justice issues. Poorer children, as signified by free school meals entitlement, and those of BlackCaribbean heritage are much more likely to be excluded as white children. Those with special needs arelikewise vulnerable to exclusions. The outcomes for permanently excluded young people are generally poorand it is the plain, avoidable absence from education that is the root cause.

There is a key strategic role for the LA or partnership in reducing exclusions. The LA retains a political,financial and moral power amongst the providers of services for children, including education. The keystrategic developments are:

1. Shared commitment across schools and LA members and officers working with explicit principlesand procedures.

2. Broadening the school by making more diverse and multi-level provision in schools.

3. Building bridges so that managed moves can be organised and school clusters can share theresponsibilities.

4. Alternative provision involves finding or making a place for every child.

5. Joining up the dots to make multiagency work effective.

6. Ethos, attitudes and sharing a vision, working at hearts and minds to gain support for including allchildren and responding to all needs.

A strategic inclusion agenda shown to work includes action of the following kind:

1. Identify the credible inclusion champion at LA member level.

2. Negotiate speedily authority level changes in structures, provision and staffing that headteacherswill accept.

3. Ensure the lead is taken by a high ranking and well-paid officer who has the authority and respectof heads and can do business with them.

4. Support school leaders in diversifying their provision and making best use of the diversifiedworkforce in supporting challenging young people and their families.

5. Establish agreement amongst schools about how pupils might be moved from their current school,either permanently or temporarily, building on personal relations between schools but creating fairaccess protocols or points systems.

6. Develop a range of alternative curriculum providers, assessing and monitoring that providers canmeet targets and contribute valuably to children’s development including qualifications.

7. Ensure that the teams of other professionals are of appropriate skill levels and can offer a fastresponse.

8. Create and recreate the sense of belief in the LA’s duty to provide calmly and restoratively forevery child.

Zero exclusion schools and LAs work. Personal and collective damage to individuals and families isreduced, some shocking, persistent inequalities are reduced and some woeful lack of care for special needspupils and those growing up in deprived circumstances is avoided. All this can be done in a way which is“cost neutral” and does not damage attainment standards. No other country in Europe does it as we do itin England and that should also be a prompt to new thinking, new practice and real demonstration of everychild matters, whichever government is in power.

October 2010

References

Abdelnoor, A (2007) Managed Moves: A Complete Guide to Managed Moves as an Alternative to PermanentExclusion, London: Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation. www.gulbenkian.org.uk/media/item/1229/216/Managed-moves-04 08.pdf

Batmanghelidjh, C (2007) Shattered Lives: Children Who Live with Courage and Dignity, Philadelphia, PA,Jessica Kingsley Publishers.

Council on Tribunals (2003) School Admissions and Exclusion Appeal Panels—Special Report, London,Council on Tribunals.

DfES (2007) Priority Review: Exclusion of Black Pupils “Getting it. Getting it Right”, London, Departmentfor Education and Skills.

DCSF (2008) Improving Behaviour and Attendance: Guidance on Exclusion from Schools and Pupil ReferralUnits, London: Department for Children, Schools and Families.



DCSF (2010) Guidance on School Behaviour and Attendance Partnerships, London: Department forChildren, Schools and Families.

Parsons, C, Annan, G, Cornwall, J, Godfrey, R, Hepburn, S and Wennerstrom, V (2005) Minority EthnicExclusions and the Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000, Research Report 616, London, DfESwww.dfes.gov.uk/research/data/uploadfiles/RR616.pdf

Parsons, C (2008) Race Relations Legislation, Ethnicity and Disproportionality in School Exclusions inEngland, Cambridge Journal of Education, 38.3, pp. 401–420.

Parsons, C (2009) Strategic Alternatives to Exclusion from School, Stoke-on-Trent, Trentham Books.

The Strategic Alternatives to Exclusion from School project was funded by the Esmee FairbairnFoundation to whom I am most grateful. The views expressed here are not necessarily those of theFoundation.

Memorandum submitted by the National Union of Teachers (NUT)

1. The National Union of Teachers (NUT) welcomes the opportunity to respond to the Inquiry intoBehaviour and Discipline in Schools.

2. The NUT believes that the professional judgement of teachers should be at the heart of teaching andlearning. The approach of schools to pupil behaviour and the level of support given to teachers willdetermine whether or not schools are effective.

3. In its National Charter Learning to Behave: A Charter for Schools the NUT set out proposals which,if adopted in schools, would encourage the promotion of good pupil behaviour and the reduction ofbehaviour which disrupts school life.

4. The NUT recognises the importance of no child being “written off” and believes that neither teachersnor pupils should face dangers arising from unacceptable behaviour. It is important for teachers and schoolsto consider ways in which all pupils have access to an education which meets their needs.

5. This submission is accompanied by two NUT publications on behaviour: Pupil Behaviour: Advice,Guidance and Protection and Learning to Behave: A Charter for Schools.20

Supporting and reinforcing positive behaviour in schools

6. The school behaviour policy, which should be discussed by all members of the school community,especially staff and pupils and not just considered by Governors as a paper exercise, is of paramountimportance to the effectiveness of behaviour management in schools. The NUT believes that a schoolbehaviour policy must be a practical document which includes clear guidelines to staff on practice andprocedures relating to any incidence of inappropriate behaviour within school. The policy should also makea clear commitment to regular professional development programmes for all staff on behaviour strategiesboth in child and adolescent development and about the application of behaviour management strategies.

7. The NUT believes that head teachers have a responsibility to provide continuous professionaldevelopment (CPD) for their staff. CPD needs to cover behaviour management strategies and should focuson understanding child and adolescent development. A systematic approach by head teachers to facilitatethe provision of behaviour related CPD can have a very positive impact as evidenced by the success of theNUT’s CPD programme. The programme’s behaviour courses, focusing on restorative justice, violenceprevention and conflict resolution are always fully subscribed.

8. Research shows that in schools where teachers collaborate effectively they achieve better levels ofbehaviour.21

9. The NUT believes that schools need sufficient time within the day to conduct 360 degree examinationsof both the pupil and the situation when there is an incident relating to inappropriate pupil behaviour. Inorder to effectively carry out an investigation and find a resolution schools may require on-site trainedcounsellors. Necessary time within the school day should also be allocated for all staff to share informationand experiences about the behaviour needs of individual pupils.

10. The NUT supports and advocates the approach of the Social and Emotional Approaches to Learning(SEAL) materials in schools as they aim to tackle the reasons for a pupil’s behaviour rather than theiractions. For staff such an approach can create an environment in which social and emotional skills areenhanced to an extent where behaviour issues can be resolved through discussion and negotiation ratherthan punishment methods, physical restraint or as a last resort exclusion.

11. The NUT further advocates the use of positive parenting courses run by pupil and parent supportadvisors within schools as a way of improving behaviour through the development of a common home/school language and understanding of expectations.

20 Not published on the Committee’s website.21 Improving School Behaviour, Chris Watkins, Institute of Education, Paper for NAPCE, National Association for Pastoral

Care in Education, 2000.



The nature and level of challenging behaviour by pupils in schools, and the impact upon schools and their staff

12. Unacceptable pupil behaviour, whether low level or extreme, is profoundly challenging for the staffand pupils who come into contact with it. It disrupts the continuity and consistency of teaching and damagesteachers’ confidence and young people’s learning. It jeopardises the life chances both of those who areinvolved and their peers. If not tackled, the causes of unacceptable behaviour, which may lie outside theschool, may continue to damage their own lives and those of others into adult life.

13. In its Charter on behaviour Learning to Behave22 (a copy is attached for your information23) theNUT outlined the entitlements and responsibilities of all those involved in school communities. The NUTfundamentally believes that it is the right of teachers to teach and the right of children and young peopleto learn.

Bullying

14. The NUT welcomes the Government’s pledge on tackling homophobic bullying. Guidance to schoolsshould ensure that all school behaviour policies make clear that racist, sexist, homophobic and transphobicincidents and harassment against pupils or staff on the grounds of disability or religion or belief will not betolerated. They should refer explicitly to strategies to prevent homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist anddisablist bullying and to eliminate the homophobic and sexist content of commonly used terms of verbalabuse. The NUT suggests that school policies on equal opportunities and on harassment and bullyingshould be required to state that the school will take action to protect all pupils and staff from all forms ofharassment.

15. In its survey on Homophobia carried out in Oldham (2008) the NUT found that 85% of teachers whoresponded to the survey had witnessed incidents of homophobic abuse being made to pupils or teachers eachweek. Over half of the teachers responding to the survey had been the target of homophobic abusethemselves by pupils during the school year.

16. Cyberbullying is a growing issue within schools linked to a range of behaviour issues. The NUTbelieves that it is an area which should be addressed within school behaviour policies.

Approaches taken by schools and local authorities to address challenging behaviour, including fixed-term andpermanent exclusions

17. School communities benefit from a strong lead from head teachers and senior managers in addressingchallenging behaviour. The provision of positive support to staff is essential for the effective managementof behaviour. Ofsted24 found that senior managers who provided close support to staff contributedsignificantly to the effective management of behaviour.

18. The NUT is deeply concerned about the high exclusion rates in Academies. Department forEducation figures for 2008–09 (published July 2010) show that permanent exclusion rates in Academies werealmost three times as high as those in all schools—0.31% in Academies compared with 0.09% in all schools—and almost double the rate for local authority maintained secondaries (0.17%). The rate of fixed periodexclusions in Academies was 13.51% compared with 4.89% in all schools and 9.26% in local authoritymaintained secondaries.

19. The figures also show how certain groups of children—those with special educational needs (SEN),those on free schools meals and those from ethnic minority backgrounds have much higher exclusion ratesoverall. Given these facts, the high exclusion rate in Academies must raise concern about whether Academiesare discriminating against some disadvantaged groups of children. It would be of concern to the NUT ifAcademies were using exclusion to remove young people who might depress the exam results at thoseinstitutions.

20. The NUT also has concerns that the pressures on schools to maintain their place in the league tablesmay cause them to consider using either “unofficial” or permanent exclusions as a mechanism to achievethis.

21. Curriculum organisation can also have a significant impact on pupil behaviour. The NUT believesthat head teachers and senior colleagues should work collaboratively and in consultation with teachers inorder to design coherent curriculum models which can meet the needs of all children. Such models shouldbe based on teachers’ professional judgement and knowledge of their pupils.

22. NUT members consistently report, for example, that the change of curriculum for pupils enteringyear one, which is often more formal and less flexible than the EYFS, leads to inappropriate pupil behaviour.In many instances this is due to the inflexibility of the curriculum and the inappropriate way in which thistransition stage is managed by the school. Introducing a transition stage for at least a term and allowingaccess to outdoor play areas can support pupils in this year group, particularly summer born boys for whomthe change can be traumatic.

22 Learning to Behave: A Charter for Schools, National Union of Teachers, 2006.23 Not published on the Committee’s website.24 Managing Challenging Behaviour, Ofsted, March 2005, HMI 2363.



23. The link between inappropriate pupil behaviour and SATs is also reported by NUT members. Pupilfrustration at often being required to sit and cram for too long can lead to unacceptable behaviour. Theremoval of such pressures on staff and pupils would greatly support those advocating a more flexiblecurriculum.

24. There is evidence from a range of sources including the DfE itself, Ofsted and DEA which suggeststhat global learning supports and reinforces positive behaviour through an emphasis on critical and creativethinking, self-awareness and open-mindedness towards difference. Such approaches help to build pupilconfidence, empathy and sense of social responsibility which support and reinforce positive behaviours.

25. The NUT’s CPD programme in collaboration with the International policy team is currentlyproviding a course for teachers called ‘Internationalising Learning’, which includes a focus on teachingabout identity, empathy, respect for others and community cohesion. Global teaching resources and ideastrialled by participants during the course are posted on the NUT’s website at http://www.teachers.org.uk/node/11676 which means that they can be shared with and adapted by other teachers. One participant onthe course said

“Since trialling the global dimension in my class over the last few weeks, pupils have learned toappreciate other people’s opinions and that different views and attitudes are okay, developed skills ofempathy and learned reasoning and deduction skills-being able to argue effectively andappropriately…”.

26. Ofsted noted in its research on Education for sustainable development25 that

“some school leaders identified links between particular pupils’ involvement in sustainable activitiesand improvement in their attitudes and behaviour generally.”

27. Independent Appeals Panels (IAP) should include at least one classroom teacher as a representative.The NUT believes that IAP’s should always demonstrate “reasonableness” when making a judgement aboutreturning a pupil to a school. For example, where a teacher has been injured in an altercation with a pupil,the NUT would deem such a move to be unreasonable in terms of the expectations of any future teacher:pupil working relationship and would expect the IAP to judge it to be unacceptable for the pupil to returnto that school.

28. The NUT believes that schools’ access to local authority behaviour support services provides animportant element in the success of school behaviour strategies. Access to behaviour specialists and therange of behaviour services is of particular importance in supporting schools with less experience ofmanaging inappropriate pupil behaviour. Any reduction or loss of support services could result in anincrease in the number of exclusions from such schools.

29. A further concern of the NUT is the impact of the Academies programme on local authority supportservices. As greater numbers of schools become removed from local authority control there is a real dangerof local authority services such as behaviour support being outsourced or disbanded completely.

Recognising special educational needs in schools’ policies on behaviour and discipline

30. The school Behaviour Policy should include a commitment to co-ordinating provision across theschool for pupils with SEN to secure appropriate support for these pupils, as well as an explanation of therole of the SENCO in ensuring that the needs of pupils with SEN are met.

31. In order to prevent disabled pupils and pupils with SEN becoming involved in the disciplinary routein schools, reasonable adjustments and special education provision should be made for them.

32. One of the recommendations of The Costs of Inclusion26 report was that future education policyshould serve to enhance collaboration among schools to ensure the best service to all children. The NUTadvocates closer links between mainstream schools, special schools and short stay schools in order to fostereffective learning communities, co-operative multi-agency work and joined up family services.

The efficacy of alternative provision for pupils excluded from school because of their behaviour

33. The NUT believes that high quality alternative provision for pupils excluded from school is essentialto both the continuity of education for the pupil and as a way of supporting them to manage their ownbehaviour appropriately. The importance of close links between teachers in alternative provision andmainstream schools cannot be underestimated. It is where there is a breakdown in communication betweenestablishments which have responsibility for a pupil that the danger of them “falling through the net”becomes apparent.

34. Partnership working between schools and alternative provision including short stay schools andspecial schools is a positive way in which staff can work more effectively together to support pupils inmanaging their own behaviour without recourse to exclusion. The NUT supports the way in whichbehaviour partnerships can enable schools to facilitate “managed moves” with the least disruption to thepupil.

25 OFSTED, Education for sustainable development, 2009, Manchester.26 The Costs of Inclusion, MacBeath and Galton, University of Cambridge/NUT, May 2006.



35. There is a concern, however, that the introduction of a greater number of Academy schools into thesystem will remove the ability of schools to continue to engage in behaviour partnerships. Academies haveno requirement to belong to such partnerships and can simply “opt out” of such a system.

Links between attendance and behaviour in schools

36. It is well-recognised that pupils attending school regularly are less likely to engage in inappropriateor poor behaviour. Teachers are well aware that there are many reasons why a pupil may have poorattendance, some of which will not be factors which they can control, such as parental illness or disability,parental alcoholism or drug abuse or being required to care for younger siblings, for example. Schoolsshould also remain vigilant about the impact which domestic violence and abuse can have on pupilbehaviour and the ways in which such pupils can be supported.

37. Pupils need support in informing schools about such issues at home and they need to feel confidentthat the consequences of divulging such information to a school will not have any detrimental consequences.

38. This role constitutes part of the duty of care of a school and should not fall to teachers to manage.The importance of effective communication, however, between the social service or care elements of schoolsand the classroom teacher must not be underestimated. For teachers to be most effective it is important thatthey do have an understanding of a pupil’s home circumstances where it may affect their ability to reachschool on time, have persistent absence or find it difficult to meet deadlines.

The Government’s proposals regarding teachers’ powers to search pupils, removal of the requirement for writtennotice of detentions outside school hours, and the extent of teachers’ disciplinary powers, as announced by theDepartment on 7 July

39. The NUT calls for an unequivocal statement from Government that if teachers use their powers tosearch pupils or their rights regarding physical restraint there will be no unforeseen consequences arisingfrom their actions. Teachers have a duty of care to pupils which may at times cause them to intervene toprotect pupils from harming themselves or other pupils. Many are currently not confident that if they takesuch action they will be supported by senior leadership teams, parents or the local authority should aninquiry be conducted.

40. One NUT member made the following statement regarding teachers disciplinary powers:

“Most teachers are reluctant because they only see this physical intervention as a last ditch attemptto resolve a situation. There is a perception however that this kind of intervention may well either causethemselves harm or bring about disciplinary action. Despite a well negotiated restraint policy in ourCounty, staff still become victim of disciplinary action for the most “soft” intervention such, asleading a pupil by the arm. In one case this led to a teacher being suspended causing all the usual stressinvolved in such matters. As a consequence any positives coming out of County training getsoverridden by actual events”.

41. The NUT supports the importance of maintaining teachers “normal” practice with regard to usingphysical restraint on pupils. Practice may, however, vary greatly between the different key stages ofeducation and between sectors within the school system. Members report for example that different levels ofpupil behaviour are accepted within short stay schools than might be considered reasonable in mainstreamschools. There are also differences in the extent to which a teacher might comfort a child in the early yearssector which would not be considered appropriate for older children. This is what is meant by teachers beingable to work in a way which is “normal” for them within their particular workplace. It is important thatpolicy and guidance for staff reflects and supports this.

42. The NUT believes that reporting incidents of restraint within school should not be enforced as astatutory requirement but left to the judgement of the individual head teacher.

43. The proposed introduction of flexibility in the notice required for detentions is supported by the NUTwith the caveat that sensitivity regarding no notice detentions, where such action could make a childvulnerable, is retained and schools themselves are trusted to make such judgements.

44. The NUT has general concerns about any relaxation of the requirements regarding teachers searchpowers in which the gender of the searcher and the witness need only be the same gender as the pupil beingsearched where this is reasonably practical. The NUT recognises, however, that there may be difficulties forsmall schools in such cases, where the availability of a particular gender may prove impractical. Nationwidegeneric advice becomes difficult in these circumstances. Individual schools should therefore have specificguidance in their own behaviour policies to cover such eventualities, possibly having named persons or postswhich have been appropriately trained to handle such delicate situations.

September 2010



Memorandum submitted by the Association of Teachers and Lecturers

ATL—Leading Education Union

1. ATL represents teachers, support staff, lecturers and leaders. We believe that teachers as professionalsmust be recognised for their knowledge, expertise and judgement, at the level of the individual pupil and inarticulating the role of education in facilitating social justice. Schools should be supported to workcollaboratively to offer excellent teaching and learning, and to support pupils’ well-being, across a local area.Accountability mechanisms should be developed so that there is a proper balance of accountability tonational government, parents and the local community, which supports collaboration rather thancompetition.

How to Support and Reinforce Positive Behaviour in Schools

2. Despite much negative coverage in the media, 66% of respondents in a recent ATL member27 surveyfound that positive behaviour is supported and reinforced effectively in their schools. Based on ourmembers’ experiences, we outline the key factors vital for this support.

Strong Leadership

3. As with any initiative or activity in schools, the support of a strong leadership team is key to success.This strong leadership must translate into active support for school staff in terms of:

(i) having clear and concise guidelines on behaviour for all pupils, and an insistence on their beingconsistently applied;

(ii) having similarly clear and concise guidelines on classroom/behaviour management for all staff withappropriate support structures in place;

(iii) ensuring that staff have appropriate peer or leadership support in relation to their practice aroundbehaviour management, eg mentoring, training; and

(iv) having a belief in teacher professionalism which supports teacher flexibility to deviate fromprescribed practices in order to meet the needs of their pupils, where necessary.

Whole-school Behaviour Policy

4. A consistent factor in promoting positive behaviour in schools is a whole-school behaviour policy, withexpectations throughout the school team, at all levels, that it be consistently applied. Member experienceobserves that for this policy to be effective, it needs to be backed up with behaviour management plans andrisk assessments for persistent and challenging cases. Positive and proactive measures are emphasised withclear reward systems highlighted and where sanctions are necessary they are proportional, clear andeffective. All measures must be consistently applied.

5. As staff turnover in schools may vary, it is important that school leadership ensures that all staff knowand understand the policy, and that there are regular opportunities for training and review of practice in thelight of the policy and vice versa, which includes all staff, short—or long-term. Consistency is vital and clearreporting and recording procedures play a key role in ensuring that it is achieved across all staff.

School Culture and Ethos

6. The whole-school approach embraces the school culture, staff-pupil and pupil-pupil relationships andvigilance around group tensions and bullying. School behaviour policies need to include explicit referencesto specific forms of bullying, such as racist, sexual/sexist and homophobic bullying and again, should bebacked by clear action plans (eg the use of homophobic language is not simply stopped, as part of behaviourpolicy, but also challenged with regard to underlying cultural assumptions).28

7. ATL’s members have also found that a positive ethos in the school of praise, responsibility, supportand peer leadership supports and reinforces positive behaviour. This includes countering prejudicial andstereotypical assumptions about particular groups and having an inclusive ethos, promoting positive imagesof LGBT pupils, BME pupils (including Gypsy, Roma and Traveller pupils). Schools use mentoring/buddying systems between pupils to combat bullying and ignorance and to ensure that difference isunderstood. Core values for all—staff and students—are embedded in everyday discussions, circle times andproblem solving situations. The whole school knows the expectations, from the children to the teaching staff,support staff and midday supervisors.

Staff Initial Training and Professional Development

8. It is not just important that staff know the school’s behaviour policy and work to demonstrate thevalues that underpin it; they need to understand child development and human behaviour in order that theycan promote behaviours which enable classroom relationships to ensure learning and fulfilment of potential.There is no doubt that the current offer of initial and continuing professional training is not sufficient,

27 Behaviour, Discipline and Attendance: ATL Member Survey, Autumn 2010.28 “Doing Gender”, ATL survey report on aspects of sex/gender identity and homophobia.



leaving an understanding and knowledge gap. This is exacerbated by a similar lack of training about SpecialEducational Needs, needs, which if unidentified and unmet, can result in pupil disaffection and alienationfrom learning, often manifesting in challenging classroom behaviours. ATL’s excellent and oversubscribedBehaviour Management training course and related publications29 attempt to meet the professional needcaused by this deficit but it is vital that a solution is developed at a broader systemic/structural level.

Support Staff

9. The use of teaching assistants has been invaluable in schools particularly where SLTs have beenencouraging of their development, often into areas of behaviour and SEN. TAs have been vital inestablishing strong and supportive relationships with pupils who find learning/social aspects of educationdifficult, in working with their families and also in working with other agencies.

Collaborations, including Extended Services

10. Schools who have positive experiences of behaviour have often promoted close working relationshipsbetween their staff and other schools nearby, including the local PRU, and other professional agencies, egeducation psychologist, social care and health professionals.30 They work with parents and the localcommunity to help change potentially negative attitudes to education there. Many members feel that theexistence of Sure Start has been very helpful, in making parents feel more involved in the school, tacklingdistrust and fear, helping parents understand better their own responsibilities and receive support to dealwith any parenting challenges they face.

Systemic Challenges

High-stakes accountability and assessment system

11. “Each year is started with good intentions but as pressure for results mounts the focus switches.” Thisquote from an ATL member encapsulates the tension between the current high-stakes testing systems andbroader strategies of inclusion which underpin the most effective behaviour policies. We know fromresearch31 that a focus on learning rather than performance yields excellent results, in terms of pupilengagement and behaviour and also on academic outcomes. However, under the current high-stakes system,under the heavy hand of Ofsted, many school leaders find it risky to change their strategy.

Funding for Staff

12. As funding in schools is becoming increasingly stretched, ATL is concerned about the impact onstaffing levels. Any cut in teacher numbers will be disastrous as our existing teaching workforce is alreadystretched, teaching large classes and with excessive workloads. We are also concerned that any cuts insupport staff numbers will have a massive impact on overall staff workload and on current positive strategiesof behaviour management—in many schools, TAs are essential to offering dedicated support to individualpupils and their families, proactively tackling challenging classroom behaviours and supporting teaching.

Diversification of the School System

13. ATL believes that the ever-growing diversification of the school system, and the move by manyindividual institutions away from the local authority structure will undercut behaviour and attendancepartnerships and across-school working, despite such collaborations offering solutions around managedmoves, staff mentoring and professional sharing of key information.

The Nature and Level of Challenging Behaviour and its Impact

Nature and level of challenging behaviour

14. ATL members typically experience low-level disruption and lack of compliance with expectations/rules. This kind of behaviour interferes with teaching and learning and causes stress on a daily basis.

15. A big challenge to school staff is also entrenched behaviour based on stereotypes and culturalprejudice ie homophobia and transphobia, Islamophobia, sexism and towards vulnerable groups such asthose in care or with learning difficulties.

16. Verbal abuse of teachers, in terms of insults, threats and derogatory comments, is distressinglycommon: 51% of ATL members surveyed32 reported that they had experienced this. A significantproportion of ATL respondents also reported being subject to intimidation such as threats, shouting, beingsworn at (38.6%) and physical aggression (28.5%). Violence is also a concern with 25.9% of ATL surveyrespondents experiencing violence directed at staff. In the main, violence by pupils is directed at other pupils,

29 “Managing Classroom Behaviour” ATL, Watkins (1997) and “Learning: A Sense-Maker’s Guide”, ATL, Watkins (2003).30 ATL, Extended Services, position statement, March 2010.31 “Learning: a sense-maker’s guide”, Watkins, ATL, 2003.32 Challenging Behaviour in Schools: ATL Member Survey, Spring 2010.



in the experience of 87.3% of respondents. These figures are important and concerning but it is vital thatresponses engage with individual incidences and causes, whilst ensuring that staff are protected andsupported and future risks minimised.

Impact on staff

17. The impact on staff who experience challenging classroom behaviour is huge. Members cite effectsincluding chronic stress, depression, voice loss, loss of confidence, illness resulting in time off work, negativeimpact on home/family life. Many experience huge frustration in facing problems which are beyond theschool’s capacity to change, or in facing challenges without good support from the senior leadership team.When these frustrations and negative effects become overwhelming, many lose their faith in the educationsystem with the result that a significant proportion leave—36.8% of our respondents considered changingprofession because of poor behaviour by pupils.

Impact on school

18. The impact at school-level of disengaged and challenging pupil behaviour is disruption of learningand the increasing disengagement of pupils. Staff absence increases as dealing with daily challenges takes itstoll, and staff morale in general dips. The community of the school is undermined, and cohesion becomesmore difficult to maintain. A supportive and pro-active senior leadership team with whole-school policieson behaviour which emphasise engagement of pupils can do much to minimise the negative impact onschool, staff and pupils of any challenging behaviour that occurs.

Approaches to Address Challenging Behaviour

19. Schools and local authorities have built up a range of strategies to respond to challenging behaviour.The following are some of the approaches observed by members:

— Managed moves between schools—these have worked very well in some areas, based oncollaboration between schools, support by the local authority, giving pupils another chance in adifferent environment.33

— Increase of communication with parents—this is particularly effective where school staff haveestablished supportive relationships with parents, often involving a team relationship with externalservices. These can include, where appropriate, contracts or agreements between parents/carers,students and senior staff.

— Dedicated inclusion teams with particular strategies eg: time out; key workers; groups which focuson communication skills, anger management etc; inclusion rooms; a “seclusion” system; abehaviour card system; and restorative justice.

— Where removal from lessons seems to be required, it can be replaced with a part-time timetable insecure personalised learning centre/behaviour unit on-site.

— Positive strategies such as nurture groups. Also, mentoring by older pupils.

— Zero tolerance approaches to unacceptable behaviours. Use of sanctions such as removal ofprivileges. Also, fixed-term exclusions.

— Differentiated policy in relation to need, eg SEN.

Engaging Parents and Carers

20. Our members report that building relationships with parents is a key way of engaging them positivelyin managing their children’s behaviour. Some schools have a dedicated staff member for parent-communityrelations which has achieved much in this area, particularly reaching parents who have been previouslydifficult to engage; some offer parenting classes. Early involvement of parents, clear communication ofdifficulties and consequences and behaviour agreements (some do this in the form of “contracts”) are veryeffective. There needs to be a basis of regular communication with parents for “good” as well as “bad”reasons. Tools such as the Individual Education Plan (IEP) are also useful. Extended services can play a keyrole in this; it is vital that school staff liaise with specialists outside the school, highlighting specialist supportto parents, ie around domestic violence, LGBT equality etc.

Difficulties

21. Evidence/information plays a vital role in these relationships and this can be undermined byinsufficient logging of incidents. This will be further damaged by the currently considered abolition of dutyto record and report bullying incidents and racist incidents. Staff can be vulnerable to pupils/parents makingallegations against them, as a form of defence—logging of incidents helps to defuse these allegations earlier.

33 “Managed Moves”, Abdelnoor, Gulbenkian Foundation (2008) & “Strategic Alternatives to Exclusion from School”,Parsons (2009).



22. Some parents distrust or fear institutions such as schools, and indeed the supportive extended servicesaround them. This is very challenging for schools and LAs to overcome. These fears and resentments areoften reinforced by deprivation and socioeconomic inequalities. Time—and staff-intensive interventionsincluding a dedicated Parent Liaison worker are needed to meet this level of need.

23. Some schools and areas face the challenge of a geographically dispersed parent body wherecommunication with parents is stymied by distance. Email, phone and notes via student bag/book methodscan be effective but are limited, particularly when sensitivity of issue dictates a face-to-face approach. Wherelanguage can be a barrier, it is vital that there are language support services available and indeed, access forfamilies to EAL services.

24. A significant proportion of parents feel unable or disinclined to set boundaries for their children. Insome cases, it reflects a lack of confidence or knowledge, needs which can be met with early parentinginterventions like Sure Start. There are parents who present strongly challenging behaviour themselves,being aggressive towards the school and in some cases, their children. In these cases, it is vital that schoolsuse extended services and proactive approaches.

Special Educational Needs

25. SEN can best be recognised in schools’ behaviour and discipline policies through an underpinningbroad inclusion policy and an openness to a broad range of interventions, according to pupil need andsituation. This kind of broad strategy emphasises early identification of SEN, recognises different needs andtherefore affords flexible options for staff to use ie pupils with special learning/behavioural needs being ableto spend time in the Learning Suite, TA support, one-to-one tuition, individualised/differentiated learning,behaviour support plans.

26. It is vital that schools have expertise and experience in SEN; many use a Learning Support Worker/Team to ensure the identification of, and organisation of support for, special needs of pupils. Staff need tobe given access to this SEN expertise, whether through internal/external CPD, mentoring by the SENCO,peer support. Schools need to link with external agencies to have access to expertise and to support theirSEN provision.

Current Challenges

27. SEN can be seen as an add-on, with behaviour management policies not allowing for differentiation.This can be exacerbated by inadequate internal communication with SEN dept; members report cases wheresupport staff are given little input and information on current behaviour or SEN policies. There is a lackof general workforce knowledge of specific SEN issues, leaving them ill-prepared to encounter/identify therelated needs.

28. Funding is perceived to be an issue in the lack/delay of statements for pupils with SEN with thepotential conflict of interest represented by the funding body as provider of statements. However, it is vitalthat alternative options being considered take into account factors such as the current shortage of educationpsychologists.

Alternative Provision

29. Currently, alternative provision is patchy in terms of access and quality across the country. Membersobserve that getting access can be slow and difficult, even impossible. Where alternative provision settingshave worked well, members have strongly praised services they offer pupils, such as skills centres, andoutreach services which are helpful in building up support for those pupils. They are seen as being veryeffective with behaviour management, and many members are fearful for the future of these centres inrelation to funding cuts as they feel that they offer a vital opportunity for pupils who have struggled withmainstream education.

30. Re-integration into the mainstream school environment is an area of concern for our members—it isvital that there is good communication between the school and the alternative provision setting so that thereis a clear strategy to prevent a recurrence of previous issues.

31. Members report that managed moves, if supported by parents, have worked well for many pupils,providing the opportunity for a fresh start within mainstream education, without the stigma of permanentexclusion.

Links between Attendance and Behaviour

32. As with behaviour, strong leadership and a flexible curriculum has impact on attendance in schoolsas observed by Ofsted in 2007.34 Non-attendance is a challenging behaviour and as with classroomdisruption, it can be an expression of alienation and disengagement with school, learning and thecurriculum. It can also be an expression of broader socioeconomic issues, chaotic home lives or pressureson children as carers. As with behaviour, it requires understanding of individual cases and individualisedresponses.

34 “Attendance in Secondary Schools”, Ofsted Report (2007).



Government’s Proposals

33. ATL members expressed concern about the impact of Government proposals on relationships withpupils and parents, for example:

Powers to Search

34. There are already powers to search for teachers; extending and continuing to emphasise these powersundermines teachers’ role as educators, putting them increasingly into a policing role. Members feel thatthese risk alienating pupils and parents, perhaps even resulting in civil claims and could precipitate challengeand confrontation with a negative impact on learning. Some members observed that these measures aresuitable to schools as “grade-factories” but are debatable if schools’ function is also to shape “well-roundedindividuals”. Any powers to search must be accompanied by clear guidance with the aim of protecting staffand pupils alike.

Detentions Notice Requirements

35. ATL members believe that this will be detrimental to relationships with some parents who, withoutnotice, will not know where their children are, giving them cause for a reasonable complaint against theschool. It also raises concerns where pupils need school transport and there are no alternative transportoptions available. While it can make detention more efficient by the fact of its immediacy, our members areunsure that this advantage outweighs the disadvantages noted above. They observe that lunchtimedetentions can be as effective and not as problematic. They also state that the use of any such sanctionsshould be included in regular communication with parents.

Conclusion

36. ATL members are clear that while challenging pupil behaviour is a significant issue in schools, thereare positive developments that engage pupils in learning, minimizing disruption and providing support forstaff in recognising pupil needs. Many of these developments come out of strong leadership, collaborativeacross-school working, local authority support and extended services. These are vital to continuing successin meeting the challenge as is a shift of emphasis away from the current narrow-target and high-stakesaccountability system.

September 2010

References

— “Behaviour, Discipline and Attendance: ATL member survey”, Autumn 2010

— “Doing Gender”: ATL survey report on aspects of sex/gender identity and homophobia, July 2007

— “Managing Classroom Behaviour”, Watkins, ATL, 1997

— “Learning: A Sense-Maker’s Guide”, Watkins, ATL, 2003

— “Extended Services”, ATL Position Statement, March 2010

— “Achievement for All”, ATL, 2002

— “Challenging behaviour in schools: ATL member survey”, Spring 2010

— “Managed Moves”, Abdelnoor, Gulbenkian Foundation, 2008

— “Strategic Alternatives to Exclusion from School”, Parsons, 2009

— “Recording and reporting incidents of bullying between pupils, and incidents of abuse againstschool staff”, ATL, March 2010

— “Attendance in Secondary Schools”, Ofsted, 2007

Memorandum submitted by NASUWT

— The NASUWT has considerable experience of dealing with behaviour and attendance issues inschool through its casework.

— The NASUWT has extensive experience of providing high quality guidance and resources forschools on managing pupil behaviour, including a joint leaflet with the former Department forChildren, Schools and Families (DCSF) on the rights and entitlements of classroom teachers withregard to pupil behaviour.

— The Select Committee review of behaviour and discipline needs to recognise at the outset thatschools are safe havens of calm and security and the vast majority of schools do not have seriousor endemic behaviour issues.

— Ofsted has shown that in a large majority of schools behaviour is managed effectively.



— The problem of “low level disruption” is a significant factor that blights learning, as highlightedby an NASUWT survey in March 2009 that found that, on average, teachers lost 30 minutes ofteaching time each day as a result of low level disruption.

— A major feature of schools that experience poor behaviour is the failure of school leadership toconsistently support the professional expertise and judgement of classroom practitioners.

— The review needs to recognise the effect that external influences have on a child’s behaviour withinschool and that schools working alone cannot solve all problems of poor behaviour andindiscipline.

— Collaborative working between schools and other agencies is key to tackling problems of poorpupil behaviour. The decision to remove the requirement for Behaviour and AttendancePartnerships is a fundamentally retrograde development.

— There are serious concerns about the likely effects of funding cuts upon behaviour support andspecial educational needs (SEN).

— An important factor for fostering good behaviour is through an engaging curriculum. TheGovernment should consider this in the forthcoming curriculum review.

— Low level disruption has a cumulative effect that can be very stressful for the teacher and canimpact upon overall teaching and learning experiences.

— All children should attend school ready to learn. Parents and carers need to be equipped to supporttheir child when they experience behaviour issues.

— Access to high quality alternative provision is critical; however, more work is needed to ensurebetter access to and better quality of alternative provision. Funding cuts risk damaging thisimportant sector.

— Poor behaviour and truancy are strongly linked and require coherent strategies to address theseproblems.

— The NASUWT believes that wide variations in the reporting and recording of information aboutallegations made by pupils about teachers should be tackled urgently.

Background and Context

1. The NASUWT has consistently been at the forefront of campaigns concerning issues of pupilbehaviour and discipline in schools. The NASUWT has developed considerable experience of dealing withbehaviour and attendance issues in schools through individual and collective casework. Its activities in thisarea reflect the high priority given to these issues by classroom teachers and the challenges faced byschool leaders.

2. The Union has produced high quality guidance on behaviour management for its members. It has alsobeen successful in obtaining amendments to national guidance on behaviour; including securing a landmarkvictory in the House of Lords, “P v NASUWT”, that established the right of teachers, with the support oftheir union, to refuse to teach violent and disruptive pupils. Most recently, the DCSF issued a joint leafletwith the NASUWT on the rights and entitlements of classroom teachers with regard to pupil behaviour. Thisguidance has been highly regarded by schools and welcomed widely.

3. Schools are relative safe havens of calm and security, providing an orderly and well-developedenvironment that is immensely beneficial to young people.

4. The Select Committee’s review of behaviour and discipline in schools must be set in a context in whichthere is clear recognition of the fact that behaviour in schools is generally rated as good or outstanding. Thevast majority of schools do not have serious or endemic behaviour problems. Ofsted has demonstrated thatthe vast majority of schools are providing an acceptable level of education and 70% are good or outstandingand there is further evidence of sustained improvement in schools over the past four years.35 Furthermore,Ofsted reports that “figures indicate that the very large majority of schools manage behaviour well andengage pupils effectively”.36

5. Nevertheless, serious behaviour and discipline issues are a problem for teachers in a very small minorityof schools and minor but significant behaviour issues are experienced by many teachers within schools.Teachers cannot teach and pupils cannot learn if there is not a well-ordered environment within the school.In March 2009, the NASUWT conducted a survey of members over one week and received 10,259 responsesboth from teachers and headteachers. The key finding of the survey was that the problem of “low leveldisruption of lessons” was a concern for teachers in their attempts to deliver high quality teaching andlearning experiences to their pupils. Additionally, the survey found that two thirds of teachers had reportedthat 30 minutes or longer was lost as a result of pupil indiscipline or poor behaviour. The loss of teachingand learning time is strongly related to the original capacity within schools to deliver support to theclassroom teacher when it is needed.

35 Christine Gilbert (2009), The Annual Report of Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Education, Children’s Services and Skills2008–09, TSO: London p 7.

36 Ibid, p 28.



Supporting and reinforcing positive behaviour in schools

6. A key issue when examining pupil behaviour and indiscipline in schools is the nature of support givento classroom teachers. The NASUWT has found that a major feature of schools that experience poorbehaviour is that they do not consistently support the professional expertise and judgement of classroompractitioners. In the March 2009 survey, a small majority of teachers said that they lacked confidence aboutwhether they would receive swift support when referring a disruptive pupil to school management (61%) anda larger majority of teachers said that they lacked confidence about whether they would receive timelyfeedback about a pupil when they were returned to the class (71%). One in five teachers (21%) stated thatthere were no mechanisms for the withdrawal of poorly behaved pupils from classrooms.

7. Although an overwhelming majority of teachers reported that their school did have a behaviour policy(93%), it is clear that schools need to be better geared towards supporting teachers in the classroom inmanaging pupil behaviour and must therefore be in touch with and supportive of classroom practice. Thiswill require workforce changes in schools ensuring that all school leaders have a genuine commitment to anengagement with the classroom and the demands of classroom teaching.

8. There must be a greater recognition of the effect that a child’s life outside of school has on theirattitudes to learning and in their relationships with others in school. The relationship between outsideexperiences and behaviour in school is well established, for example, the NASUWT has commissioned amajor piece of research and subsequent toolkit concerning gangs and schools.

9. A key component of support for behaviour must involve greater collaboration and a sharedresponsibility between schools and other bodies within the local community. This support should be agenuine attempt to share ideas, expertise and resources to ensure that all members within a school feelsupported. School Behaviour and Attendance Partnerships, designed to address the underlying problemsleading to poor behaviour and attendance in schools, emerged following an expert review led by Sir AlanSteer and have begun to make a significant impact in improving behaviour and attendance. The CoalitionGovernment’s decision to revoke the requirement for such partnerships is therefore a regrettable andretrograde step that will harm developments to encourage cross-community support for schools inmanaging behaviour.

10. Furthermore, the ability of schools to pursue collaborative links will be more difficult following thepassage of the Academies Act 2010. Academies and free schools are under no obligation to collaborate withlocal schools in their areas. There is a real issue that the Government’s academies policy could lead to theconcentration of behaviour problems in particular schools. Evidence from academy schools to datedemonstrates that academies are far less likely to collaborate with other local schools, were more likely toexclude pupils and less likely to admit pupils excluded from other schools.

11. Schools need support to be able to offer early identification and intervention for pupils whosebehaviour is likely to escalate further. This must involve both support and challenge for pupils and theirfamilies. This will only be managed if services both within schools and within local authorities areappropriately resourced, with effective levels of training.

12. Furthermore, there are factors related to the presentment of poor behaviour, including particularspecial education needs. It is important that in an atmosphere in which cuts are touted for all majordepartments within Government that recognition is given to the importance of resourcing appropriate andeffective SEN diagnosis, guidance and support.

13. A crucial aspect of encouraging good behaviour within schools is to have a broad, balanced andengaging curriculum in schools that is relevant to pupils’ lives and offers choice, as well as parity, betweenacademic and vocational learning. The NASUWT would be concerned by any attempt that would lead toclosing down pupils’ choices and the narrowing of the curriculum or over a prescription of curriculum andpedagogy. It is vital that teachers are able to exercise their professional judgement in relation to the teachingof a common curriculum entitlement for pupils.


14. There is a distinction to be made between challenging behaviour in schools and low-level disruption,but both occurrences can be to the detriment of learning within schools. The impact of challenging andviolent behaviour is more obvious and overt and must be dealt with in an effective and supportive mannerfor school staff who are witness to it. For example, the NASUWT has reflected teacher and public concernabout gangs and the involvement of young people in violent crime within particular areas by commissioninga study by Perpetuity Research and Consultancy International (PRCI) Ltd on gangs and schools with a finalreport published in 2009. Crucially, the study found that gang-related behaviours originate in contextsoutside schools. The research found that schools need to work consistently and comprehensively with thepolice, youth services and others to identify young people at risk from gangs and in the delivery of effectivepreventative measures. The NASUWT launched a toolkit for schools to use in April 2010.

15. The NASUWT believes that schools should operate a zero-tolerance approach to all forms ofbullying, including prejudice-related bullying. Schools must have in place effective systems to ensure thatthere is accurate recording and reporting of all forms of prejudice-related bullying against both pupils and



staff. We would expect the Government to insist on data collection at school level and use the data to informplanning and decision making and for policies and procedures to be developed in consultation withworkforce unions to tackle these problems.

16. The impact of low-level disruption, because it is on a smaller scale, is more cumulative. Examples oflow-level disruption reported in the March 2009 survey included lateness, refusal to listen to the teacher,unwillingness to engage with the work, conduct within class and arrival without correct equipment. Eachof these examples taken on their own would be profoundly frustrating but it is the very nature of thepersistence of this behaviour that is the problem. For many teachers it is the unrelenting facet of thesebehaviours, together with the effect that they have both on workload and on teaching and learning, thatleads to stress and ill health.

17. There is a need for schools therefore to ensure that their behaviour policies accurately reflect theimpact of such behaviour problems upon all members of staff and have effective procedures for dealing withit. However, having a policy is not enough. Schools must be encouraged to act upon an individual teacher’sconcerns and develop a consistent approach to ensure that issues are identified. The policy therefore needsto accurately reflect the best practice to be applied.

18. Of particular concern in recent years has been the growth of the use of digital media within thiscontext. There is growing evidence of the use of digital equipment and social networking sites by pupils inan inappropriate way to bully and intimidate others. This phenomenon is referred to as “cyberbullying”. Atan extreme level there are reported cases of students filming each other in acts of anti-social behaviour withinschool, and “acting up” to the camera, in order to later share this information with their peers on YouTubeor Facebook. Following representations from the NASUWT, the DCSF had begun to revise guidance toschools over this issue. However, schools have been slow to act on this and more pressure still needs to beplaced by the Government on internet service providers (ISPs) to address this problem.

Approaches taken by schools and local authorities to address challenging behaviour, including the use of fixedterm and permanent exclusions

19. The NASUWT is concerned that targets, official or unofficial, to reduce or inhibit the number ofexclusions within a school could have a detrimental effect on the ability of that school to fulfil its obligations,in respect of teaching and learning, to its pupils. Headteachers must be empowered to exercise theirprofessional judgement in the use of exclusion. In the most severe cases, headteachers must be supported inexcluding the pupil permanently. Decisions to exclude a pupil must balance the interests of the excludedpupil against the interests of all the other members of the school community.

20. Furthermore, independent appeals panels should not direct the reinstatement of a pupil where thedisciplinary process has been carried out without any procedural irregularities of a kind that might haveaffected the fairness of the procedure. The NASUWT welcomed the Secretary of State for Education’s pre-election pledge to abolish these panels and would urge the Government to carry out this pledge.

21. The lodestones of good practice within this area are consistency and collaboration. Schools that havea good approach to addressing challenging behaviour apply the rules consistently and appropriately andensure that all people involved in decisions about exclusions have current training, up to and includingschool governors.

22. Collaboration through mechanisms such as Children’s Trusts are so important within this areabecause of the need to support schools to make difficult decisions in excluding pupils, including on apermanent basis, and ensuring that those pupils are able to have a second chance in a new institution, withappropriate communication between the two schools about the nature and challenge of pre-existingbehaviours and strategies used. Schools that collaborate effectively and share information openly are alsoable to avoid the stigma of permanent exclusions for some students by using managed moves. These are onlyeffective when schools operate in an arena of trust and are appropriately supported by the local authority.The NASUWT is extremely concerned that managed moves in particular will be almost impossible tooperate in a marketised system of education where academies and free schools are expected to competeagainst each other.


23. Parents and carers have a key role in ensuring that children attend school ready to learn. Engagementof parents and carers in managing their children’s behaviour is therefore a crucial part of the overall picturein changing pupil behaviour within schools. This engagement must, however, be placed in a context in whichparents and carers are given appropriate support and feel empowered to make choices for their children.This is a vital role for wider services for children and families, particularly in terms of supporting familiesat greatest risk. Support staff in schools can also play a crucial role in building links between the school andhome. The NASUWT is concerned that budget cuts could undermine the provision of children and familysupport services.




24. Schools must have access to high quality alternative provision as there are some instances in whichit may be appropriate to exclude a pupil temporarily from a mainstream school and place them within thisenvironment. A short spell in an alternative provision setting can be mutually beneficial for both the schooland the pupil and can ensure that the pupil is able to return to school ready and focused on learning and nolonger at risk of permanent exclusion. However, for too long, alternative provision has been under-resourced, leading to a variable quality of provision. Alternative provision needs to be a core part of theoverall education provision in every locality, run by the local authority as part of a strategic overview ofeducation within that area and accountable to the local populace. Given that 75% of pupils within pupilreferral units (PRUs) are SEN, they must be appropriately resourced, with the facility to retain and recruita high quality workforce. The NASUWT is extremely concerned that proposed cuts following theComprehensive Spending Review (CSR) will further exacerbate this problem.

Links between behaviour and attendance in schools

25. There is an enormous amount of evidence that links truancy to poor behaviour and anti socialbehaviour both inside and outside of schools. Within schools this may be as a result of the fact that a pupilmay not be able to interact with the work they are required to do or may be as a result of a wider educationalor social need. Truancy can also take place because of bullying within schools. This emphasises the need forthe correct policies and procedures to be in place as identified in paragraph 15. The key to tackling truancyin schools lies with early intervention to identify and provide support for specific SEN students and forschools and parents to be vigilant in monitoring deteriorating attitudes to school. Parental support andengagement is crucial in tackling this issue and demonstrates the need for ensuring that parental engagementis a focus for all schools and communities.


26. The NASUWT welcomed the additional measures announced on 7 July in broad terms but isconcerned about the lack of detail regarding their implementation. The NASUWT has campaigned formany years for anonymity for teachers facing allegations by pupils up to the point of conviction. However,there are still concerns about the wide variation in the recording and reporting by the police of informationthat is connected with an allegation and its investigation. The key issue is that teachers are particularlyvulnerable to false allegations by pupils and this can have a devastating effect on their professionalreputation, as well as their personal well being. Teachers have found that due to inconsistencies in reportingby police, a Criminal Records Bureau (CRB) check will make reference to an allegation, even though it isunfounded, and thus blight career prospects. This issue must urgently form the basis of future guidance fromthe Government to ensure that this is not allowed to continue to happen.

27. The NASUWT was concerned that the changes to the notice period for detentions and the extensionof a teacher’s power to search were measures that would need to be handled carefully by schools, ensuringthat there is clear communication with parents and pupils, alongside a robust and accessible schoolbehaviour policy. Additionally, guidance about the use of force for safety or restraint must be shapedcarefully to ensure that teachers and headteachers are not left vulnerable to disciplinary or legal action.

September 2010

Memorandum submitted by Voice: the Union for Education Professionals

Executive Summary

Positive management of pupil behaviour is essential if quality learning is to take place in schools. Effectivesystems need to be in place to support and reinforce positive behaviour. Such systems will include a clearlydefined behaviour management policy which has the support of parents, pupils and staff. Sanctions andrewards need to be applied in a consistent way and supported by regular staff training. While extremelyvolatile behaviour is rare, many staff are put under inordinate and unacceptable stress by low-levelindiscipline. Challenging behaviour can be addressed most effectively through a multi-faceted approach,incorporating a ladder of sanctions, positive engagement with parents and assistance from external agencies.Decisions about disciplinary penalties should always be made on the basis of fair and transparent principles,unhindered by political interference. Discipline is not just the responsibility of the school; parents also playa key role, both in promoting good behaviour and in being held to account for their children’s misbehaviour.Alternative arrangements need to be made when poor behaviour is linked with special educational needs. Insuch cases, appropriate assessment and early intervention should lead to an effective plan being developed,alongside the resources required for its implementation. Alternative provision for pupils excluded fromschool often lacks efficacy and represents poor value for money, while schemes based on internal seclusionare generally both more effective and less expensive. Exclusion is very ineffective as a means of improvingbehaviour and attainment, not least because it disenfranchises pupils from their right to be educated.



Improvements in attainment, attendance and behaviour are inter-related, so it is important that pupils whoare excluded are given alternative access to a high quality education and the opportunity to address the issuesunderlying their behaviour, whilst also safeguarding the right of other pupils to complete their educationwithout disruption. The Government’s proposals for strengthening teachers’ disciplinary and search powersare generally welcomed, but it is important that clear guidance is given on how these powers should beenforced to ensure consistency across the country and to avoid malicious allegations or threats of litigationbeing made against teachers. The proposal to grant teachers anonymity whilst accusations against them bypupils are being investigated is especially welcomed as staff, as well as children, are entitled to protection,especially as careers can easily be blighted by false allegations.

Introduction

Voice: the union for education professionals is pleased to have the opportunity to respond to theCommittee’s inquiry into behaviour and discipline. Voice is an independent trade union, founded in 1970by two Essex teachers, Colin Leicester and Ray Bryant, who fathered together a group of like-mindedprofessional teachers who were prepared to commit themselves to the principle of not striking. The unionnow has 35,000 members across all sectors of education (early years, primary, secondary and tertiary),including teachers, lecturers, school and college leaders, teaching assistants and other school support staff,nannies, nursery nurses, childcare and early years professionals, centrally employed staff working for LocalAuthorities in education or children’s services, students on teacher training or childcare courses, and self-employed tutors and consultants. Formerly known as The Professional Association of Teachers, the unionre-branded in February 2008 as Voice: the union for education professionals. Independent of the TradesUnion Congress and not affiliated to any political party, Voice prefers to use the force of argument ratherthan the argument of force and, as such, relies on the power of effective negotiation rather than resortingto strikes or any other form of industrial action.

Comments

1. There are many ways of supporting and reinforcing positive behaviour in schools. Each school shouldhave a clear and robust behaviour management policy, which is regularly reviewed with input and agreementfrom parents, pupils and staff. This policy should be publicised, eg through home/school agreements, onschool noticeboards, with regular reminders during registration, tutorial and assembly sessions, and shouldbe implemented consistently. The policy should specify sanctions and rewards, which should be applied inthe same way by all staff. Staff should receive regular training in behaviour management and there shouldbe a supportive culture within schools which allows staff to raise concerns with senior management withoutfear of being stigmatised. Managing behaviour should form a key part of teacher training programmes.Good behaviour can be promoted by thoughtful planning, appropriate lesson content and interest level, useof a variety of teaching techniques, opportunities for enjoyment, “hands-on” activities and curriculumdifferentiation which promote a sense of achievement for both pupils and staff. Good standards of teaching,clear expectations of pupils and effective inter-personal relationships create an infrastructure for goodbehaviour. In order to gain the respect of the pupils and maintain control, staff should be respectful, goodhumoured, fair, consistent and hard working. In doing this they provide pupils with role models for goodbehaviour. Respect is a two way affair and in giving respect it is expected that adults will receive respectfrom pupils.

2. The media constantly highlight incidents of poor behaviour in schools, ranging from vandalism tosexual assault, to serious physical assault. These headline-grabbing examples are not indicative of schoollife in general, but there is no doubt that behaviour and discipline issues are a major source of concern forschool staff. Teachers and teaching assistants are frequently confronted by “low level” behaviour issues.Low-level incidents can occur in the classroom (eg chattering, making unnecessary noise, interfering withother pupils’ equipment, being late for a lesson, eating or chewing gum in class, avoiding work, being cheeky,using mobile phones or other devices inappropriately, and general rowdiness) or outside of the classroom(eg running in the corridor, being unruly whilst waiting in a queue, loitering in “prohibited” areas, leavingthe premises without permission, etc.). There is no respite when incidents occur on a seemingly relentlessbasis and it is hardly surprising that recent research from a variety of sources cites pupil behaviour as oneof the top three causes of stress for teachers. Anecdotal reports from our members suggest that manyteachers feel unsupported when they are subjected to challenging behaviour by pupils. In many cases,persistent low-level disruption wears down members of staff to the point at which they have to take sickleave because of stress, anxiety or depression, and, in some cases, such staff become subjected to absencemanagement or capability procedures whilst they are off sick. The impact of pupils’ challenging behaviouron teachers is such that some teachers experience a loss of confidence or self esteem, become disheartenedor lose their motivation to teach, feel that they may lose self-control and behave rashly in a way that theymight later regret, apply for jobs in other schools, or even consider leaving the teaching profession.

3. Schools generally have a ladder of sanctions for challenging behaviour, beginning with warnings (someschools use a coloured card system), referral to a designated staff member, internal seclusion (eg a “time out”room or detention), liaison with parents/carers, fixed term exclusion, permanent exclusion or “managedmove” (whereby pupils are transferred to another school where they can be given a fresh start). At the sametime, strategies for promoting positive behaviour need to be put in place and any signs of troublesomebehaviour need to be identified at an early stage so that remedial action can be taken before the disruptive



behaviour escalates. Anecdotal feedback from members indicates that many schools are reluctant to followthrough the higher sanctions and, in particular, in recent years use of exclusions has been restricted on thebasis of political rather than educational grounds. In best practice cases, numbers of exclusions have beenreduced because schools have been able to recognise trigger points which enable pupils at risk of beingexcluded to be identified early enough for intervention strategies to be put in place, although in other casesschools have set up networks which have enabled them to transfer troublesome pupils in “managed moves”,which do not officially count as exclusions. Exclusions are relatively ineffective in acting as a deterrent,punishment or means of rehabilitation. It is important that those who are excluded, for whatever reason,have suitable places where they can continue their education, receive the support they need and then makea successful return to normal schooling. Exclusions are, however, effective in terms of making schools saferplaces for both staff and children, as it is both unfair and unsafe to allow the disruptive behaviour of aminority to interfere with the learning and well-being of the majority. For this reason, the sanction ofexclusion must remain an option when all other attempts to bring about the necessary improvement to achild’s behaviour have failed.

4. It is incumbent on schools to have very good communication processes in order to engage parents/carers, including home/school agreements, newsletters, details of the school behaviour policy in the schoolprospectus and on the website, flexible times for parents to liaise with staff, regular parental consultationevents, and use of the Education Welfare Service or internal family liaison facility. Parents have a part toplay in school discipline by promoting and providing role models for good behaviour and also by being heldto account for the actions of their children, especially for children below the age of criminal responsibility.Behaviour in school does not take place in a vacuum; it is influenced by what happens outside of school and,especially, by the home environment. Teachers cannot be expected to deliver a panacea for problems whichare not purely educational in origin. In order to ensure effective engagement with parents, it is vital thatparents/carers are provided with positive information about their children. If parents are contacted onlywhen it is necessary to communicate negative news to them, this is not conducive to the development of asupportive and positive partnership. Sharing positive information can help to maintain standards andpromote positive behaviour and attendance. Strategies might include sending home good news postcardson a regular basis and personal letters at the end of term, alongside occasional emails, text messages or phonecalls to communicate positive information about their children, and constructive dialogue at parents’evenings. Parents who feel that they are working in partnership with school, because of regular and mutualcommunication on positive (as well as negative) issues, are more likely to be positive in their support of staff,share information about issues that are affecting their children, and work constructively with the school overany problems that might arise. If communication with parents is predominantly concerned with negativebehaviour, it is more likely that parents will be confrontational towards staff and deny that there is aproblem, which leads to pressure being placed on pupils to improve in the absence of any necessary supportand, ultimately, calls for more expensive and extensive intervention to be provided.

5. Any robust policy on special educational needs must be founded on a clear understanding of whatthose needs are. If would be helpful for every school were to have its own dedicated and qualified SpecialEducational Needs Coordinator, rather than this important role simply being tagged on to the alreadyonerous workload of any member of the Senior Leadership Team. Parents and carers have knowledge oftheir children’s needs—educational, social, emotional and behavioural—and it is important that thisinformation is shared with the school as soon as a child is referred for admission to start a process of ongoingdialogue between home and school. Behaviour policies may need to be modified to accommodate situationswhere pupils cannot be held to be fully responsible for their behaviour because of identified specialeducational needs. However, it is very important that, in such circumstances, alternative strategies are putin place to manage the behaviour of such children rather than giving them carte blanche to behave in anyway they choose without recrimination. This could usefully include input from the multi-disciplinary teaminvolved with the child’s Common Assessment Framework form. It is not always more support that isneeded, but, rather, more appropriate support. Schools have risen to the challenge of becoming moreinclusive, which means that most schools now admit children with complex needs which, in the past, wouldhave prevented them from attending mainstream schools. In such situations, however, a proper assessmentmust be made of each child’s needs so that support can be tailored to individual circumstances. Instead, whatoften happens is that a generic support worker is allocated to a child without having received the necessaryspecialist training to deal with that particular child’s needs.

6. Alternative provision for pupils excluded from school often lacks efficacy and represents poor valuefor money. Places in Pupil Referral Units cost about four times as much as a secondary school place, but,in spite of such intensive financial support, such pupils are more likely to leave school with no qualifications,become unemployed, end up in prison and experience homelessness—all at great cost to society. Of course,the needs of pupils who show challenging behaviour must be balanced against the needs of the wider schoolcommunity. In this regard, exclusion must be retained at the ultimate sanction because if a pupil is preventingothers from learning by persistently interfering with the ability of teachers to teach, then action must betaken in order to safeguard the entitlement of the majority to be able to complete their education withoutdisruption. However, there are alternatives to exclusion which are both more effective and more cost-effectiveness. Some schools have set up on-site units to house pupils who would otherwise be excluded. Theseunits are self-contained and at a sufficient distance from the main school building to ensure that thebehaviour of children who would otherwise be excluded does not deprive other pupils of their education,



but also allows the needs of these children to be addressed without the need for more costly intervention.Such provision may also incorporate any alternative curriculum, often a more vocationally orientedcurriculum which is more relevant and appealing to pupils who have been disaffected by a more traditionalacademic provision. Another way in which this can be achieved is by arranging for such pupils to take upcollege places early (say, at age 14) on either a part-time or full-time basis. Some schools have evenintroduced schemes which allow pupils to opt for a transfer to another school, sometimes starting with atrial period. The use of internal seclusion strategies, whilst more common in secondary schools, may alsobe found in primary schools in the form of withdrawal activities and nurture groups, which enable pupilswho are at risk of being excluded to have access to an alternative curriculum and positive interventionstrategies either one-to-one or in small groups, where the more appropriate staffing ratios and use of staffwith specialist skills can be used to address some of the causes of poor behaviour in an attempt to rehabilitatechildren who demonstrate challenging behaviour.

7. There is a clear link between attendance and behaviour in schools. Truancy is an example oftroublesome behaviour and persistent absenteeism has a negative impact on academic achievement.Absenteeism leads to a loss of learning momentum as children lose contact with the curriculum, which, inturn, fuels further disengagement and disaffection, especially considering the risk of negative teacherattention on the child’s return to school. However, whilst this is true for voluntary absenteeism, it alsoapplies to absenteeism that is enforced by fixed term exclusions. Breaking the continuity of schooling, forwhatever reason, presents a major risk to the child, with potentially lifelong consequences. Fixed-termexclusions often have the effect of giving pupils licence to truant whenever they misbehave, and by drivingattendance down in this way, schools also drive their attainment down. Attendance can often be improvedby ensuring that a diverse and relevant curriculum is offered with interesting lessons which engage and holdthe attention of pupils, combined with regular staff training focusing on developing good relationshipswith pupils.

8. On 7 July 2010, the Government proposed to strengthen behaviour and discipline in schools by (a)ending the rule requiring schools to give 24 hours’ notice for detentions, (b) allow staff to search pupils forpersonal electronic devices, pornography, cigarettes, legal highs and fireworks, (c) strengthen guidance andlegislation surrounding the use of force in the classroom, and (d) give anonymity to teachers accused bypupils and take other measures to protect against false allegations. These proposals are generally welcomedinsofar as they are intended to reduce bureaucracy, further protect staff and empower teachers in theclassroom. Some of the proposals, however, may potentially create further difficulties. The ending of the 24hour detention rule may allow teachers to deal with poor behaviour immediately, but the measure may harmstaff-parent relations as parents will legitimately worry if children arrive home late without priorexplanation, and some children may have difficulty getting home if they are unable to leave school on time.Regarding the power to search, many teachers will feel uncomfortable in this role. Staff must not be requiredto search and, ideally, any searches should be undertaken by trained security staff. In relation to the use offorce for safety or restraint, there is increased potential for false accusations against staff if schools are toabandon their “no touch” policies and teachers are encouraged to use force whenever they feel the need to.If policies are to change in this area, there must be consistency across Local Authorities and all parties (staff,pupils and parents) should be clear of the correct interpretation of these powers. Anonymity for teachers isvery welcome and long overdue. Voice has campaigned for this for many years as it essential to preventmalicious gossip, media scrums and the ruining of lives and careers. Again, consistent practice andinterpretation are crucial. In particular, there is a concern that the use of “soft information” on CRB formsmay still ruin the careers of innocent teachers unnecessarily.

September 2010

Memorandum submitted by Sir Alan Steer

1. Current standard of behaviour in schools. There is no evidence to support the view that there is a crisisin the standard of behaviour in English schools. The evidence from Ofsted and the professional associationsis that standards are good in the large majority of schools. This does not indicate that some schools, someteachers and some children experience serious problems. In these circumstances intelligent and effectiveaction is required to raise standards.

2. Early intervention. There appears to be general agreement that early intervention is a basicrequirement for any effective programme to raise standards of behaviour. Sadly policy and practice makethis very difficult to achieve.

— Funding. The funding imbalance between primary and secondary school sectors preventsappropriate intervention at the times when it would be most effective. Much subsequentexpenditure by secondary schools is ineffective “catch up”.

— Targeted funding. There is a reluctance to ring fence funding for specific purposes. I support theview that ring fenced funding should be kept to the minimum, but would suggest that if we wanteffective early intervention we have to target funding for this purpose.



— S.E.N. A very difficult area, but one that is ripe for a review. We need to improve the skill levels ofkey staff in schools to ensure more accurate identification of children with S.E.N. We need tochange the mindset of teachers and parents so that in most cases the focus is on remedying thespecial need, rather than processing it through the period of compulsory schooling. The recentreport on this topic by Ofsted should be seen as a key piece of evidence by the Committee.

— Children and Adolescent Mental Health Service. While there are centres of excellence the generalstandard of this service is far from satisfactory. Resource levels are insufficient for need, but inmany areas operating practices are unsatisfactory. The delay in receiving an appointment can oftenbe 9 months, with examples existing of 18 month delays. Children with mental health problems cancause significant disruption in schools.

3. Government policy on school autonomy. I am thoroughly supportive of the principle of schoolautonomy and the empowerment of the professional front line. As a headteacher who experienced theintroduction and implementation of Local Management of Schools I witnessed the improvements it broughtto overall standards. The proper exercise of autonomy demands a clarity over the boundaries in which itoperates. Without this clarity there is the danger that the exercise of autonomy by some schools willadversely affect some of their own children and the children in other neighbouring schools. A key decisionby the Secretary of State has been to remove the requirement for all schools to be members of Behaviourand Attendance partnerships. In my opinion this is a profound mistake.

Government ministers and their advisers do not always visualise the impact of their policies on schoolsand children. The current position on school autonomy illustrates the point. Small primary schools will findit difficult to enjoy the benefits of autonomy as they lack the capacity to take advantage of them. Many ofthem will be losing services they currently get from the Local Authority as a result of the cuts. They will needto establish support systems with local primary and secondary schools. For all schools the advantages ofmaking in partnership are significant. The ability to make joint staff appointments and to organise joint stafftraining would empower schools and make a reality of school autonomy.

The argument that partnership working should be left totally to the choice of the schools assumes thatall school leaders will act in an altruistic manner and places the interests of individual schools ahead of thoseof their children.

4. Alternative Provision. The standards currently are varied to such an extent that in some areas childrenreceive minimal provision. This places them at risk. Government needs to implement immediately therequirement that all AP providers should meet minimum standards. These need to then be inspected asprevious history indicates that without more visible inspection, some Local Authorities fail to meet theirstatutory responsibilities.

5. Behaviour Review 2008–10. In this review I made a great number of recommendations that would bepolitically uncontroversial. I would urge the Committee to examine these recommendations and use themto guide their thinking.

November 2010

Memorandum submitted by National Strategies

1. Introduction

1.1 This paper responds to the stated terms of reference for the inquiry in sections 2–8 below.

1.2 Since 2003, the National Strategies’ Behaviour and Attendance programme has supported schools inimproving behaviour and has sought to build schools’ capacity in relation to behaviour so they are lessreliant on external support. The paper presents the views of the National Strategies and should not be readas representing the views of the current government.

1.3 The most recent Ofsted behaviour grades, based on National Strategies’ data, show 80% of allsecondary maintained schools (2498) judged by Ofsted as having good or outstanding behaviour and 19%(592) rated as having satisfactory behaviour.

1.4 The number of schools judged to have inadequate behaviour is 31. This number has risen as a resultof the change in the criteria used by Ofsted in September 09 when it had previously been a downward trendbetween 05 and 09 from 72 to 18.

1.5 Successful practice exists where the following key elements are present:

— a positive school ethos that promotes ownership and responsibility for a behaviour policy that isconsistently implemented;

— access to high quality teaching and learning with flexibility for personalisation to secure theengagement of all pupils; and

— a range of opportunities for staff to participate in relevant professional development and tonetwork with other professionals to share best practice.



2. How to support and reinforce positive behaviour in schools

2.1 Positive behaviour in schools is most dependent on high quality teaching and learning. Thissignificant point is recognised by Sir Alan Steer in two reports Learning behaviour: Report of thePractitioners’ Group (2006) and Learning behaviour: Lessons learned (2009).

2.2 Key issues for schools are:

— the need to address low level disruption whilst promoting and reinforcing positive behaviour;

— the need to maintain a consistent approach to improving behaviour across the whole schoolcommunity; and

— the need to extend understanding of what works well to all members of the school community andother agencies working with the school and/or its pupils and to foster high aspirations andexpectations.

2.3 In response to these issues, our experience suggests that the most effective approaches to support andreinforce positive behaviour include:

— Strengthening the links between the quality of teaching and learning and positive behaviour—resulting in a strong alignment between school improvement, raising standards, teaching andlearning and positive behaviour and engagement in policy development. All 20 lead behaviourschools identified the quality of teaching and learning as a key contributor to improving behaviour.

— Securing time and commitment to develop a positive whole school ethos, giving staff anopportunity to discuss pupil behaviour and develop a shared understanding of the principles thatunderpin a consistent approach, linking learning and behaviour expectations.

— A secondary school in South Gloucestershire LA, is recognised by Ofsted as an improvingschool, with a positive ethos and strong sense of collective responsibility amongst staff. Workon improving attainment and behaviour has been underpinned by a focus on developing thesocial and emotional skills of pupils with a notable positive impact on reducing the need forexclusions.

— An unpublished report on the National Strategies’ tracker school project by Dr RobinBanerjee, University of Sussex (10 July) on the impact of work to develop the social andemotional skills of pupils in 60 schools reports positive benefits. The report found that in these60 schools social and emotional skills and school ethos were directly related to attainment andthe use of this approach was linked to better quality relationships between pupils, higherOfsted ratings for behaviour and lower levels of persistent absence.

— Focusing on a positive approach to behaviour improvement through developing a culture thatcelebrates success rather than one that reacts through sanctions. Pupils respond well to highexpectations which are shared routinely in lessons/tutor time. On receiving an Ofsted inadequatebehaviour rating, a secondary school in Surrey LA reviewed approaches to behaviour management,shifting the focus from negative sanctions to planned interventions. At its recent Section 5 inspectionthe school received an outstanding grade for behaviour.

— Identifying the key roles and responsibilities of senior leaders and governors to give behaviour ahigh profile:

“Revisions to the roles and responsibilities within the senior leadership team have meant thatsenior staff have a clearer focus for their work and are more accountable for improving standardsand leading improvement. This has strengthened the effectiveness of the senior leadership team”(Extract from primary school Ofsted Report in Newcastle LA).

— Promoting visible staff role models, leading positive behaviour at all levels and at all times acrossthe school. This includes the use of practical classroom strategies to instil staff confidence,resilience and skills to promote de-escalation and engagement. The National Strategies havedeveloped the leadership skills of the full range of staff by using the National Programme forSpecialist Leaders in Behaviour and Attendance (NPSLBA) professional developmentprogramme. From December 2006, 7331 participants have followed the programme.

“The NPSLBA helped cover supervisors to develop skills in a confident and positive mannerhelping them to develop strategies in dealing with different situations as they occur in theclassroom” (Assistant headteacher from a lead behaviour school in Northumberland LA).

— Using student leaders to provide good role models of mature and respectful young people. Pupilsfeel greater ownership of the behaviour in their schools when they are trained as pupilambassadors, showing enormous pride and encouraging others to share responsibility for ongoingsuccess. A secondary school in Tower Hamlets LA has adopted a student ambassador model. Pupilsreceive intensive training to act as school leaders and train others to use student voice to improvebehaviour.

— Achieving a consistent approach and skills to monitor behaviour, measuring the impact of allplanned interventions through data analysis and self-review.



3. The nature and level of challenging behaviour by pupils in schools, and the impact upon schools and their staff

3.1 Challenging pupil behaviour, in whatever form it takes, whether in inadequate behaviour schools orwithin particular groups in other schools, can impact on the emotional health and well-being of school staff.

3.2 From our experience, schools that are aware of the possible impact of challenging behaviour on staffabsence and recruitment and retention invest resources, where possible, in professional development andstaff well-being. Staff are supported to respond confidently and effectively to challenging behaviours by apositive school ethos, clear expectations, well-defined roles and responsibilities, early interventionprocedures and consistency in approach.

3.3 Based on feedback from schools, there is a range of challenging behaviours of individuals and groupsof pupils that demand staff responses:

— Tension emerging between pupil groups from different areas.

— Verbal threats to staff and pupils.

— Violence to staff and pupils.

— Use of knives and potential weapons.

— Drug use.

— Complex and multiple behaviours such as attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) andautistic spectrum disorder (ASD).

3.4 We are prepared to discuss the challenging behaviours that have a higher profile at the oral evidencestage, if the Committee wishes, focusing on effective school responses to different types of these challengingbehaviour.

4. Approaches taken by schools and local authorities to address challenging behaviour, including fixed-termand permanent exclusions

4.1 Early intervention and working in partnership with other schools, local services and the widercommunity to draw on local expertise and resources are of critical importance in addressing challengingbehaviour, including exclusions.

4.2 For schools and LAs, challenges exist. They need to:

— get the right balance between rewards and sanctions including early intervention and exclusions;

— meet the diverse needs of pupils including those vulnerable and at risk of exclusion; and

— access effective external support including from other schools.

4.3 Early intervention

An effective early intervention strategy removes the barriers to learning faced by pupils. Data analysis isessential and informs a “continuum of support” which includes differentiated teaching and learning, smallgroup work, withdrawal units and one to one support. Provision is managed by the school, supported bylocal agencies. One example is:

— offering a package of one hour meetings between a pastoral teacher and a pupil, focusing on self-awareness and strategies to manage feelings. For pupils involved, behaviour improved and fixedterm exclusions were reduced by 60% and repeat exclusions reduced from 33% to 13% (Alternativesto Exclusion in a secondary school in Gloucestershire LA).

4.4 Working in partnership

Effective partnership working is characterised by:

— A commitment to shared responsibility to improve outcomes for pupils in a locality.

— Schools and local partners having a good understanding of pupil profiles.

— Shared expertise and resources to address the underlying causes of poor behaviour.

Examples of successful approaches are:

— collaborative working between three schools, including a PRU, inviting parents/carers to workwith staff to develop skills to support their child in school and at home. Positive outcomes centredon increased confidence through strong relationships between schools and parents/carers andimproved engagement of pupils in learning (Southend LA development group).

— narrowing attainment gaps for boys at KS4 by working in partnership with a local agency toimprove boys’ motivation. The intervention resulted in improved attainment (60% up one gradeor more in Maths; 63% increased attendance; 46% reduction in detentions; 50% reduction in fixedterm exclusions) at a secondary school in Gloucestershire LA.

4.5 A key element of effective partnership-working is self-sustaining networks. These help to ensure thatpractice is shared, with school staff supporting each other and developing new practice by:



— Extending staff skills through outreach from alternative providers and PRUs, helping to improvebehaviour and giving staff confidence to address low level disruption before it escalates.

— Supporting effective managed moves to other schools in local partnerships.

— Using permanent cover staff to reduce pupil access to unfamiliar supply staff. A secondary schoolin Coventry LA introduced this approach, identifying it as a key factor in receiving an outstandingbehaviour grade at last inspection.

5. Ways of engaging parents and carers in managing their children’s challenging behaviour

5.1 The National Strategies promote the importance of family involvement in improving behaviour.Schools may be on the third/fourth generations of families and issues are sometimes repeated without anyrecognition that schools can intervene to change established patterns. Often schools have difficulty inengaging with hard to reach parents.

5.2 Schools often highlight that parents/carers lack confidence in communication with their children andorganising family activities. Schools that have been successful in transforming relationships have providedopportunities for parents to become engaged in activities to support their children’s learning both at homeand in school. Building the confidence of the parent/carer provides motivation for the child and enhancesthe relationship between families and schools, with a common purpose. Effective strategies are:

— working with parents to contribute to the development of a positive school ethos. In a leadbehaviour school in South Gloucestershire LA, sessions on school ethos and social and emotionalskills were offered to parents/carers resulting in improved pupil attitudes to school and betterattendance, behaviour and attainment;

— providing training for parents that focuses on effective parenting and family relationships. WirralLA “Family Works” consists of a training programme for over 1,000 parents each year. Data showsthat pupils whose parents attended Family Works scored, on average, 10% higher in writing and6% higher in reading at the end of KS2 tests. Families in socially disadvantaged areas benefit most;

— engaging parents in behaviour policy review and developing classroom rules. Parents act asadvocates to strengthen home school partnerships, wanting the school to improve from its lastgood behaviour rating (a secondary school in Oldham LA);

— developing drop-in resource/school centres for specialist advice and support for pupils andfamilies. In a secondary school in Cornwall LA, the centre met a range of pupil needs and providedreferral to multi-agency support; and

— promoting the use of parenting contracts for pupils with challenging behaviour. Contracts workwell when the school part of the contract involves supporting the parent/carer with strategies, skillsand confidence to use the same strategies consistently at home. A secondary school in LiverpoolLA used a primary support model for tutor groups in year 7.

6. The efficacy of alternative provision for pupils excluded from school because of their behaviour

6.1 Since the publication of Back on Track in 2008, the National Strategies has supported thedevelopment of alternative provision. Pupils need to view themselves as learners and in the best provisionpupils indicate that staff do not give up on them. In some cases alternative provision has offered pupils themost stability and security in their school life.

6.2 Personalised curriculum planning based on knowledge of pupil needs is at the heart of effectivealternative provision. A flexible combination of accredited learning opportunities in schools, PRUs, FEcolleges, voluntary agencies and alternative work-based provision builds on pupil strengths, acceleratinglearning and engagement. Successful provision is set within a continuum that fully utilises in-schoolprovision, local services, the voluntary sector and the community. This provision sometimes includes:

— Locality-based partnerships of schools, FE and alternative providers working together to ensurethat courses available meet pupil needs and are linked to potential employment and furthertraining. Provision and pupil progress is overseen by a lead person who monitors outcomes.

— Support teams working with vulnerable pupils during school holidays, providing transitionalsupport on leaving school to ensure that personal stresses do not undermine ability to continueeducation. Wolverhampton LA has a highly skilled team of psychologists on call to support need.

— Alternative providers investing in the best staff and accessing high quality professionaldevelopment such as NPSLBA. Staff skills need to be of the highest quality to focus on raising pupilachievement and re-engaging disenchanted learners. The use of assessment is strong andexpectations are high, with an emphasis on building self esteem, the personal and social skills ofpupils and families and celebrating success. Halton LA provides high quality CPD to alternativeproviders, who meet to access training and act as a support group to share skills and approaches.

— Responding to changing pupil profiles with headteachers providing feedback to the LA andalternative provider funding bodies on how flexible provision has met pupil needs.



— Alternative providers focusing on key skills in Maths and English to support reintegration intomainstream schooling when the pupil is ready.


7.1 There are strong links between behaviour and attendance. (See appendix one).

7.2 In many schools where behaviour has improved, attendance has also improved. Pupils are more likelyto attend a school with a safe, secure and calm learning environment, with a strong school ethos, wherebullying is unlikely to occur.

7.3 Complementary examples of effective practice exist such as strong leadership with high expectations,a positive whole school ethos supported by a unified staff team that demonstrates consistency in approachand robust data analysis that informs and tracks the impact of interventions.

7.4 In Essex LA, education welfare officers (EWOs) took part in NPSLBA and developed school actionplans for attendance as part of their workplace activity, as well as confidently-led training for schools withhigh levels of persistent absence, supported by personalised training materials. The training focused onimproving behaviour through focused classroom strategies as well as attendance to achieve positiveoutcomes for pupils.

8. How special educational needs can best be recognised in schools’ policies on behaviour and discipline

8.1 The National Strategies focuses on improving outcomes for pupils with special educational needs.Elements of this work are used to support development of behaviour and discipline policies to meetpupils’ needs:

— Some staff lack the skills and confidence to meet the needs of pupils with special educational needs.It is important that the behaviour policy highlights the need for staff to analyse the cause of thebehaviour as this may be due to an area of underperformance, for example, in social developmentof communication. The National Strategies’ Inclusion Development Programme (IDP) providesstrategies for staff to support pupil needs, including behaviour and communication. Recently ayear 7 nurture group at a secondary school in Hammersmith and Fulham provided additional supportto pupils through CAMHS and speech and language therapists to address disengagement at year 6.With routine ongoing support in these two areas in the latter part of year 7, the pupils are now backon track.

— Most behaviour policies contain a section on rewards and sanctions to be used to improvebehaviour. It is important that the behaviour policy is clear about how rewards and sanctions maybe used with all pupils. As small step approaches are often used with pupils with special educationalneeds, they may appear to get more rewards for small outcomes and possibly also fewer sanctionsfor minor misdemeanours. For staff to implement the policy consistently and pupils to see thepolicy as fair, these flexibilities need to be clearly mapped out. In Nottingham City, the behaviourconsultant and Assessment for Learning adviser worked with schools to include pupils and parents ininitial behaviour policy development and ensure school representatives support pupils who may feelthey have been unfairly treated.

— Learning Support Units (LSUs) have a positive impact on attainment and attitudes to learning.The role of the LSU needs to be clearly defined in the behaviour policy as an area where learningneeds of pupils are met. The policy should describe the function of the unit and reaffirm the roleof mainstream school staff in providing a differentiated offer to pupils to meet needs in timetabledlessons. In schools where all staff spend time teaching in the LSU and where the most engagingcurriculum offer is presented, the smaller pupil-staff ratio can address issues swiftly.

October 2010



APPENDIX 1

LINKS BETWEEN ATTENDANCE AND BEHAVIOUR IN SCHOOLS

Correlation between changes in behaviour judgements and attendance judgements (as a number)

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Behaviourjudgementimproved

Behaviourjudgement

stayed the same

Behaviourjudgement got

worse

Attendance judgementimproved

Attendance judgementstayed the same

Attendance judgement gotworse

The percentage of secondary schools who had an Outstanding Ofsted judgement in ….

14%

16%

18%

20%

22%

24%

26%

28%

19th November2008

27th November2009

6th September2010

Behaviour

Attendance

Overall Judgement

The percentage of secondary schools who had a Good Ofsted judgement in ….

35%37%39%41%43%45%47%49%51%53%55%

19th November2008

27th November2009

6th September2010

Behaviour

Attendance

Overall Judgement



The percentage of secondary schools who had a Satisfactory Ofsted judgement in ….

0%5%

10%15%20%25%30%35%40%45%

19th November2008

27th November2009

6th September2010

Behaviour

Attendance

Overall Judgement

The percentage of secondary schools who had an Inadequate Ofsted judgement in ........

0%

1%

2%

3%

4%

5%

6%

7%

19th November2008

27th November2009

6th September2010

Behaviour

Attendance

Overall Judgement

Memorandum submitted by National Governors’ Association

1. Introduction

1.1 The National Governors’ Association (NGA) is the national membership body for school governors.NGA has several categories of membership comprising individual governors, school governing bodies andindependent local associations of school governing bodies. NGA seeks to represent the interests of all schoolgovernors and governing bodies in all phases and types of school (including academies).

2. How to support and reinforce positive behaviour in schools;

2.1 Governors are responsible for the strategic direction of the school, including its ethos. They havespecific statutory duties under Section 88(2) of the Education and Inspections Act 2006 (EIA 2006). Theseare to:

— make, and from time to time review, a written statement of general principles to guide theheadteacher in determining measures to promote good behaviour; and

— notify the headteacher and give him or her related guidance if the governing body wants theschool’s behaviour policy to include particular measures or address particular issues.

2.2 Governors are required by the Act to consult pupils, parents and staff about the statement of generalprinciples.

2.3 The headteacher has a legal duty to establish a behaviour policy and procedures, setting out thedetailed measures (rules, rewards sanctions and behaviour management strategies). In determining thebehaviour policy the headteacher must have regard to the governing body’s general statement of principles.

2.4 The NGA believes that it is right that the governors set the over-arching ethos, but that theheadteacher who is the lead professional in the school is responsible for determining the day to day rulesand associated sanctions and rewards which go hand in hand.



3. The nature and level of challenging behaviour by pupils in schools, and the impact upon schools and their staff

3.1 The NGA does not dismiss the challenges of poor behaviour, but would like to draw attention toOfsted’s findings (Annual Report 2009) which found that behaviour was good or outstanding in over 80%of schools. Poor behaviour impacts on both staff and other pupils and does not provide an effectiveenvironment for learning.


4.1 If there was a clear link between poor attendance and poor behaviour then the NGA would expectthat the percentage of schools with good or outstanding behaviour would be similar to those with good oroutstanding attendance records. This is not the case. Ofsted reported that just over 55% of schools had goodor outstanding attendance records—whereas as noted above 80% of schools had good or outstandingbehaviour.

5. The Government’s proposals regarding teachers’ powers to search pupils, removal of the requirement forwritten notice of detentions outside school hours, and the extent of teachers’ disciplinary powers, as announcedby the Department on 7 July

5.1 The NGA supports the Government’s proposed announcements about powers for teachers; it isessential that all staff, pupils and parents are clear about teachers’ powers in these areas.

September 2010

Memorandum submitted by the Association of School and College Leaders

Introduction

1. The Association of School and College Leaders (ASCL) represents 15,000 members of the leadershipteams of maintained and independent schools and colleges throughout the UK. This places the associationin a particularly good position to present evidence to this inquiry.

2. We would draw the committee’s attention to work that has already been completed on behaviour,particularly the work of the group chaired by Sir Alan Steer (2009) and the Practitioners’ Group (2005).

3. We hope that the committee recognises that the vast majority of schools are calm well-ordered placeswhere violent, disruptive behaviour is not a significant issue: a view supported by evidence from Ofsted.

4. This report can only identify a number of the key points on such a broad topic and the association ishappy to provide further information as required.

How to support and reinforce positive behaviour in schools

5. Schools should aim for the highest possible standards of student behaviour.

6. Schools should develop a positive ethos within their school community. Pupils need to be engaged inthe life of the school, consulted through pupil voice and their leadership and decision making skillsdeveloped.

7. What the school expects of students should be clear and understood by all. Ideally the students andtheir parents should be involved in setting these expectations. These expectations should be displayedaround the school. A number of schools have built on the idea of “Rights and Responsibilities” to helpdetermine expectations of behaviour.

8. The student support system of a school should ensure that every pupil has someone who knows themwell and is able to support them with their learning and development. Specific additional support may needto be focused on those young people that are particularly vulnerable. A number of schools have usedlearning mentors effectively in this role.

9. To promote good order schools not only need to have agreed policies and practices in place, but all thestaff in the school need to implement these policies consistently.

10. Inappropriate behaviour should always be challenged and the issues addressed. ASCL supports theprinciple of “early identification and intervention” to work with students with behavioural issues.

11. Where staff are having difficulties with behavioural management they should receive intensivesupport and coaching.


12. Schools have a challenging task, being expected to uphold the highest behavioural standards whilstchildren, their parents and society often observe very different behavioural norms outside school and atweekends.

13. It should be noted that the standards of behaviour in the vast majority of secondary schools are goodor better.



14. Media reports of declining standards are not built on any firm evidence base but tend to come froma false extrapolation from a few relatively isolated but often serious incidents.

15. Schools and their teachers do however face challenging behaviour from some young people and arange of strategies have been employed to deal with the situations faced.

16. There is a range of challenging behaviour. The most common is what is termed “low level disruption”to lessons through children not retaining concentration and failing to focus on their work. This isdemonstrated by actions such as, talking out of turn, shouting out, children out of their seat or generallyhindering other students. This type of behaviour can be a constant drain on staff energy and take the focusaway from developing the learning experiences for the students. Teachers and support assistants havehowever developed a wide range of strategies and approaches to both minimise the level of such disruptionand to deal with it when it occurs.

17. The more serious behavioural problems include:

— Complete refusal to follow staff instructions.

— Continual use of abusive language and use of threats to staff or other students.

— Racist incidents.

— Violence to staff or other students.

— Selling drugs.

— Weapon carrying and/or use.

— Gang culture and fighting.

18. All of the above behaviours can cause insecurity in staff and students and seriously affect staffconfidence and undermine their authority. Again schools have well developed approaches to dealing withthese situations but damage can be done to the ethos and culture of the school by the very fact that theseactivities take place even when dealt with well by the school.

19. Although a serious incident can have a negative impact on a school, dealing very well with such anincident can also have a positive impact by making it clear that such behaviour is not acceptable and showingwhat the consequences are should there be a similar event.

20. Schools also have to deal with issues between students and increasingly conflicts from outside theschool that move into the school and impact on school life.

21. The electronic age has brought with it a number of new challenges including cyber bullying andchallenges to school staff authority through social networking sites. Strategies to deal with these are beingused but are still at a developmental stage.

The Approaches taken by schools and local authorities to address challenging behaviour, including fixed-termand permanent exclusions

22. Prevention is of course far better than having to deal with unacceptable behaviour. Developing asuitable school ethos of respect among students, staff and parents is essential, as is having a curriculumappropriate to the needs of the students. Having a range of learning and teaching approaches that engagesand interests the young people will significantly reduce incidents of poor behaviour. Schools havecommented on the fact that the increased flexibility in the curriculum at both KS3 and KS4 has been helpfuland has helped improve behaviour.

23. Many schools have introduced training programmes for their staff on behavioural managementstrategies.

24. There is considerable experience in schools as to what works in successfully managing behaviour.Secondary schools have extremely well developed structures to support classroom teachers in terms ofdealing with disruptive pupils. These include:

— Coaching schemes led by experienced members of staff.

— Observation classrooms to observe experienced teachers at work.

— Peer support systems.

— Use of specially trained classroom support assistants.

— Support staff on call to support staff and deal with incidents.

— Withdrawal of students from the classroom.

— Use of extraction rooms following seriously disruptive incidents.

— Use of internal exclusion (with support for the student) as an alternative to external exclusion.

— Senior staff on call available to deal with serious incidents.

— Support and re-integration programmes for students that have been internally or externallyexcluded.



25. Many schools now have highly trained support staff in support of staff and to work with pupils thatare causing issues in the classroom or around the school. Schools use punishments both to deter pupils andas part of the process for students to understand that their actions have consequences.

26. Retaining students after the lesson and into a break or lunchtime is a very commonly used approach.After school detentions tend to be used for repeat offenders.

27. Fixed Term external exclusions are used for repeated “minor” incidents or for more serious offencessuch as:

— Violence to another pupil.

— Possession of drugs on the school premises.

— Theft.

— Damage to property.

— Racist incidents.

28. Although the vast majority of secondary schools will use any form of external exclusion only afterexhausting other alternatives there is a significant variation in the use of external exclusions.

29. Most secondary schools operate effectively in behavioural partnerships in which the use of “managedmoves” or “fresh starts” as a way of giving students a further opportunity to succeed within the schoolsystem without the need for a permanent exclusion. The success of such programmes is variable and manypartnerships have developed schemes of “time out” between the schools with specific work carried out withthe young person, often through a PRU or special school, to modify the student behaviour before their startin the new school.

30. In some places partnerships are still at a low level of effectiveness, particularly when some schoolsremain outside the group. In some cases trust is lacking and league tables, and the competition for pupils,inhibits openness and honesty.

31. Where partnerships are working well, behaviour collaboration has produced positive benefits inreducing the number of fixed term and permanent exclusions as well as improving attendance rates. Schoolsactively involve other specialists to work with students and multi agency working in schools is now fairlycommon. We see this working most effectively when the multi-disciplinary teams are based in schools. Thequality of such teams, their capacity to deal with the volume of work and their support for individualstudents is variable across the country.

32. Some schools have worked together to operate a unit on a neutral site. This is used as a buffer betweensix day and permanent exclusion. In authorities like Lancashire schools have set up “respite centres” whichpupils attend from the sixth day of exclusion. There are also examples of schools providing an “alternativeday” in order to reduce short term exclusions with pupils attending school at varying times and taught inseparate units.

33. Many secondary schools continue to complain that they do not have enough time from educationalpsychologists, social workers and education welfare staff. There has been an increase in the number of pupilsfrom mainstream schools suffering from mental health problems, often with consequent behaviouralproblems. Schools continue to be frustrated at the slow response time for access to children’s mental healthservices including child and family guidance.

34. The restriction placed on schools with the requirement to make educational arrangements forstudents on exclusions beyond the sixth day appears to have led schools to keep fixed term exclusions downto five days whenever possible. There are however some good examples of local arrangements working wellbut there are some organisational or cost issues particularly in rural areas with long distances betweenschools.

35. Permanent exclusion is, for the majority of secondary schools, a last resort: only used when all elsehas failed. However some members have indicated that they “have” to move to permanent exclusion as thisis the only way to trigger the required support for the young person, highlighting the concerns we haveregarding the difficulties of accessing some of the support services.

36. ASCL believes that in the interests of fairness and natural justice independent appeals panels againstexclusions should remain. We consider that the removal of these panels will also lead to several parentstaking legal action against schools which will involve a great deal more work and unnecessary bureaucracyfor the school.

37. Following a permanent exclusion there are good examples of how behavioural partnerships handlethe process of allocating another school to the student. The use of re-integration programmes and a phasedintroduction to the new school are well used in many parts of the country.

38. ASCL has considerable concerns regarding Children’s Trusts. Although there are reports of someworking well in most cases these appear ineffective and bureaucratic and have failed to produce “joined upaction”. Inter-agency work is at its most effective at an institutional rather than authority wide level.




39. Schools need to actively engage with all parents and set up a good communications system so thatparents feel involved in the decision making processes related to their child’s education. The use of moderntechnology is helpful here with the use of email and text systems now being extensively used, although thereare still issues with the hard to reach parents.

40. Many schools use some form of “single point of contact” approach for parents so that parents knowwho to contact and a relationship is set up between that member of staff and the parent.

41. Several schools have made excellent use of Parent Support Advisers to promote the school-homerelationship.

42. A number of schools have had success in working either on their own or with external agencies insetting up support “clinics” for parents to work with them on strategies to improve their child’s behaviour.One of the frequently observed issues relates to young people who have not had any boundaries set at homeand therefore find it difficult in environments where boundaries are clearly laid out. We would urge workwith such families at an early age as the behavioural patterns are often ingrained in the pupil by the timethey get to secondary school which makes the task in there much more difficult.

43. Many schools will use a regular phone contact with the parent/guardian to inform them of progress.It is essential to find positive messages to send home as well as concerns. Positive message can give the parentencouragement to persevere whereas a series of negative messages can led to the parent giving up.

44. As some parents themselves have negative views of schools, some schools have used home visits ormeetings at neutral venues eg youth club to meet with parents so that the parent is not “always been calledinto school”.

How special educational needs can best be recognised in schools’ policies on behaviour and discipline

45. Behaviour policies need to be flexible enough to ensure that students with SEN are in no waydisadvantaged.

46. Much progress has been made to ensure that able students with behavioural issues are not placed inSEN (learning difficulties) groups.


47. There is significant variation in the quality of alternative provision with some excellent work in PRUs,college linked and vocational courses and special schools. There is much to learn from the good practice andbetter dissemination of this is essential.

48. Some special schools report that they are admitting pupils with behavioural difficulties at an olderage than in the past, as mainstream schools are keeping them longer, eventually failing in many cases ataround years 9 or 10. This can mean that they arrive at special school too late for the school to have a greatimpact on the behaviour of the pupil before they reach the end of compulsory education.

Links between attendance and behaviour in schools

49. It is important that all students are in school unless ill or engaged in education off site. Attainmentis clearly linked to attendance, with absence being one of the major factors in limiting student progress.

50. There is some evidence that those students who have behavioural problems also have lowerattendance rates. This can be a viscous circle as absence gives a discontinuity in the learning experience whichmeans the pupil has difficulty in picking up the lesson at the start (as they were not in the lesson last time)and this can led to them being disinterested and then disruptive. Some schools put in place strategies to dealwith this to ensure such students are engaged at the start of the lesson. Although this can be time consumingfor the teaching staff it can be highly effective.

51. It is interesting to note that schools that have adopted alternative curriculum routes for potentiallydifficult young people have seen both an increase in motivation, attendance and attainment. This wouldemphasise the point made earlier about the impact an appropriate curriculum and good learning andteaching has on students.


52. ASCL broadly welcomes the support of the government for schools when they have to deal with poorbehaviour.

53. The vast majority of incidents in schools do not require the use of force by staff, but heads andteachers will be reassured that they have the Secretary of State’s backing in the rare incidents when thisbecomes necessary. We would, however emphasise that there should be absolute clarity, in law, on this as thefinal decision on whether the use of any force is acceptable will lie in the hands of the courts.



54. ASCL welcomes the extension of the powers to search and would urge that common sense should rulehow and when the search is carried out rather than the set of regulations that were considered when theprevious administration was examining this.

55. The association acknowledges the sentiments behind the wish to remove the “24 hour notice” fordetentions. In most cases this would only apply to detentions after school as for break and lunchtimedetentions there was never any reason previously to give notice. For after school detentions there are anumber of practical considerations to take into account. Firstly there is the safeguarding for the child; is itappropriate to delay a 12 or 13 year old on a dark evening to then potentially travel home alone withouthaving warned the parents (who may not be able to collect the child)? For many schools there are transportissues where students travel to school by coach and parents would need to make arrangements to collecttheir child after the detention. The 24 hour gap also gives a “cooling off” period for the teacher who mayhave made a hasty decision. The school will also need to consider the relationship with the parents/guardiansand a lack of prior notice, even if supported by statute, is likely to irritate them. For these reasons we cansee a large number of schools not making use of this provision.

56. ASCL welcomes the determination in the July 7 statement to have anonymity for staff whenallegations have been made against them. Evidence indicates that there has been an increase in the numberof malicious allegations against staff and that some pupils are using these to “get” certain staff. Staff shouldbe protected from being named in such cases.

September 2010

Memorandum submitted by the National Association of Head Teachers

The National Association of Head Teachers (NAHT) welcomes the opportunity to submit evidence to theCommittee, given the nature of this particular inquiry. As a professional association for leaders in education,it is well placed to give voice to the views of its members. These number 40,000 in total, of whom more than28,000 are currently based in and leading educational establishments.

How to Support and Reinforce Positive Behaviour in Schools?

1. NAHT believes that there is already sufficient legislative provision for schools when it comes to thepracticalities of behaviour management. There is also adequate guidance, including a suite of documents,on tackling different “categories” of bullying. Section 91: Education and Inspections Act (2006) providesclarity on the powers schools have to regulate the conduct of their pupils both in and outside the schoolpremises covering confiscation, detention and restraint (use of reasonable force).

2. We also note the proposed repeal of legislation relevant to detention (24 hours notice outside the schoolhours). The proposed review of the extent of teachers’ disciplinary powers announced 7 July 2010, whenconsideration will be given to broadening the powers of search to include: mobile phones, ipods and personalmusic players. NAHT welcomes these proposed reviews.

3. We acknowledge the right of schools to enact the existing provisions within its discipline policy.However, we would stress that what is important is communicating the school behaviour policy to the schoolcommunity so that both parents and pupils are aware of and accept the schools’ power to discipline. Somepupils and parents are more aware of their rights—not necessarily their responsibilities. It is, therefore, animportant message to continually emphasise and convey.

4. Schools are also aware of the need to engage parents and carers in circumstances where it is necessary tomanage their children’s challenging behaviour, supported through developing a school/parent partnership.Schools equally recognise, however, that developing successful partnerships is very dependent on variousfactors, for example parental background and culture. The association is aware that some guidance existsto support schools.

What is the Impact on Schools and their Staff?

5. There can be a significant impact on classrooms and the whole school community when pupils exhibitchallenging behaviour, affecting both staff and pupil well-being and not least the teaching and learningenvironment. Resources are important to avoid an imbalance of the ecology within the classroom. There isa delicate balance between the resources schools can bring to bear on the task of teaching and the demandscreated by some children, Dyson et al. (2004).

Allegations against Staff

6. NAHT welcomes the Government’s promises to include an absolute right to anonymity during aninvestigation. This has been an issue of grave concern over the past few years. More than 1,700 staff in UKschools accused of misbehaviour by parents or pupils during 2009, 50% of complaints of alleged physicalassault, or inappropriate restraint led to 143 of those accused being dismissed or resigning. Despite the



number of complaints only a small percentage merited police investigation and an even smaller numberconcluded in conviction. We do support the need for robust systems, without dragging innocent staff intolengthy periods of proving their innocence.

Approaches taken by Schools and Local Authorities to address Challenging Behaviour

Exclusions

7. National statistics illustrate that permanent exclusions and fixed-term exclusions are decreasing andthis is to be welcomed. Hopefully this has been achieved through improved strategies for dealing withbehaviour, rather than pressure from local authorities on schools to “contain” pupils, or throughgovernment driven policies on managed moves. To ensure managed moves operate fairly and successfullythere needs to be structures in place that enable honest exchange between all professionals in those schoolsinvolved in the process.

8. What is significant is the number of pupils with “Special Educational Needs” both those withstatements and without statements. The statistics indicate those pupils are over eight times more likely tobe permanently excluded than those pupils with no SEN. The message is clear not enough is being done toavoid this ultimate sanction. We continue to hear from our members that they cannot get the necessarysupport and exclude because there is no alternative. A school leader’s ultimate priority is to balance thehealth and safety of the whole school community. To address this dilemma early intervention is needed bythe relevant agencies within the local authority and strategies put into place and this necessitates resources.It is essential that careful consideration is given to the most appropriate educational placement. Lots ofexclusions happen because the pupil is in the wrong setting and is absolutely fine when moved whether toa specialist mainstream unit, special school or PRU, or given better support where s/he is. Far moreconsideration needs to be given to using short-term placements as part of early intervention.

9. But Politicians and Local Authorities also need to stop thinking in the short-term and to realise thatin the longer term early intervention of the right kind (including changing the provision or level of support)is essential.

10. Another important issue for schools in addressing behaviour is the “deprivation factor”: those pupilson free school meals are three times more likely to receive either a permanent of fixed period exclusion thanthose who are not eligible for free school meals. NAHT welcomes the idea of a “pupil premium” but isconcerned that to make significant impact in narrowing the gap will require a “significant premium” asearlier research evidences. As with other intractable issues, the underlying cause lies beyond the school—inour expectations of parents, attitudes towards “youth”. Home school contracts may be supportive but theyare only binding on the school. The enduring solution to poor behaviour in schools lies outside school.Stable family environments, decent incomes, parenting skills responsibility, higher levels of equalitysatisfying leisure opportunities, etc.

11. We note that the rate for boys’ permanent and fixed-term exclusions is also three times greater thanfor girls and NAHT would stress that this is an area that needs to be further explored—whether relevant tothe need for a more flexible curriculum and/or to improved behaviour management at home and in schools.Personalising learning should include allowing for a more flexible and active curriculum, with plenty ofopportunities for short-breaks, changes of activities and outdoor learning, etc.

12. With regard to the current statutory exclusion procedure this is well embedded in schools. NAHTwould also support the retention of Independent Appeal Panels. Only 1% of all exclusions lead to asuccessful appeal where a pupil is reinstated. Better to retain the IAP as a buffer to avoid heads being draggedthrough courts to defend their decisions.

Links between Attendance and Behaviour in Schools

13. Statistics also demonstrate that school attendance is improving and this is to be welcomed becausethere is an obvious link between attendance and behaviour in schools. For example when pupils miss outthrough non-attendance this significantly impacts on their ability to participate in developing their learningabilities and in consequence has an effect on behaviour. In circumstances where it is difficult to engagechildren and young people, pupils may often become disruptive to draw attention away from their learningdifficulties.

Behaviour in Schools what is the Position?

14. The message that perhaps also needs to be conveyed is one of proportionality with regard tobehaviour in schools. Challenging and disruptive behaviour in schools has received “media hype” over thelast decade.

15. Alan Steer’s Learning Behaviour: Lessons to be Learned (2009) stated that perhaps we need to lookat the overall picture. It reflected that out of the 7 million pupils in schools it is the behaviour of a smallpercentage of pupils that tends to impact on the majority!



16. The latest statistics from Ofsted show that pupils’ behaviour was good or outstanding in 95% ofprimary and 80% of secondary schools inspected in 2008–09, and that behaviour was inadequate in just 1%of secondary schools and less than 0.5 per cent in primary. In fact out of 21,920 schools only 48 were judgedto have inadequate behaviour: December 2009.

17. The aim of the “Behaviour Challenge” was to move the Ofsted ‘judgement’ of satisfactory to goodor outstanding by 2012 and we acknowledge the reasons for support in that direction. At that time 43 localauthorities received communication from the Department by way of a trigger for additional support. LeadBehaviour Schools were to be identified, supposedly 100 by autumn 2010, we are only aware of 20 schools.NAHT would like to raise the question what is intended will this initiative proceed—what is happening now?Also what has happened regarding the profile of the National Programme for Specialist Leaders inBehaviour and Attendance?

Teacher Training

18. The NAHT is of the opinion that what is a priority is improved initial teaching training andcontinuing professional development in behaviour management and most importantly improved teachertraining in working with children with special educational needs, behavioural and learning difficulties toinclude a focus on “child development”. A renewed emphasis on training and development would have asignificant impact on the outcomes for those pupils. Inspired students, who are learning things that feelrelevant to them, are far less likely to be disruptive and to create trouble.

19. We would also like to emphasise that many new routes into teaching have little or no opportunitiesto spend sufficient time on developing a suite of classroom management strategies to suit different types ofproblems.

20. Another important point we would like to make is about training for head teachers or aspiring heads.It is recognised in research that school leaders need to be trained to be effective school leaders and this isparticularly relevant to the context in which they will working—for example in areas of disadvantage,developing different skills, but we are not sure to what extent this is being promoted, Leithwood and Bevin(2005); Muijs et al (2007)

What is the Eficacy of Alternative Provision?

21. We would also like to emphasise our concern around alternative provision. PRUs are particularlygood with dealing with the disaffected, school phobics/refusers and those who cannot cope with a normalschool environment, despite having the ability to do so. They are not designed for students with long-termSEND (Special educational needs and disability).

22. Ofsted acknowledged in 2007 that a wide variety of pupil referral units existed, but all were facingsimilar barriers in providing a good education for their children and young people. Some with inadequateaccommodation, pupils of different ages with diverse needs arriving in an unplanned way, limited numbersof specialist staff to enable a broad curriculum to be delivered and too often there were difficulties inreintegrating pupils into mainstream schools. In the main this position would appear to be unchanged.

23. However, we would emphasise that the success of pupil referral units depends on the ability to respondto these challenges and this is very much dependent on the support PRUs receive from the local authority.We are aware that the LGA is carrying out its own “closed” consultation regarding PRUs; Behaviour;Exclusions. It would be of concern if this was ultimately an exercise purely linked to resource implicationsrather than needs of children and young people.

24. NAHT is extremely concerned that some Local Authorities place pupils with statements in PRUs,naming the PRU. This we would argue is not good practice although not illegal and the NAHT believes thisis an area that needs to be addressed. It also appears to be the case that too many children with specialeducational needs are also being placed in pupil referral units, because there is no other provision in the localauthority area.

25. The original concept of a Pupil Referral Unit was for dealing with pupils disengaged from education,exhibiting challenging behaviour; their focus was on turning those pupils around. We believe that theseunits, however, remodelled, should be part of a continuum of provision so that pupils are reintegrated backinto mainstream provision. However, too often a gap exists between intention and practice, so children andyoung people often stay in a PRU for an indefinite period. This causes longer-term planning difficulties andopportunities to reintegrate pupils into mainstream are then further limited, due to subsequent provisionnot being identified before pupils are admitted to the PRU, so poor practice exists.

26. To further evidence this in “answer to questions to the house: 20 July 2010”, it was stated that thenumber of pupils placed in PRUs with special educational needs without a statement as at January 2010 (allages) totalled: 8,130 in England. The number of pupils with a statement of special educational needs 1,700in England. What is also significant is that no figures on the length of time a pupil had been in a pupil referralunit were available.



27. NAHT would urge the committee to investigate this and to carry out a review on the whole area ofalternative provision. In March 2010 we as stakeholders responded to two separate consultations onAlternative Provision. The first focused on improving what exists and the second relevant to regulationsempowering governing bodies to require a pupil to attend a premise outside the school to addressbehavioural problems.

28. NAHT believes it is essential to ensure quality alternative provision is available to suit the needs ofchildren and young people. Consideration should be given to separate provision for those children identifiedwith special educational needs and those children exhibiting challenging behaviour. However, we appreciatethat there is often an overlap as much of the evidence conveys.

Conclusions

29. School leaders are dedicated professionals, determined to deliver the best opportunities for all thepupils in their care. An important remedy to poor behaviour, within the schools’ control, is the opportunityto deliver great teaching through having sufficient resources/funding to ensure the appropriate provision isin place.

September 2010

Memorandum submitted by I CAN

1. Executive Summary

1.1 I CAN, the children’s communication charity, welcomes the opportunity to feed into the Committee’sinquiry into Behaviour and Discipline. Our evidence demonstrates the strong link between emotional andbehavioural difficulties and poor communication skills. From our experience however, Speech, Languageand Communication Needs (SLCN) often go undetected in children and young people with behaviouraldifficulties, resulting in further social exclusion. I CAN believes that more needs to be done to ensure earlyidentification of SLCN as well as positive intervention for these vulnerable children. In this submission wehave used our experience to highlight the following areas:

— The strong correlation between children who have emotional and behavioural difficulties andchildren who have SLCN.

— The need to ensure that SLCN does not go undetected in children with behavioural difficulties.

— The key role that identifying and addressing communication needs can play in supporting positivebehaviour.

— The need for tools to aid in the identification of SLCN in both mainstream and specialist settings.

— To ensure the provision of specialist help including clear methods for referral to a specialistprovider.

2. About I CAN

2.1 I CAN is the children’s communication charity. We work to develop speech, language andcommunication skills for all children, with a particular focus on children who have Speech, Language andCommunication Needs (SLCN). I CAN works to ensure all people who have a responsibility to children,from parents and teachers to policy makers, understand the importance of good communication skills. Wedo this through:

— Direct service provision through two schools for children with severe and complex speech,language and communication needs (SLCN), and a network of early years centres.

— Consultancy and outreach services through I CAN’s Early Talk and Primary Talk programmes,and our Communication Skills Centres.

— Information, training, support and online resources for children, families and professionals.

— Raising awareness through campaigns such as Make Chatter Matter.

2.2 I CAN uses its expertise from working directly with children with SLCN to develop informationpackages, training and programmes to develop the communication skills of all children and young people.I CAN is delighted that the issue of children’s speech, language and communication has risen up the politicalagenda significantly over the last few years. Our Make Chatter Matter campaign has engaged support froma range of Parliamentarians from all sides of the political divide and has spearheaded a shift in Governmentpriority for the issue. Make Chatter Matter has been underpinned by I CAN’s “Cost to the Nation”37 reportwhich set out the evidence base for the scale of the issue.

37 Available on our website at http://www.ican.org.uk/upload2/chatter%20matter%20update/mcm%20report%20final.pdf



3. Background to Speech, Language and Communication Needs (SLCN)

3.1 I CAN believes that the best way to support positive behaviour is to identify and address theunderlying communication difficulties that very many pupils with special educational needs have.

3.2 Speech language and communication skills are the basis for other key life skills: learning, literacy,positive relationships and regulation of behaviour and emotions.38 Speaking and listening skills underpinpupil outcomes; young people with good communication skills have a wider range of life chances.39

3.3 In some parts of the UK—particularly areas of social disadvantage, upwards of 50% of children arestarting school with SLCN.40 Many have poor language skills which are inadequate for the start of formallearning, but with the right support may catch up with their peers. However, some of these children havemore complex or persistent SLCN. Based on information from prevalence studies41, 42 and from schoolscensus data,43 we can estimate that all together this may be around 10%44 of all children and young people.

3.4 Those with unaddressed, speech language and communication needs are at risk of problems withliteracy, numeracy and learning.45 They are less likely to leave school with qualifications46 or job prospectsand are in danger of becoming NEET (Not in Employment, Education or Training at 16–18), as are youngpeople who have spent time in alternative provision.47 SLCN can also lead to difficulties with socialrelationships and behaviour. Speech, language and communication needs are strongly associated withmental health problems as well as other social emotional and behavioural difficulties.48 We also know thatchildren excluded from school are likely to have special educational needs, including a high incidence ofcommunication difficulties.49 People with speech and language needs are significantly over-represented inthe young offender and prison populations.50 In addition to this, limited language skills make it difficultfor young people to access support or understand interventions.51

4. The Relationship between Speech, Language and Communication Needs and BehaviouralDifficulties

4.1 I CAN is concerned by the evidence that young people with social emotional and behaviouraldifficulties 52 are at risk of undetected communication problems.53

4.2 There is evidence of a high incidence of communication difficulty (often unidentified) in those whoare young offenders54, 55 looked after children56 and those who have conduct disorder57 as well as othersocial emotional and behavioural difficulties.58 It is estimated that between 60%–90% of these vulnerable

38 Silva P, Williams S & McGee R, (1987): A Longitudinal Study of Children with Developmental Delay at age three years; laterintellectual, reading and behaviour problems. Developmental Medicine and Child Neurology 29, 630–640.

39 Improving Achievement in English Language in Primary and Secondary Schools (2003) HMIE.40 Locke, A. Ginsborg, J and Peers, I (2002) Development and Disadvantage: Implications for Early Years IJLCD Vol 27 No 1.41 Tomblin J B et al (1997) Prevalence of Specific Language Impairment in Kindergarten children Journal of speech, Language

and Hearing Research 40 in Lindsay G and Dockrell J with Mackie C and Becky Letchford (2002) Educational Provision forChildren with Specific Speech and Language Difficulties in Engand and Wales CEDAR.

42 Law J. Boyle J. Harris F. Harkness A. and Nye C. (2000) Prevalence and Natural History of Primary Speech and LanguageDelay: findings from a systematic review of the literature IJLCD Vol 35 no 2.

43 DfES (2006) National Statistics First Release.44 see I CAN prevalence calculations and Law et al (2000) Provision for children’s speech and language needs in England and

Wales: facilitating communication between education and health services DfES research report 239.45 Stothard et al 1998 and Communication Disability and Literacy Difficulties I CAN Talk (2006).46 Snowling M J, Adams J, Bishop DVM, and Stothard SE (2001) Educational Attainments of School Leaver with a Pre-school

History of Speech-Language Impairments IJLCD Vol 36.47 I CAN Talk Series 4 Language and Social Exclusion.

http://www.ican.org.uk/upload2/publications/language%20and%20social%20exclusion%20report.pdf48 Toppelberg C O, Shapiro T (2000), Language disorders: A 10-year research update review. Journal of the American Academy

of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry 39: 143–152.49 Ripley, K, Yuill, N (2005) Patterns of language impairment and behaviour in boys excluded from school. British Journal of

Educational Psychology. 75(1):37–50.50 Snow, P C & Powell, M B (2005). What’s the story? An exploration of narrative language abilities in male juvenile offenders.

Psychology, Crime and Law 11(3) 239–253.Bryan K Freer J; Furlong C Language and communication difficulties in juvenile offenders (2007) International Journal ofLanguage & Communication Disorders 42 2.

51 Snow, P & Powell, M (2004). Interviewing juvenile offenders: The importance of oral language competence. Current Issuesin Criminal Justice 16(2), 220–225.

52 Heneker, S. (2005) Speech and language therapy support for pupils with behavioural, emotional and social difficulties(BESD)—a pilot project British Journal of Special Education 32 2 p 86.

53 Cohen, N J, Barwick, M A, Horodezky, N B, Vallance, D D, and Im, N (1998). “Language, Achievement, and CognitiveProcessing in Psychiatrically Disturbed Children with Previously Identified and Unsuspected language Impairments”.Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 39, 6, 865–877.

54 Bryan, K. 2004. Preliminary study of the prevalence of speech and language difficulties in young offenders. InternationalJournal of Language and Communication Disorders, 39, 391–400.

55 Snow PC, Powell MB (2007) Oral Language Competence, Social Skills and High-risk Boys: What are Juvenile OffendersTrying to Tell us? Children & Society (OnlineEarly Articles). doi:10.1111/j.1099–0860.2006.00076.

56 Cross, M. Lost for words. (1999) Child and Family Social Work 4(3): 249–57.57 Gilmour, J; Hill, B; Place, M. Skuse, D. H. (2004) Social communication deficits in conduct disorder: a clinical and

community survey Journal of Child Psychology & Psychiatry. 45(5):967–978.58 Toppelberg C O, Shapiro T (2000), Language disorders: A 10-year research update review. Journal of the American Academy

of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry 39: 143–152.



young people have undetected communication difficulties. We also know that children excluded from schoolare likely to have special educational needs, including a high incidence of communication difficulties.59

Again, poor language skills make it difficult for young people to access support or understand interventions.

4.3 I CAN believes there is a clear link between poor behaviour and poor communication skills. A recentstudy from the University of Sheffield concluded that “for a high proportion of secondary age pupils at riskof permanent school exclusion, language difficulties are a factor in their behaviour problems and schoolexclusion.”60

4.4 We believe that the key is to identify accurately the underlying difficulties that give rise to poorbehaviour so that positive and developmental strategies can be put in place in advance.

4.5 We also know that these underlying language difficulties often go undiagnosed.

5. Next Steps

5.1 In our view there are a number of actions that should be taken to address this which I CAN is ableto help deliver:

— Tools to help staff identify and assess speech language and communication needs (SLCN) in bothspecial and mainstream settings to help identify areas for development.

— Clear triggers for referral for specialist help with SLCN.

— The provision of that specialist help.

— Advice on how speech and language therapists forming part of the multi disciplinary team thatworks effectively with children and young people.

— Workforce development with particular focus on the links between behaviour, emotional andsocial difficulties (BESD) and SLCN, stressing the connection between language and socialexclusion.

5.2 In both of our own special schools for children and young people with complex SLCN (Dawn HouseSchool in Nottinghamshire age range 6–19 and Meath School in Surrey for primary age children), there isexemplary practice in how to support positive behaviour. This includes:

— In the classroom, helping the learners identify and express their barriers to learning so that theirneeds are met rather than them “behaving badly”. This is done through thorough assessment,skilled teaching and a multi disciplinary approach of teachers and speech and language therapistsworking together.

— In the school more widely through a language enriching environment, active student councils andoutstanding care and guidance in time outside lessons.

— Working with parents so that strategies used to manage behaviour at school are understood andconsistently applied at home.

September 2010

Supplementary memorandum submitted by I CAN

When I gave oral evidence to the Education Select Committee on 29 October, I promised to write withsome additional information.

1. Integrated Commissioning for Children with SEND

In discussion with Members of the Committee, the issue of specialist support to children with behaviourproblems came up, particularly as regards Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services (CAMHS), wheresupport needs to come from the NHS. All too often it proves very difficult for schools to access CAMHSand other specialist health support such as Speech and Language Therapy in schools because commissioningbudgets and priorities are neither integrated nor aligned across agencies. As a result children fail to receivehelp and support that is vital to their attainment and behaviour.

It was in this context that I mentioned a radical proposal put forward in response to the Liberating theNHS White Paper by myself, Paul Ennals of the National Children’s Bureau, Christine Lenehan of theCouncil for Disabled Children and Anita Kerwin-Nye of The Communication Trust. I attach the letter toAndrew Lansley MP, Secretary of State for HeaIth, that I referred to in Committee, which outlines this. Wesuggest that government builds on its plans to locate the public health commissioning function within localauthorities, by also identifying the local authority (working closely with GP consortia) as lead commissionerand budget holder for all local children’s community health services.

59 Ripley, K, Yuill, N (2005) Patterns of language impairment and behaviour in boys excluded from school. British Journal ofEducational Psychology. 75(1):37–50.

60 Clegg, Finch, Murphy, Nicholls and Stackhouse (2009), Language abilities of secondary age pupils at risk of school exclusion:A preliminary report. Journal of Child Language Teaching and Therapy 25: 123–139.



We propose this because we consider that Commissioners should be in a position to commission in theround for children’s services. The most effective services for children with SEND integrate provision madeby NHS therapists with that provided by local authority advisory teachers and special units/schools, andlocal authority social care services; the most effective early years services integrate the work of healthvisitors, speech and language therapists and early years practitioners.

Without overall commissioning, uncoordinated services serve children poorly and mean that thecollaborative practice which underpins effective practice is impossible. Commissioners should be in aposition to commission services that operate seamlessly at universal, targeted and specialist levels. Anyseparation of these levels of commissioning risks removing the incentive to invest in cost-effectiveinterventions to reduce service demand later.

I hope very much indeed that members of the Education Select Committee will consider the arguments putforward in the letter carefully, with a view to recommending the transfer of NHS child health commissioningbudgets to Local Authorities we advocate. Improving attainment and behaviour in our schools depends onbeing able to marshal a range of well integrated specialisms from a number of agencies to support childrenwith SEN and others. This can only happen if there is an integrated approach to budgeting andcommissioning across agencies locally.

The present fragmentation of commissioning across Local Authorities and the NHS serves children veryill. Children with SEND are particular losers in this.

2. Young People with SLCN: A Hidden Population

I offered to circulate the table below to illustrate the point that both John Dickinson-Lilley from SEC andI were making about the shift in SEN designations that occurs between primary and secondary school.

As you will see from the table below, school census data indicate that the incidence of SLCN are as highas 24% in primary school years and fall dramatically to 6% in secondary. In contrast, BESD in primary yearsis around 17% and rises to over 30% in secondary years. It is unlikely that nearly 20% of SLCN disappearbetween primary and secondary or that BESD rates increase without any links to communication needs andskills. Indeed studies have shown that over time young people with SLCN make progress in languagedevelopment but remain significantly behind their peers; the underlying language deficit remains.

The possible reasons for the fall in reported numbers are varied, a central one being the difficulty inidentifying language difficulties. SLCN in adolescents are often described as “hidden”. Language difficultiesmay be misinterpreted as bad behaviour rather than be seen for the difficulty it is.

Pupils in Englandby types of SpecialEducational NeedsThose on ‘schoolaction plus’ and thosereceiving statements

Figures fromDepartment forChildren, Schools andFamilies Statistical Firstrelease SFR 08/2008

N.B. at primarySpeech, Language andCommunication needs(SLCN) is slightlysecond biggest groupto Moderate LearningDifficulties (26.3%) atsecondary.Behavioural Emotionaland Social Difficulties(BESD) becomesbiggest group

30

20

10

0Primary Secondary

18.5% 25.2% 30.6%

7.4%

3. Speech Language and Communication Needs: Links to Behavior

I thought it might be useful for the Committee if I summarised some of the evidence linking Speech,Language and Communication Needs and poor behaviour that I drew on in my oral evidence:

— Without intervention, SLCN impacts on literacy development, educational outcomes, emotionaland social development.

— Children with SLCN are at increased risk of emotional and behavioural difficulties (oftenundetected) and frequently excluded from school.



— Although there is uncertainty around the exact relationship between emotional and behaviouraldifficulties and SLCN, there is a strong correlation with both internalising (eg anxiety, depression)and externalising (eg anti-social behaviours) difficulties in adolescence.

— Studies indicate that the incidence of communication difficulties among children with behavioural,emotional and social difficulties (BESD) to be between 55 and 100% compared to a typicalprevalence of around 5%.

— Two-thirds of 7-14 year olds with behaviour problems have a communication difficulty.

— A recent study from the University of Sheffield concluded that “for a high proportion of secondaryage pupils at risk of permanent school exclusion, language difficulties are a factor in theirbehaviour problems and school exclusion.”

— Those with a history of communication difficulties are at a higher risk of developing mental healthproblems. Unsupported, around one third of children and young people with SLCN will go on torequire treatment for mental health problems.

— 60-90% of young offenders have SLCN.

November 2010

Memorandum submitted by Special Educational Consortium

1. Introduction

1.1 There are some key themes which SEC wishes to explore in its submission on school behaviourpolicies and the way they can best support and encourage the positive behaviour and engagement of disabledchildren and children with SEN:

— Behaviour difficulties are closely linked to a failure of a child to access education and makeprogress. Schools sometimes struggle to help disabled children and children with SEN access theireducation, and where this happens it can lead to disabled children and children with SEN beingcaught up in disciplinary procedures unnecessarily.

— Behaviour difficulties are often caused by underlying conditions, including mental healthproblems, underlying disabilities, and problems outside of school. Schools should look at theunderlying causes of behaviour, as well as having appropriate disciplinary routes.

— It may be perceived that a disabled child is simply being naughty or deliberately disruptive whenin fact this behaviour arises as a consequence of their disability or alternatively as a consequenceof a lack of reasonable adjustments made to accommodate their disability. Schools need tounderstand the rights of disabled children and are legally required to make reasonable adjustmentsto their behaviour and discipline policies where a disabled child is concerned

— The SEN framework does, and was always intended to, address the needs of children withsignificant behaviour problems that cannot be solved through the standard behaviour anddiscipline frameworks operated by the school. This means children with some of the mostchallenging behavioural issues are supported through the SEN system.

2. Unmet Learning Needs as a Major Factor in Disruptive Behaviour

2.1 Behaviour difficulties are closely linked to a failure of a child to access education and make progress.Disabled children and children with SEN are more likely to have unmet needs, which goes some way toexplain why they are more likely to be caught up in school’s disciplinary procedures. A number of reportshave raised questions about the extent to which the exclusion of certain children is a result of their unmetspecial educational needs61, 62.

2.2 While not all disruptive or challenging behaviour can be explained by a failure to have educationalneeds met, it is obvious that a child who is engaged with their education and making good progress is muchless likely to be disruptive in class. None of this means that schools should not emphasise the need for gooddiscipline and apply appropriate sanctions where there is a breach of the behaviour policy. Nonetheless, itis the long term interests of both children and schools that teaching policies and practices place animportance on addressing the educational needs of children who display disruptive behaviour. This will havethe benefit of both improving behaviour and increasing attainment.

2.3 The findings of a panel of senior teachers63—that ”learning, teaching and promoting good behaviourare inseparable issues for schools”—was echoed by Sir Alan Steer’s review of behaviour which stated that”much poor behaviour has its origins in the inability of the child to access learning”.64 Ofsted has found

61 National Foundation for Educational Research, Admissions and Exclusions of Pupils with Special Educational Needs DfESResearch report RR608, 2005.

62 Audit Commission, Special Educational Needs: a mainstream issue, 2002.63 Learning Behaviour. The report of the Practitioners Group on School Behaviour and Discipline, DCSF, 2005.64 Learning Behaviour: lessons learned—A review of behaviour standards, Institute of education, 2009 and practices in our

schools.



that ”most of the secondary schools in which behaviour is inadequate, teaching and learning are alsoinadequate”.65 Parents of disabled children and children with SEN support this view: a survey by theNational Autistic Society found that 66% of parents say a delay in accessing support had a negative impacton their child’s behaviour and 34% say it had a negative impact on their child’s mental health.66 It is alsoworth noting that the most common reason for exclusion is persistent disruptive behaviour,67 which is morelikely to occur when a child is not engaged or satisfied with their progress at school.

2.4 To help address the underlying causes of disruptive or challenging behaviour, behaviour policies needto emphasise the need for early intervention to asses whether the behaviour is a result of unmet learningneeds. This is supported by Ofsted which found that behaviour will be poor where there is too little emphasisin the behaviour management strategies on improving the quality of teaching.68 Where a child is disabledor has SEN and is becoming disruptive, behaviour policies should stress the importance of reviewingwhether those additional needs are being met.

2.5 This is an even more pressing issue where there is an unidentified need, as children may be labelledas having behavioural difficulties when in fact the issue lies further back in the system’s failure to meet theireducational needs. For example, there is a particularly strong link between children identified as havingbehavioural difficulties and children who have unidentified speech, language and communicationdifficulties69, 70. Where a child has no identified need, behaviour policies should stress the importance ofreviewing whether they have any additional needs where a child is displaying disruptive or challengingbehaviour.

Recommendation 1

All school behaviour policies should have a focus on early intervention to address the underlyingcauses of behaviour, and particularly whether the behaviour is a result of an unidentified SEN.

Recommendation 2

All teachers should be properly trained in SEN, in order to recognise whether behaviour is a resultof an unidentified or unmet SEN.

3. Behaviour Policies—Making Reasonable Adjustments for Disabled Children

3.1 It is clear from current evidence that disabled children continue to encounter significant difficultiesin the way schools understand and address issues with their behaviour. Disabled children with a statementof SEN (ie disabled children with the most significant needs) continue to be eight times more likely to beexcluded from school as their non-disabled peers71 despite statutory guidance which states that they shouldonly be excluded in “the most exceptional circumstances”.72 Children at School Action Plus—many ofwhom will be disabled but who may not receive the same level of support as children with a statement—areover 19 times more likely to be excluded than their peers.73

3.2 The Equality Act 201074 requires schools to ensure disabled children75 are not treated unfavourablybecause of a reason arising as a consequence of their disability and to make adjustments to ensure they canaccess all the benefits of their education. These protections apply equally to policies on behaviour, includingblanket discipline policies which do not take account of disabled children’s different needs.

3.3 Like all children, disabled children display disruptive or challenging behaviour for a range of differentreasons. They may not be accessing their education or making progress, they may have problems withcommunication, they may have mental health needs, or there may be issues outside of school. In some cases,a child’s perceived disruptive or challenging behaviour arises directly as a consequence of their disability oras a consequence of a lack of reasonable adjustments made to accommodate their disability. Whatever thecase, if a disabled child is displaying disruptive or challenging behaviour, early intervention is needed toassess whether appropriate reasonable adjustments have been made for them—this duty is anticipatory. The

65 The Annual Report of Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Education, 2008.66 Batten, A et al, Make school make sense, National Autistic Society, 2007.67 Statistical First Release: Permanent and Fixed Period Exclusions From Schools and Exclusion Appeals in England, 2008–09,

Department for Education, 2010.68 Managing challenging behaviour, Ofsted, 2005.69 Gilmour, J, Hill, B, Place, M and Skuse, Social Communication Deficits in Conduct Disorder: a clinical and community survey

Journal of Child Psychology & Psychiatry 45(5):967–978, 2004.70 Toppelberg, C.O. and Shapiro, T, Language Disorders: A 10-year research update review, Journal of the American Academy

of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry 39: 143–152, 2000.71 Statistical First Release: Permanent and Fixed Period Exclusions From Schools and Exclusion Appeals in England, 2008–09,

Department for Education, 2010.72 Improving behaviour and attendance: guidance on exclusion from schools and pupil referral units, DCSF, 2008.73 Children with Special Educational Needs 2009: an analysis, DCSF, 2009.74 The definitions and responsibilities contained in this section refer to the Equality Act 2010 which replaces the Disability

Discrimination Act (DDA) and related legislation from October 2010 as the main source of protection from discrimination.75 A person is disabled if they have a physical or mental impairment that has a substantial and long-term adverse effect on their

ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities. A physical or mental impairment includes learning difficulties, mental healthconditions, medical conditions and hidden impairments such as dyslexia, autism, and speech, language and communicationimpairments.



fact that a child has a disability does not mean they should never be disciplined, but rather the behaviourand discipline policies should reflect the need to pay extra attention to the underlying causes of theirdifficulties to reflect the additional barriers disabled people face in society.

3.4 If a child’s disruptive behaviour arises as a consequence of their disability and reasonable adjustmentshaving not been made, the school could be found guilty of disability discrimination if that disabled child isunnecessarily punished or excluded.

Recommendation 3

All schools should be made fully aware of their legal responsibility to make reasonable adjustmentsfor disabled children, including flexibility in behaviour and discipline policies.

Recommendation 4

Schools should focus on early intervention to ensure disabled children receive the adjustments theyneed at the earliest possible stage, particularly where they are displaying disruptive or challengingbehaviour.

Recommendation 5

All staff should receive adequate disability training in order to recognise disabled children, respondto their needs, and understand their duty to make reasonable adjustments to the way they enforcebehaviour and discipline policies.

4. Explaining the Link Between Special Educational Needs and Significant BehaviourDifficulties

4.1 The SEN framework does, and was always intended to, seek to address these needs of children withsignificant behaviour problems that cannot be solved through the standard behaviour and disciplineframeworks operated by the school. The Warnock report upon which the SEN framework is based statesthat the system of special educational needs should:

“embody a broader concept of special education related to a child’s individual needs as distinctfrom his disability and a wider description of children which includes those with significantdifficulties in learning, or with emotional or behavioural disorders, as well as those with disabilitiesof mind or body”.76

Therefore, where a child has behavioural, emotional, or social difficulties and these are acute enough tobecome a barrier to learning despite the usual interventions of the school, the child can receive supportthrough the SEN framework.

4.2 There is a clear distinction between routine misbehaviour and children who seriously struggle withtheir behavioural, emotional, or social development to such an extent that it becomes a barrier to theirlearning despite the usual interventions of the school. There has been a recent rise in the number of childrenwith behavioural, emotional, or social difficulties identified through the SEN system. One of the reasons forthis may be where schools’ standard behaviour management and early intervention strategies are not robustenough to differentiate between routine misbehaviour and SEN.

Recommendation 6

The Government should make a commitment to addressing the needs of children with behavioural,emotional, or social difficulties as parts of its plans to boost discipline in schools, and publish astrategy for doing do so.

5. Addressing the Needs of Children with Behavioural, Emotional, and Social Difficulties

5.1 Any attempt to prevent serious cases of disruptive or challenging behaviour in schools must seek toaddress the needs of children classed as having behavioural, emotional, and social difficulties. Behavioural,emotional, or social difficulties arise as a result of a variety of often interrelated causes, including mentalhealth problems, underlying disabilities, trauma, abuse, bereavement or chaotic home lives. There are alsovery strong links between significant behaviour difficulties and unmet communication needs.77 Childrenwith behavioural, emotional, and social difficulties are some of the most challenging for schools to teachand unsurprisingly are by far the most likely group of children to be excluded.78 The argument aboutwhether children who struggle with their behavioural, emotional, or social difficulties should be describedas having special educational needs is less important than addressing the underlying cause of these problems,and often schools will also meet a child’s needs through mental health or pastoral support programmesas well.

76 Warnock, H, Special Educational Needs—Report of the Committee of Enquiry into the Education of Handicapped Children andYoung People, 1978.

77 Cross, M, Children with Emotional and Behavioural Difficulties and Communication Problems: there is always a reason. JessicaKingsley Publishers, 2004.

78 Statistical First Release: Permanent and Fixed Period Exclusions From Schools and Exclusion Appeals in England, 2008–09,Department for Education, 2010.



5.2 Strengthening the ability of the SEN system to meet the needs of this group of children willsignificantly increase schools’ ability to improve their behaviour. Early intervention and additional inputfrom specialist local authority support services is highly valuable, but problems of access for schools remainsa problem.79 There is currently considerable evidence that schools are seeking access to the additional helprequired from professionals in health and social services earlier than they were able to secure it and thataccess to child and adolescent mental health services was very variable80,81. Strengthening this supportshould be a priority. The fact that evidence has shown that between 60–90% of children with significantbehaviour difficulties also experience communication difficulties also presents a strong case for particularinvestment in this area.

5.3 Many children with behavioural difficulties will also have underlying mental health conditionsaffecting their behaviour. Around one in ten school age children will experience a mental health problem atsome point during their schooling.82 Good schools will have a positive whole-school approach to improvingthe mental health and well being of all their pupils. For children with less severe mental health and/orbehavioural needs, the school will be able to manage these within their usual mental health and well-beingpractices, such as small group work to promote social and emotional skills or peer support programmes.83

For children with more significant mental health needs, excellent schools’ mental health policies will beclosely integrated and complimentary to the SEN provision for children with behavioural, emotional, orsocial difficulties, the school’s pastoral support services, and stress the importance of involving, andsignposting to, local specialist services.

Recommendation 7

As part of its strategy to improve behaviour in schools, the Government should evaluate thebenefits of significant programmes of early intervention in the areas of mental health and speechlanguage and communication.

6. Exclusions

6.1 Children who have been permanently excluded are less likely to achieve five good GCSE results orbe in employment in later life.84 There is also a long established link between being excluded from schooland becoming involved in crime85—for example, research from the prisons inspector in 2004 found that83% of the young men in custody had been previously excluded from school.86 There is a clear consensusthat exclusion from school results in dramatically poorer outcomes for the child concerned and hassignificant long-term costs to society. There have been strong arguments made that we should move towarda zero exclusion school system87, 88.

6.2 High levels of exclusions are both a cause and a result of poor social outcomes for young people withSEN and disabilities. A survey of 22 LEAs found that 87% of exclusions in primary schools and 60% ofexclusions in secondary related to pupils with SEN.89 Disabled children and children with SEN continueto be over eight times more likely to be permanently excluded from school than the rest of the schoolpopulation.90

It is essential that the Government as an urgent priority looks at reducing the number of young peoplewith SEN and disabilities who are excluded from school. These groups of young people are already at adisadvantage in terms of accessing education, and being excluded from school only compounds this fact.

Recommendation 8

Where a disabled child or child with SEN is at risk of exclusion, a review of a pupil’s specialeducational needs should be undertaken before they are referred off-site. This should look atwhether reasonable adjustments are required for the disabled child or child with SEN which, ifmade, could avoid the need to remove the pupil from the school.

7. Informal Exclusions

7.1 Informal exclusions usually occur when a parent is asked to remove their child from school for a fixedperiod of time without the child being officially recorded as being excluded. This practice allows schoolsto exclude children they find difficult without the child having done anything specifically wrong. Informalexclusions are a key sign that the school’s standard behaviour management policies is not robust enough.

79 A statement is not enough, Ofsted, 2010.80 Ibid.81 Making sense of mental health—the emotional wellbeing of children and young people with complex needs in school, NASS,

2006–07.82 Mental Health: One in 10 children has a mental disorder, Office for National Statistics, 2005.83 Targeted Mental Health in Schools Project, Department for Education, 2010.84 Daniels, H et al, Study of Young People Permanently Excluded From School, University of Birmingham, 2003.85 Graham J and Bowling B, Young People and Crime, Home Office, 1995.86 Mark Challon and Thea Walton, Juveniles in custody, HMI Prisons, 2004.87 Sodha S. and Margo J, ex curricula, Demos, 2010.88 Peacey, N, Toward Zero Exclusions, IPPR, 2005.89 Special educational needs: a mainstream issue, Audit Commission, 2002.90 Statistical First Release: Permanent and Fixed Period Exclusions From Schools and Exclusion Appeals in England, 2008–09,

Department for Education, 2010.



7.2 Statutory guidance91 is clear that informal exclusions are unlawful. Nonetheless, recent reports havefound that over 50% of local authority officers have particular concerns about the risks posed to childrenby unofficial exclusions92 and that informal exclusions continued to be a routine experience for someparents.93

Recommendation 9

The Government should look at ways of improving the way parents are informed of their rightsand schools of their responsibilities. Parent Partnership Services and the voluntary sector are wellplaced to inform parents of their rights, and the Government should seek ways of supporting themto hold schools to account.

September 2010

Memorandum submitted by YoungMinds

1. YoungMinds is the UK’s leading charity committed to improving the emotional well being and mentalhealth of children and young people by ensuring these issues are placed firmly on the public and politicalagenda. We achieve this though the provision of research, lobbying, influencing policy and campaigning.Driven by the experiences of children, young people, parents and carers we also raise awareness and provideexpert knowledge through training, outreach work, and publications.

2. Executive Summary

2.1 The root causes of behaviour and discipline problems need to be tackled if there are to be any majorimprovements seen in our schools and communities. Many children and young people live very chaotic lives,and there has been a significant increase in the number of children and young people with mental healthproblem over the last few decades. Rather than punishing children and young people for bad behaviour,they need to be given support to help them become more resilient and deal with difficult situations. Manywill need specialist support to help them with their mental health problems.

Schools need a better understanding of what mental health is and know how to identify and refer on achild who they believe is experiencing mental distress. So schools need to work with other agencies to ensurethat vulnerable children and young people receive the right help and support. Teachers also need supportto ensure that they are themselves mentally healthy and better able to cope with the pressures of teaching.

There is a lot that schools can do to promote the mental health and emotional wellbeing of their pupils,but they need to work in partnership with other agencies to achieve it. Many schools are doing this already,but it is far from universal. There are initiatives such as SEAL, TAMHS and the UK Resiliency Programme,all of which are delivered in schools and have been shown to promote mental health and wellbeing and arebeginning to help tackle behaviour and discipline.

3. Look Behind the Behaviour

3.1 We believe that behaviour problems and discipline in schools need to be effectively addressed, for thesake of all children and young people in the school, the teachers and their families. However, there arereasons why children and young people behave in the way that they do. Rather than just punishing them,the underlying causes need to be addressed if behaviour and discipline problems are to be improved. We seebehavioural problems within a mental health and wellbeing context, meaning that “bad behaviour” is oftenrelated to the child’s mental health and wellbeing. So if a child has for instance a number of negative lifeexperiences, this is likely to impact on how they see themselves and relate to others and it will influence theirbehaviour.

3.2 There is a lot of confusion around terminology, so to clarify what we mean our definition of mentalhealth is “the strength and capacity of our minds to grow and develop and to be able to overcome difficultiesand challenges and to make the most of our abilities and opportunities”.

3.3 We believe that mental health consists of the following:

1. A capacity to enter into, and sustain, mutually satisfying and sustaining personal relationships.

2. Continuing progression of psychological development.

3. An ability to play and to learn so that attainments are appropriate for age and intellectual level.

4. A developing moral sense of right and wrong.

5. A degree of psychological distress and maladaptive behaviour within normal limits for the child’sage and context.

91 Improving behaviour and attendance: guidance on exclusion from schools and pupil referral units, DCSF, 2008.92 Children missing from education, Ofsted, 2010.93 Lamb Inquiry—special educational needs and parental confidence, DCSF, 2009.



3.4 As this definition suggests, mental health is not the same as mental illness. Mental health is somethingthat we all have, and it is an essential component of health. Being mentally healthy is important for schoolattainment and appropriate behaviour in the school setting, good social relationships and about having thecapacity to cope with all that life throws at us.

3.5 Many children who have a special educational need, particularly those who are said to havebehavioural, emotional and social difficulties (BESD) will also have mental health problems.

4. Children’s Mental Health Problems

4.1 We know that many children and young people have very chaotic lives, and experience a whole rangeof negative life experiences such as seeing their parents divorce, living in poverty and in a deprivedenvironment, where violence and gangs are everyday experiences or where their parents have mental healthproblems. We know that one in ten children and young people aged five to 16 years have a mental disorder(Green, et al., 2004). This means that the person’s problems have reached a clinical threshold and are severeenough to require specialist help. However, there will be many more children and young people who willhave a range of milder mental health problems which have not reached the clinical threshold, but it may stillhave a significant effect on their lives. Vulnerable groups such as children in care are even more likely to havea mental disorder. It has been estimated that 45% of children in care have a mental disorder (Meltzer, et al.,2003). Children and young people with mental health problems experience a number of negative lifeexperiences. For instance, the Child and Adolescent Mental Health (CAMH) survey found that over halfof children with an emotional disorder or a conduct disorder had seen their parents divorce or separate(Green, et al.,2004).

4.2 About 5.8% or about one in 20 children and young people have a psychiatric disorder called a conductdisorder (Green, et al., 2004). This disorder is associated with behavioural problems and crime and is moreprevalent in boys than girls. Many more children and young people experience milder conduct problems,which do not meet the clinical threshold, but are also associated behavioural problems, crime and anincreased risk of adverse outcomes in later life. It has been estimated that 30% of crime is committed bychildren with conduct disorders, at a cost to society of over £22 billion a year. One study estimated that the45% of children who have mild or moderate conduct problems go on to commit half of all crime at an annualcost of some £37 billion. The lifetime costs of crime are an average of £160,000 for each child with conductdisorder and £45,000 for those with mild or moderate conduct problems (Centre for Mental Health, 2009).

4.3 Like many mental health problems, conduct disorder is related to poverty and disadvantage. Forinstance, among children and young people with conduct disorders: One-third of children lived in familieswhere neither parent was working; More than half lived in households where the average income was £300per week; 41% lived in areas that were described as “hard pressed” (Green, et al., 2004). Many mental healthproblems are associated with negative long-term socioeconomic outcomes, and this is particularly the casefor people with a conduct disorder (Richards, M. et al. 2009).

4.4 Therefore, if we see behaviour as the outward expression of how children and young people feel andhow they respond to the world around them, then it is not surprising that so many children and young peopleare said to be “badly behaved”. If we focus on the fact that some young people have behavioural problemsbecause of the difficult and often dire situation in which they find themselves in, rather than focusing onthem as being “bad”, then it is easier to see why it is so important to provide the right help and support.This strategy will not only benefit children and young people themselves but will save millions in future coststo the NHS, Social Care and the Criminal Justice System.

5. Children and Young People with Mental Disorders and School Problems

5.1 Children and young people with mental disorders are much more likely to be excluded from school.For instance 15% of young people with a conduct disorder had been excluded three or more times fromschool, compared to young people without a mental disorder (Green, et al., 2004). Teachers report thatyoung people with mental health problems are more likely to be truants, than young people without theseproblems (Green, et al., 2004). However, it is likely that some of these days off are likely to be due toactual illness.

5.2 Young people are more likely to enjoy going to school and behave better if the school environmentand culture offers a safe and supportive environment that encourages them to become engaged in their owneducation and development. This relates to ensuring that the school has a healthy culture that is aware ofand supports young people’s wellbeing and mental health as well as their educational development. Going toschool can be helpful for young people with mental health problems because it is seen as a “normal” activity.

5.3 Young people are known to improve when they are in Pupil Referral Units (PRU) because they arein much smaller classes, and have a structure in place that helps them. This progress can stop once pupilsreturn to their school unless they receive similar levels of support. To be effective PRUs need funds, andsupport from other agencies to tackle the underlying problems associated with behaviour problems. Ifeffective support isn’t provided when young people are in a PRU, they are just held there and leave with asmany problems as they started with.



6. Schools are key to providing Support, but they need to Work with Other Agencies

6.1 Schools are a key agency in providing support to children and young people because they spend somuch of their time there. However, there needs to be a joined up approach to promoting mental health andwellbeing, and helping children and young people who are presenting with mental health problems. TheAchieving Equity and Excellence for Children document states that although schools are not required tosupport young people’s health and wellbeing, good headteachers will continue to do so because they knowthat pupils can not learn if they are unwell, unhappy or struggling with what is going on in their family life(DH, 2010). Whist we wouldn’t dispute this, or that there are some good headteachers who understand howhealth and wellbeing affect attainment, our concern is that not all headteachers understand this link.

6.2 There is a need for early intervention, both in the form of preventing behaviour problems, or mentalhealth problems occurring in the first place, and in providing support when problems first appear. Initiativessuch as SEAL which promotes emotional literacy are important because it helps develop children and youngpeoples’ emotional literacy skills, and their social skills. So it helps children and young people to resolveproblems, develop empathy, and form relationships. There are existing NICE public health guidancedocuments on promoting emotional wellbeing, but schools do not have to implement theserecommendations. Schools should be encouraged to implement this guidance. Action for Children estimatethat providing early intervention services are much more cost effective than waiting for problems to getworse, and require interventions that are much more expensive. They estimate that providing more effectiveearly intervention could save UK economy £486 billion over 20 years (Aked, et al., 2009).

6.3 It is well known that in some areas child and adolescent mental health services (CAMHS) are not aseffective as they should be. Some areas are doing some outstanding work, but this is far from being universal.CAMHS have historically been under resourced and under funded, although they see some of the mostvulnerable children and young people. CAMHS is not just about specialist CAMHS, which are mainlysituated within the NHS. The concept of the comprehensive CAMHS covers the full range of services that:promote the mental health of all children and young people; provides early intervention services whenproblems first arise, and provide specialist mental health services for children and young people who havemore serious mental health problems. Many of the services within the concept of the comprehensiveCAMHS are provided by agencies other than the NHS eg social services, and the voluntary sector. All ofthese services need to be functioning effectively if the whole system is to work properly.

6.4 We know from the Schools Survey and from our work that schools do not always work in partnershipwith local child and adolescent mental health services. There can be a number of reasons for why this mightbe the case, but often it is connected to different agencies not having a shared vision for what this supportcould look like and not working together to achieve it. The Targeted Mental Health in Schools (TAMHS)projects have helped agencies to think about how they can work together, and provide help and support tothe children and young people in their school. These projects were funded for three years, and are now intheir final year. Schools and their local partners should be encouraged to work together to build on whatthey have found works and to mainstream these projects once the funding period ends.

6.5 Providing access within the school to support services, such as counselling can be helpful for youngpeople who are experiencing problems. This might be for young people who have mental health orbehavioural problems, but also for instance for those who have been bullied, have problems at home, haveexperienced bereavement and so on. Many young people find school to be a safe and familiar environment,so it is a good location for providing accessible support services as long as they are built around the needsof young people and aren’t stigmatizing.

7. Supporting Teachers

7.1 There also needs to be support for teachers themselves to support their mental health and to preventburn out. Teachers provide a role model for the children in their care. As children are known to model theirbehaviour on those around them, there is a need to ensure that teachers are mentally healthy and resilient.

7.2 Many young people turn to their teacher for help when they experience problems. It is not realisticfor teachers to be therapists, but we believe it’s vital that teachers know where to signpost children and youngpeople to, and to have a basic understanding of child development and mental health. If teachers had thistraining, and/or knew how to get more specialist advice when required, it could help identify when a youngperson was experiencing mental distress, rather than just seeing them as being badly behaved.

7.3 Whole schools approaches, to behaviour and mental health, need to be led or endorsed by the headteacher, to ensure that this work isn’t marginalised. Dynamic and committed PSHE teachers are crucial, buttackling behavioural issues and promoting mental health and wellbeing needs to be owned by the wholeschool.

7.4 The UK Resilience Programme (UKRP) is an example of an evidence-based programme that is beingpiloted in the UK and aims to build resilience and develop problem solving skills (Challen, et al. 2010). Theprogramme requires the senior management teams in the respective 22 schools to sign-up to the programme,which involved providing workshops for year seven pupils. The second interim report found that thisprogramme did have a beneficial influence on the behaviours of the young people. For instance, it reduced



reported depression and anxiety, and young people reported that it gave them skills to help resolve difficultsituations and avoid arguments and fights. One of the schools reported that they saw a 50% reduction infixed term exclusions.

8. Parents

8.1 It is important that parents are involved in any interventions concerning their child’s behaviour.Parenting support has been shown to be effective in helping parents whose child has conduct problems.From our work with schools, providing parents with information that helps them understand their child,and their mental health is helpful in tackling behaviour problems.

8.2 Our Parents Helpline receives calls from any adult who is worried about the behaviour or emotionalproblems of a child or young person. In 2009 39% of the calls were connected to school-based issues suchas exam stress, bullying and school refusal.

9. Recommendations

9.1 There is a need for whole school approaches to promoting mental and emotional wellbeing, andtackling behaviour problems, which are led from the top.

9.2 Teachers should have some basic training in child development, and young people’s mental health,and know how to signpost young people to other local services.

9.3 Schools need to work with other local agencies to ensure that children and young people’s mentalhealth is promoted, and any young people with difficulties are referred on to effective mental health servicesin the community.

9.4 There should be a joint local Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services (CAMHS) strategy, whichincludes all relevant agencies: health, education and local authority.

9.5 There should be a joint local commissioning plan to ensure that high quality services are provided tomeet the mental health needs of all children and young people.

9.6 Schools need to implement relevant NICE guidance.

9.7 Parents also need information to help them support their young people.

9.8 Like the NHS there should be a framework that considers how public services, including schoolsimprove young people’s outcomes across a range of dimensions.

September 2010

References

Aked, J. et al. (2009) Backing the future: why investing in children is good for us all. London: NEF andAction for Children. http://www.actionforchildren.org.uk/uploads/media/36/7857.pdf

Sainsbury Centre for Mental Health (2009) The chance of a lifetime: preventing early conduct problems andreducing crime. London: Sainsbury Centre for Mental Health. http://www.centreformentalhealth.org.uk/pdfs/chance of a lifetime.pdf

Challen, A. et al. (2010) UK Resilience Programme evaluation: second interim report. London: Departmentfor Education. http://www.education.gov.uk/research/data/uploadfiles/DFE-RR006.pdf

DH (2010) Achieving equity and excellence for children. London: DH. http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/Publicationsandstatistics/Publications/PublicationsPolicyAndGuidance/DH 119449

Green, H., McGinnity, A., Meltzer, H., et al. (2005). Mental health of children and young people in GreatBritain 2004. London: Palgrave. See http://www.statistics.gov.uk/downloads/theme health/GB2004.pdf

Meltzer, H. et al. (2003) The mental health of young people looked after by local authorities in England.London: The Stationery Office. See http://www.statistics.gov.uk/downloads/theme health/Mentalhealth children in LAs.pdf

Richards, M. et al. (2009) Childhood mental health and life chances in post-war Britain: insights from threenational birth cohort studies. London: Sainsbury Centre for Mental Health.See http://www.centreformentalhealth.org.uk/publications/life chances.aspx?ID%596

Supplementary memorandum submitted by YoungMinds

1. YoungMinds wishes to submit additional evidence to the Education Select Committee Behaviour andDiscipline Inquiry concerning how we would model effective child and adolescent mental health services(CAMHS) and how referrals to specialist CAMHS can be improved.

2. At YoungMinds we believe that the comprehensive CAMHS model is the most effective way to deliverthe full range of mental health services to young people. By comprehensive we are referring to the full rangeof services that are required to meet child and adolescent mental health needs eg promoting good mental



health, early intervention when problems first arise, and when specialist mental health help is needed. Thiscomprehensive range of services is important because mental health is a continuum with mental health andwellbeing at one end, and severe mental illness at the other. Young people move along this continuum atdifferent stages in their lives so mental health services should not only be viewed as specialist NHS servicesthat are focused on people with severe mental health problems. The concept of comprehensive CAMHSemphasises that mental health and wellbeing is the responsibility of every service that works with children,young people and their families and not just specialist mental health teams.

3. This conceptual model for CAMHS is not new. The tiered model for CAMHS was first outlined inTogether We Stand in 1995, and Standard 9 of the National Service Framework for Children, Young Peopleand Maternity Services stated that a comprehensive CAMHS would be available in all areas by 2006. Someareas have made significant progress, but this is certainly not the case in all areas.

4. We believe that the Comprehensive CAMHS model is still a good one, but the problem is connectedto its implementation. The comprehensive CAMHS should be seen as a system and if parts of the systemare not working, then the model will not be able to work effectively. There are a number of reasons whythere are problems with the implementation. This has been discussed in detail elsewhere (CAMHS Review,National Advisory Council), but from our perspective the main reasons are connected to:

— Mental health continuing to be marginalised so it not seen as important, and just seen as theresponsibility of specialist CAMHS within the NHS

— The different relevant agencies not working together

— Lack of good leadership from the relevant agencies

— Mental health services still being the Cinderella of Cinderella services and there being a lack offunds for CAMHS; and

— Lack of training in child development and mental health for staff who work in universal or tier 1services eg GPs, teachers etc.

— Services not implementing what children, young people and their families tell them.

5. There is a greater awareness of mental health, but it still seems to be seen as the responsibility ofspecialist CAMHS, rather than tier 1 or universal level services. So if the number of young people beingidentified as potentially having mental health problems increases, but capacity within specialist CAMHSdoesn’t grow, then it is not surprising that there are difficulties in being referred to specialist CAMHS, andthat there are long waiting lists.

6. Relevant services in a given area need to work in genuine partnership to plan, commission and deliverthe comprehensive CAMHS model. The different agencies need to have a mandate and incentives toencourage them to work in partnership. There also needs to be good leadership within these agencies to driveforward partnership working. Partnership working relies on trust, and this needs to be nurtured anddeveloped through good working relationships between staff in different agencies.

7. The full range of mental health services should be developed in line with the needs of children or youngpeople and their families, rather than the needs of the services. So services within a local area should ensurethat the joint strategic needs assessment (JSNA) and that the views of children, young people and familiesare central to how services are developed and delivered.

8. There needs to be a shared understanding of mental health and wellbeing, and of the range of servicesthat are required, and what the responsibilities are for each agency.

Improving Referrals

9. We appreciate that there are difficulties in referring children and young people to specialist CAMHSservices. To improve referrals there needs to be:

— Adequate capacity at all levels, to ensure that the entire system works, and that undue pressure isnot put on one part of the system. For instance, specialist CAMHS need to have the capacity tomeet the mental health needs of young people in their area. This is important to ensure that lowerlevel services such as school counselling services are not left to care for young people who haveserious mental health problems.

— A better understanding of relevant local services. This is important as there may be good voluntarysector services that might be more appropriate for some young people. These services may be ableto provide support whilst they are waiting to access specialist CAMHS.

— An understanding of referral protocols, so tier 1 or universal level staff know how to refer on, andwhat the criteria are. So time isn’t wasted on inappropriate referrals.

— Flexible ways to access services such as self referral. Referrals need to be less bureaucratic andenable young people to be able to self refer.

— Support from specialist CAMHS to support universal and tier1 staff. Support from a practitionersuch as a primary mental health worker (PMHW) could provide support for teachers who areconcerned about a particular child.



— Targeted support in schools such as counselling, to provide support to children and young peoplewho have mental heath needs.

— Emphasis on promoting mental health and wellbeing. This could be carried out in a number ofsettings, and in partnership between various agencies. For instance, universal mental healthpromotion could take place in schools as part of PSHE lessons, but other agencies such as the NHSand the voluntary sector could contribute to these lessons.

— Tier 1 and universal level staff should receive appropriate training in children and young people’sdevelopment, and mental health. This would enable them to correctly identify mental healthproblem and be able to make more appropriate referrals.

— Good quality information via online platforms, print and telephone helplines needs to be providedin accessible ways for those young people who are waiting to access services, or who have concernsabout their mental health. This could give them some support whilst they are waiting, rather thanbeing left with no help at all when they may be very distressed.

References

Department of Health (2004) Standard 9: The mental health and psychological well-being of children andyoung people. London: Department of Health. http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/Publicationsandstatistics/Publications/PublicationsPolicyAndGuidance/DH 4089114

Independent CAMHS Review (2008) Children and young people in mind: the final report of the NationalCAMHS Review. London: Department for Children, Schools and Families, and Department of Health.http://www.dcsf.gov.uk/CAMHSreview/downloads/CAMHSReview-Bookmark.pdf

National Advisory Council for Children’s Mental Health and Psychological Wellbeing (2009) One yearon: the first report from the National Advisory Council for Children’s Mental Health and PsychologicalWellbeing. London: Department for Children, Schools and Families and Department of Health. http://www.dcsf.gov.uk/CAMHSreview/pdfs/NAC%20OYO.pdf

Williams, R. & Richardson, G. (1995) Together we stand: the commissioning, role and management ofchild and adolescent mental health services: An NHS Health Advisory Service (HAS) thematic review.London: HMSO.

For further information please contact Paula Lavis, Policy and Knowledge Manager, at 48-50 St John’sStreet, London EC1M 4DG. Telephone 0207 336 8445 or visit www.youngminds.org.uk

November 2010

Memorandum submitted by The National Autistic Society

Executive Summary

1. The National Autistic Society welcomes the opportunity to submit evidence to this inquiry. Weparticularly welcome the fact that special educational needs was singled out as in need of particularconsideration in the terms of reference for the inquiry. We would further welcome the opportunity to presentoral evidence to the Committee.

2. While there will be children, including children with autism, who can behave but choose not to, all toooften pupils with autism are wrongly and unfairly considered to fall into this group. Children with autismcan present with behaviour in school that may be inappropriate or difficult to manage. However, in ourexperience, this type of behaviour often results from anxiety or frustration due to either a lack ofunderstanding of their needs and/or a lack of support for their needs in a school environment. Moreover,due to the nature of the disability, children with autism are often unable to properly understand “sociallyappropriate” behaviour or properly interpret other people’s intentions. This means that they can be takenadvantage of and “led” by other pupils into behaviour that is unacceptable according to the school’sbehaviour policy.

3. In this response we set out in detail the key factors for children with autism that affect inappropriatebehaviour and we make the following recommendations, which we believe would both help reduceinappropriate behaviour and ensure that children with autism are supported to fulfil their potential:

— All school staff should have autism awareness training so that they have a basic understanding ofhow to work with children with autism and to enable them to identify possible indicators of autism

— All school staff must be aware of their duties towards disabled pupils under equality legislation andhave training to enable them to meet these duties.

— All schools should have access to specialist autism support and advice where appropriate.

— Academies and free schools will need to work with each other and with local authority maintainedschools as well as with their local authority to ensure the continuing viability of local specialistsupport.



— Where a child identified as having special educational needs is at risk of exclusion there must be areview of whether their needs are being met, as recommended in the SEN Code of Practice.

— For children who are not identified as having SEN but who are at risk of exclusion or show ongoingbehavioural problems an assessment to check for underlying social or communication difficultiesshould be considered.

— All children entering PRUs should be assessed on entry and any SENs logged and reported.

— Schools should work closely with parents of children with autism to ensure consistent support andapproaches towards behaviour between home and school.

— Parents must have a formal method to challenge exclusions of children with SEN where theybelieve these to be inappropriate.

— Physical restraint methods should only be used by staff with appropriate training and as a lastresort where de-escalation techniques cannot be used.

— Schools need to communicate with parents where such techniques have been used, particularly withpupils with communication needs.

The National Autistic Society (NAS)

4. The NAS is the leading charity for people with autism in the UK. We have over 20,000 members andover 100 branches, who are at the heart of what we do, and we work with a wide network of partnerorganisations in the autism field.

5. The NAS exists to champion the rights and interests of people with autism and Asperger syndrome94

and to ensure that their needs are met. We provide a range of educational support for children with autismand their families, including:

6. The National Autistic Society welcomes this inquiry into behaviour and discipline in schools andparticularly the inclusion of SEN within the terms of reference. We welcome the opportunity to submitevidence to the House of Commons Education Committee, and would be pleased to have the opportunityto provide further oral evidence to the inquiry. The NAS is a member of the Special EducationalConsortium, and also supports their response to this inquiry.

Autism

7. Autism, including Asperger syndrome, is a serious, lifelong and disabling condition which affects howa person communicates with other people and relates to the world around them. It is a spectrum condition,which means that while all people with autism share certain difficulties, it will affect each individual indifferent ways. Autism affects around one in 100 people. The NAS estimates that there are 88,000 schoolaged children with autism in England, the vast majority of whom are in mainstream schools.

8. The main three areas of difficulty that people with autism share are:

— Social interaction—including difficulties with social relationships, including appearing aloof andindifferent;

— Social communication—including difficulty understanding and using verbal and non-verbalcommunication such as language, gestures, facial expressions and tone of voice;

— Social imagination—making it difficult to understand how others think and feel or to participatein imaginary scenarios.

Children with autism may also experience sensory over—or under-sensitivity, to sounds, touch, tastes,smells, light or colours. Sensory input such as a ticking clock or screaming in the playground can behighly stressful.

Autism and School

— A child with a special educational need (SEN) is nine times more likely to be excluded fromschool.95

— 27% of children with autism are excluded from school at least once, compared with 4% of otherchildren.96

— 40% of parents report their child with autism has been bullied at school, rising to 59% of those withAsperger syndrome.97

94 Asperger syndrome is a form of autism. People with Asperger syndrome have the same traits as thosewith autism—difficultiesin communication, social understanding and social interaction—but will not usually have accompanying learning disabilities

95 Department for Children, Schools and Families (2008) National Statistics SFR 14/2008 “Permanent and Fixed PeriodExclusions from Schools and Exclusion Appeals in England, 2006–07”

96 Green, H et al, (2005) Mental health of children and young people in Great Britain, 2004. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan,p.192

97 Reid (2006) B is for bullied, NAS: London



— 42% of children with autism report not having any friends at all, compared with 1% of otherchildren.98

9. The nature of autism impacts the way that a child with autism relates to others pupils and teachers inthe school environment; it can be difficult for that child to form friendships and to understand the socialrules which determine the behaviour of their fellow pupils.

10. Children with autism can present with behaviour that may be difficult to manage. In the NAS’experience this often results from anxiety or frustration due to a lack of understanding and support for theirneeds. Children with autism may struggle to express their frustration verbally becoming increasinglyfrustrated, which inevitably affects behaviour.

11. The school environment can be a highly confusing and stressful one for a child with autism. They areoften loud and crowded with a lot of information to take in; for the many children with autism who mayhave sensory issues, such environments can cause significant distress and behaviour that would beconsidered disruptive.

12. It is common for a child with autism to hold in the stress and “cope” as much as they are able to. Thisstress may then be released at once; a child may appear to react very strongly to a seemingly minor incidentwhich can then cause friction between that child, the staff and their peers. This can often happen where thechild has been dealing with ongoing low-levels of stress, perhaps as a result of teasing, sensory difficultiesor difficulties in understanding what’s happening, until something finally pushes them into reacting.

13. Difficulties with social interaction mean that children with autism often find the communal aspect ofschooling very challenging. They may not understand what is appropriate behaviour among their peers andfind that they are often left out and struggle to make friends. They may also be “led” by other pupils intobehaviour which is considered inappropriate.

Case study example: susceptibility to peer influence

“James finds unstructured time extremely difficult. He has no friends and frequently spends hisbreak times wandering round the edges of the playground watching other pupils and trying to workout how to join in conversations and games with his peers. One day he tries to join in with someother pupils, who see him as “weird” and naıve, and they dare him to throw stones at a teacher.James wants to be “in the gang” and does not understand the possible consequences of throwingthe stones. Fortunately he misses, but he is suspended from school.”

14. For children with autism, interacting with peers can present a confusing minefield of social etiquette,cues and rules which they do not know how to navigate—whilst everyone else, it seems, intuitively does.

15. Break times for example can be particularly difficult for children with autism. Unstructured times areunpredictable and it can be very difficult for a child with autism to know what to do during this time incontrast to the rest of the day when they are given instructions, rules and a timetable to guide them through.If you are not aware of the social rules of the playground it can appear as though everyone is simply runningaround screaming. Moving between lessons can be extremely stressful for a child with autism.

16. Many children with autism find transitions and unplanned changes extremely difficult. Suddenchanges to the timetable or a substitute teacher can be very stressful and may increase a child’s anxietysignificantly.

Bullying

17. In some cases a child’s behaviour may be as the result of ongoing provocation and bullying. In asurvey carried out by the NAS,99 a number of parents of children with autism reported that their child hadbeen excluded from school as a result of their reaction to ongoing, persistent, low-level bullying. The NAShas found that over 40% of children with autism have been bullied at school.100

18. The following is a quote from a parent in response to an NAS research questionnaire. It is indicativeof the effect that bullying and lack of teaching training can have on outcomes and behaviour for a childwith autism:

“Problems mainly happened at first mainstream junior school, because he was withdrawn fromcertain lessons. He was teased and mocked by the manipulative, smart kids—consequence: awfulbehaviour from my son who physically attacked them, and was blamed. The next school he wentto, the staff had a negative effect on his relationship forming, because they had him down as amarked person, due to his poor social skills and a negative attitude to his needs. Now his currentschool has a good policy and are able to tackle any problems consistently and effectively, againdue to size, resources, and trained staff.”101

98 Green et al99 Reid and Batten (2006) B is for bullied: the experiences of children with autism and their families, London: NAS100 Make School Make Sense, Reid and Batten, The NAS, London, 2006 p13.101 Make School Make Sense, Batten et al



Teacher Training and Behaviour

“Educating a child with autism will require modification of both your group and individual teachingmethods”.102

19. Staff who are not equipped to deal with the behaviours that children with autism may exhibit, mayexacerbate a situation by reacting to it inappropriately and failing to make adjustments. A teacher with therelevant expertise may have the tools to diffuse a challenging situation where their colleague is not.

20. For inclusion to take place, educational provision must be adapted according to the pupil’s individualneeds, which relies of an adequate understanding of autism through training, however 44% of teachers havesaid that they did not feel comfortable teaching students on the spectrum.103

21. Under the Disability Discrimination Act (and shortly under the Equality Act), schools haveresponsibilities to make reasonable adjustments for children with disabilities. This includes adapting theclassroom environment, teaching practices, and crucially making adjustments to the application ofbehaviour policies where the behaviour is due to a reason related to the child’s disability. Yet we regularlyhear from parents that such adjustments are not being made and that far too often schools are not fulfillingthese duties.

Good practice example: a reasonable adjustment

Gary is five and has autism. He did not answer his name when the register was taken, which theteacher found frustrating. However an autism specialist at the school recognised that Gary did notunderstand the concept of the register and why he had to tell the teacher that he was already in theroom. She suggested that the teacher provide Gary with a card to give in at the beginning of thelesson instead of having to answer his name.104

22. It is true of any pupil, with and without SEN that the key to improving behaviour involves engaginga child through expert teaching.105 For children with autism this means teachers who understand theircondition and can communicate with them. Access to specialist support is critical for teachers to be able tosupport children with autism effectively. We strongly welcome the recommendation from the Lamb Inquiry,currently being taken forward by the Teaching and Development Agency (TDA), to have teachers withspecialist understanding of autism accessible to every school.

23. Under-identification is significant problem facing pupils with autism at school. While nationalprevalence figures suggest that there are 88,000 children with autism in England, Government figures106

show only 56,000 are identified in maintained schools. The recent Ofsted SEN Review found that pupils withcomplex conditions like autism struggle to get appropriate support even where their needs are apparentunless they have a medical diagnosis. We are aware of cases where schools refuse to acknowledge that a childhas an autism, even where they have a medical diagnosis.

24. The quality of teaching staff available to a child with autism will also significantly affect that child’sability to learn and develop to the best of their potential. In our experience, “bad” behaviour of pupils withSEN is often a consequence of their needs not being met rather than them being naughty. The Steer reportmakes that point that a child who is not properly supported at school and given the tools they need todevelop, is likely to become frustrated with their lack of achievement and therefore demonstrate badbehaviour.107

25. The NAS recognises that there will be children, including children with autism, who can behave butchoose not to. However pupils with autism are frequently wrongly considered to fall into this group,particularly by staff who have a low awareness of autism. This is compounded by the invisible nature ofautism. For example, some children with high functioning autism or Asperger syndrome may beacademically able yet lack social and relational skills to follow instructions appropriately.

26. A staff member may attribute the failure of a child with autism to follow instruction, to choice ratherthan lack of understanding. The staff member’s lack of understanding of autism then places the pupil at adisadvantage.

Recommendations:

— All school staff should have autism awareness training so that they have a basic understanding ofhow to work with children with autism and to enable them to identify possible indicators of autism.

— All school staff must be aware of their duties towards disabled pupils under equality legislation andhave training to enable them to meet these duties.

— All schools should have access to specialist autism support and advice where appropriate.

102 Autism in your classroom: a general educator’s guide to students with autism spectrum disorders, Woodbine House 2007,Deborah Fein, Michelle Dunn

103 National Union of Teachers (2006) “SEN survey on the provision of training to teachers in relation to pupils with specialeducational needs—evaluation”, UK

104 Children Now (May 2005)105 Ofsted, 2009. Twenty outstanding primary schools—excelling against the odds in challenging circumstances.106 Department for Education (2010) Special Educational Needs in England January 2010107 Learning Behaviour, Lessons Learned , Sir Alan Steer, London 2009



Early Intervention

27. With the right support incidents of extreme behaviour can be reduced. Identifying the root cause ofbehaviours and understanding them is often essential to prevent issues escalating, as well as explaining socialsituations and putting strategies in place to help children manage their emotions.

28. Nevertheless, NAS research of nearly 1,300 parents of children with autism shows that nearly half(45%) say it took over a year for their child to start receiving any support. Of these, two thirds said that thedelay has had a negative impact on their child’s behaviour, and a third (34%) say it has had a negative impacton their child’s mental health.108

29. The NAS is finding that the pupils who are referred to our schools have increasingly complexproblems with behaviour and mental health problems, frequently as a result of a lack of appropriate supportat earlier stages in their school life. Many of the pupils have had significant periods, even up to two years,without any formal education before coming to our schools.

30. Failure to provide appropriate support in education for children with autism can have majorconsequences. Research shows that children with SEN are more likely not to be in education, employmentor training (NEET), and one study has shown that while 60% of people in young offender institutes havespeech, language and communication needs, only 5% were identified early in life.109

SEN and Exclusion

31. Many children with autism face exclusion from school on either a temporary or permanent basis. Itis the experience of the NAS that for many children with autism, exclusion represents a failure on the part oftheir educational setting to provide appropriate support and training to effectively manage their behaviour:

— 27% of children with autism are excluded from school at least once, compared with 4% of otherchildren.110

— Of children who have been excluded 16% have been excluded ten times, or so many times that theirparents have lost count and a third have missed a term or more of school.

32. Children with autism are often also “informally” excluded which means they are omitted fromexclusions data. Informal exclusions arise when the school, unlawfully, requests that a student not be presentfor a particular school event. Informal exclusions such as these are indicative of a school unwilling or unableto cope with the child in question. We continue to hear of pupils being sent home at lunchtimes, for an Ofstedinspection or not being able to attend school trips.

33. Faced with a lack of any viable alternative provision, some parents feel that they have to remove theirchildren from the education system entirely and educate at home.

34. The 2006 report of the House of Commons Education and Skills Committee into Special EducationalNeeds states that it was unacceptable that there should continue to exist such a strong correlation betweenexclusions and children with SEN and that the Government should enhance existing, and improvealternative, forms of provision, training and resources rather than using an increasingly punitive approachfor these children and families involved.111 Yet in our experience, exclusions of children with autism continueto happen on a regular basis.

35. Where children are excluded there needs to be planning to ensure that appropriate provision is madeavailable for them. It is entirely unacceptable for children to be left without any educational provision, insome cases for years at a time.

Good practice example: NAS Robert Ogden School, South Yorkshire

30% of pupils at the NAS Robert Ogden School were permanently excluded from both mainstreamand special schools before they came to the school.

A proportion of these pupils with challenging behaviours were spending a significant amount oftime out of classes because they were inhibiting the learning of other pupils. In order to meet thesepupil’s needs, the school has established at Key Stages 3 and 4 an “Inclusion Resource”. Each pupilis given a personalised “inclusion” timetable which enables them to negotiate their access tolearning groups, or particular teachers with whom they feel comfortable. There is not anexpectation that these pupils will attend all classes with their peers. Each pupil has an individualinclusion target each week, for example to attend an after school club. Pupils have been able tobuild up their tolerance of group learning, and have a personalised learning programme and theirown space when they choose to use it.

108 MSMS Batten et al109 Demos (2010) Ex Curricula110 Green, H et al, (2005) Mental health of children and young people in Great Britain, 2004. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan,

p.192111 House of Commons Education and Skills Committee Report: Special Educational Needs, 2006 p35



One pupil had been to six different mainstream schools and then a 52-week autism specificprovision before coming to Robert Ogden School, where they developed a highly personalisedcurriculum for him. Within six months he had gained GCSE English and Maths at grade B, andhas now completed a Masters degree in Engineering Programming.

Pupil Referral Units (PRUs)

36. According to Government figures, three quarters of pupils in PRUs have an identified SEN. Figuresare not available broken down by type of SEN, but given the high rate of exclusions of children with autism,we believe it is likely that a significant proportion of children in PRUs have autism with either identified orunidentified needs.

37. Some PRUs provide a very good standard of provision and have access to staff trained in autism.However, others are less good, and we do not believe that in the vast majority of cases PRUs are theappropriate environment for children with autism. Children may be particularly vulnerable because of theirdisability. They may be bullied or pick up unhelpful behaviours from other children. What’s more, lowerexpectations can lead to lower opportunities for attainment.

Recommendations:

— Where a child identified as having special educational needs is at risk of exclusion there must be areview of whether their needs are being met, as recommended in the SEN Code of Practice.

— For children who are not identified as having SEN but who are at risk of exclusion or show ongoingbehavioural problems an assessment to check for underlying social or communication difficultiesshould be considered.

— All children entering PRUs should be assessed on entry and any SENs logged and reported.

38. We believe there is a vital role for local authorities in ensuring that there is an appropriate range ofprovision available in a local area to meet the varying needs of children across the spectrum.

Academies and Exclusion

39. While we welcome the intention of the Academies Act to drive up standards, the NAS has significantconcerns about the implications of a system in which there are increasing numbers of academies, which seemmore likely to use exclusion as a tool, and the effect this may have on children with autism.

40. Both the Academies Bill Equalities Impact Assessment and Price Waterhouse Coopers’ AcademiesEvaluation Fifth Annual Report (commissioned by the Department for Children, Schools and Families)state that exclusion rates in academies are higher than they are in maintained settings.112 The Fifth AnnualReport sets out that this was true even when comparing schools with similar intakes.

41. The raised level of exclusions in Academies suggests that they may not be addressing the issues whichcause children with SEN to exhibit certain behavioural issues. Moreover, academies will not necessarily haveaccess to the specialist teaching provision often shared between maintained schools across LocalAuthorities. The implications of this lack of specialist support for the behaviour of children with SEN inschools are potentially significant.113 More needs to be done to ensure that the support provided by localauthorities to schools is not lost as the number of schools, not under local authority control, increases.

Recommendation:

— Academies and free schools will need to work with each other and with local authority maintainedschools as well as with their local authority to ensure the continuing viability of local specialistsupport.

Involving Parents

42. An inquiry conducted by Brian Lamb found that parents of children with SEN do not feel involvedenough in the process of their child’s education, or handling their challenging behaviour. Parents reportedthat the professionals did not appear to take their opinions and observations into account.114 It isparticularly important to listen to parents as the difficulties a child is facing may not always be apparent atschool—parents often describe the “3 o’clock timebomb” where their child comes home from school andexplodes with the frustrations of having to cope in a neuro-typical environment of school all day.

“There needs to be less leaping to conclusions about parenting skills, especially regarding behaviour”.115

43. By working with, and listening to parents it is possible to maintain consistency of approach betweenhome and school, in order that children are able to apply their learning across different environments andto avoid them becoming confused.

112 Department for Education, Academies Bill Equalities Impact Assessment, June 2010 and http://www.standards.dfes.gov.uk/academies/pdf/Academies5thAnnualReport.pdf?version%1

113 Breaking the Link Between Special Educational Needs and Low Attainment DCSF, 2010114 Lamb 2009 Special Educational Needs and Parental Confidence115 Ibid, Blackburn with Darwen Borough council, Lamb Inquiry Project



Recommendation:

— Schools should work closely with parents of children with autism to ensure consistent support andapproaches towards behaviour between home and school.

Independent Appeals Panels

44. Given the disproportionate representation of children with SEN in the exclusion figures, IndependentAppeals Panels are particularly vital for those children. In the experience of the NAS, challenging behaviouris frequently the by-product of a lack of understanding and support; there must be safeguards in place toprotect children with SEN.

45. Sir Alan Steer has argued that the abolition of IAP will remove a level of protection for pupils andtheir parents, creating a potentially unfair system, which could also mean that schools increasingly becomeembroiled in time consuming and costly redress processes.116

Recommendation:

— Parents must have a formal method to challenge exclusions of children with SEN where theybelieve these to be inappropriate.

Use of Force in Schools

46. We are concerned about the removal of the duty introduced in the Apprenticeships, Skills, Childrenand Learners Act to require schools to inform parents when they have used force on a pupil. It can be afrightening experience for children and they are at risk of injury, especially where it is used by untrainedprofessionals. Many pupils who display behaviour which challenges schools may have a communicationdifficulty and may not be able to explain to their parents what has happened at school.

47. We are aware of cases where restraint is used repeatedly on pupils as young as six. Restraint shouldonly be used as a last resort, where there is risk of injury or harm. It is imperative that school staff who useforce on pupils have appropriate training in safe techniques of using restraint. De-escalation strategies mustalways be used as a first resort.

Recommendation:

— Physical restraint methods should only be used by staff with appropriate training and as a lastresort where de-escalation techniques cannot be used.

— Schools need to communicate with parents where such techniques have been used, particularly withpupils with communication needs.

September 2010

Supplementary memorandum submitted by The National Autistic Society

The National Autistic Society gave oral evidence to the Education Select Committee on 27 October. Thisnote follows up a query around how:

(a) pupil referral units (PRUs)

(b) child and adolescent mental health services (CAMHS)

can better support children with autism (including Asperger syndrome).

Pupil Referral Units (PRUs)

While some PRUs provide a very good standard of provision, others are less good, and we do not believethat in the vast majority of cases PRUs are the appropriate environment for children with autism. Childrenmay be particularly vulnerable because of their disability. They may be bullied or pick up unhelpfulbehaviours from other children. What’s more, lower expectations can lead to lower opportunities forattainment

We recommend the following:

— A member of staff in every PRU to have training in SEN, similar to a SENCO in mainstreamschool

— Every PRU to have access to specialist support, including specialists in autism

— Well-planned transition between settings and transfer of data/records, particularly for youngpeople with autism.

— Develop a clear mechanism to make a thorough assessment of a child’s needs on transfer toalternative provision, including how best they can be supported

116 Steer, 2009



— Policy on alternative and special education provision must be joined up, nationally and locally. Thecommissioning toolkit should cross-refer to guidance on the development of special educationalprovision.

— Policy on alternative and special education provision must be joined up, nationally and locally.

Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services (CAMHS)

Our research shows that CAMHS is drastically failing the 1 in 10 children accessing CAMHS who alsohave a mental health problem. Poor understanding and training mean that staff are ill-equipped to addressthe needs of children with autism; CAMH services are failing to improve the mental health of two thirds ofthese children.

We recommend the following:

— Multiagency CAMHS planning groups to include education representatives

— Local CAMHS strategies should consider how CAMHS will work with education

— Education engaging with CAMHS

— Ongoing relationship between CAMHS and schools eg West of Cornwall

— Offering opportunity to have appointments in schools

— CAMHS involving children, parents and professionals such as teachers working with the child

— Key workers and multiagency approach, along the lines of Team Around the Child approach

Young Campaigners Group

The young campaigners group formed in conjunction with the NAS’ You Need To Know campaign. Itis comprised exclusively of young people with autism who campaign on the issues that are important to themaround autism and child mental health. They have developed a charter which lays out exactly what needsto change in the child mental health services in order for them to provide an adequate service to childrenand young people with autism.

The Young Campaigners identified the following points in their charter:

— CAMHS should be on your side and tell your school what support you need

— CAMHS should train staff at your school so they know how to help you when you’re feeling bad

— CAMHS should help schools to understand more about autism

Examples of CAMHS Good Practice

In some cases families feel CAMHS provide a vital link for families where other services are very poor.In one LA which has very poor special educational provision, parents want CAMHS to stay involved withtheir child to get schools to recognise needs.

West of Cornwall CAMHS

West of Cornwall CAMHS has forged a strong link with the educational institutes in their area and, asresult, has become an example of best practice. The team often receives a large number of referrals fromschools.

They have links with around 30 secondary schools, and a presence in each of these schools. CAMHSregularly attend the schools’ multi-agency meetings to maintain and strengthen the relationships they havewith the schools. They have a joint service with behaviour support teams and with the schools autismadvisors. This allows a part of CAMHS to work exclusively with the school.

This allows the presence of the CAMHS staff at a meeting to feel part of normal procedure. Thisfamiliarity allows the schools to feel comfortable enough to contact CAMHS about any arising issues andit also allows CAMHS to utilise this relationship to get the school to complete school reports and ratingscales for them which assists in the assessment of a child.

This close working link that CAMHS has with the school facilitates a multi-disciplinary approach totreating children with autism and an accompanying mental health problem and can also help eliminate someof the difficulties that arise from the school’s lack of understanding with autism. This helps to keep someroutine in the child’s life which can help to lower anxiety and increase the success of treatment.

West Berkshire Social Communication Team

This team provides home and community based assessment and intervention for young people and theirfamilies. They also offer a specialist intervention service for children with more complex needs as well as amonthly consultation service for professionals working with children and young people with socialcommunication difficulties.



The team is part of a wider multidisciplinary group who provide services for individuals with autism inWest Berkshire. They meet on a monthly basis and look at referrals to stop children with autism fallingbetween the gaps between the different teams.

Interventions on offer include:

— information packs to parents and schools

— visit to the school or telephone discussions with key teaching staff

— a home-based intervention service to provide advice and/or specific programmes to targetcommunication and behavioural concerns, sometimes involving individual work with the youngperson

— parent training groups for families of newly diagnosed children

— social skills groups

— sibling groups

— advice, training and consultation

Good practice example (from Pan-London heads meeting)

In one school, the local CAMHS service runs a clinic on-site. This prevents children from having to attendappointments in unfamiliar surroundings or in bad areas. The school has a caseload meeting once a termto consider the pupils who have been identified by teachers as needing additional support, or whose parentshave raised concerns at parent’s evenings. They then decide which pupils should be referred to CAMHS andprofessionals come into school to work with pupils and parents there. The school has a specialist nurseemployed by the PCT who attends the school once a week to accompany parent to the meeting with theCAMHS professional. This helps with information sharing between the school and CAMHS (although thisis still not perfect) and goes some way to addressing the issues with parents being reluctant to share problemswith CAMHS staff. The school will also offer that a class teacher/TA attend the appointments whereappropriate.

November 2010

Supplementary memorandum submitted by Sue Cowley

Ev 60:

I’ve been told by teachers on several occasions that their school has either excluded certain pupils duringan inspection, encouraged them to stay off school, or organised work experience to coincide with aninspection. However, I would not wish to present this as something for which I have direct written evidenceor research. This is anecdotal, but I think most teachers would accept that it still goes on. I was talking toa deputy head only this week who said that schools inevitably still present “their best face” to Ofsted, andwho made the point that schools feel the present inspection can be both inconsistent and punitive. At thesimplest level, if I know I might have an inspector in my lesson the next day, as an individual teacher I willprobably stay up late that night writing a “perfect” lesson plan. But that’s not to say that there are not somedays when I go into a lesson an “wing it” because I simply don’t have time to plan in that much detail everyday of the school year.

Where you have an inspection system that is punitive, and where there is so much at stake, it is inevitablethat schools will try and dress up what goes on. If you truly want an honest picture, you have to get awayfrom the sense that Ofsted turn up, pass judgement, and disappear again. Schools should not “live in fear”of inspections, but should see them as an important and integral part of their drive to improve.

Ev 61:

What strikes me is that, in pretty much every other job or profession, if a staff member was told to “effoff”, that would result in a very serious sanction. You see those signs at passport control about abusivelanguage, and you know that something really serious would happen if you did swear at the immigrationstaff. It’s just not the case in schools, though, and some teachers have to put up with being sworn at on aregular basis.

Ev 66:

I frequently find that teachers do not understand the guidance on the use of reasonable force and I haveto explain to them that such a thing exists! In fact, teachers often say to me “we can’t touch pupils’. Iwouldn’t argue that they need more rights to use force, because they need to build relationships with studentsand using force would effectively damage that. But, many many teachers do not understand and have notread the guidance, or been trained in the use of reasonable force.



Memorandum submitted by Department for Education

Introduction

1. For many teachers, dealing with poor behaviour will be a significant challenge in their career. For manypupils, their education will be impeded because teaching is disrupted by the behaviour of others. For somepupils, their own behaviour will lead to repeated fixed period or permanent exclusions and will seriouslyhinder their chances of becoming successful individuals contributing to society.

2. The Coalition Government wants to give teachers the confidence to exercise authority to promote andensure good behaviour in the classroom. We recognise that heads and teachers want to improve behaviourand teach in a calm, orderly environment but are too often constrained by regulations which inhibit themfrom maintaining order. That is why our first announcement on behaviour on 7 July focussed on clarifyingand strengthening teachers’ powers to maintain order and instil discipline.

3. We have more to do on this, including measures to tackle bullying, head teachers’ powers to excludedisruptive pupils, how teachers are trained in behaviour management and the reform of alternative provisionfor excluded pupils. We will set out our plans in greater detail in a Schools White Paper to be published laterthis year and legislate where necessary in the next Education Bill. We therefore welcome the SelectCommittee Inquiry and hope that its deliberations and recommendations can inform the Government’spolicy.

Policy Context

4. We believe that the two essential prerequisites for successful educational attainment are effectiveteaching of literacy and high standards of behaviour. A higher proportion of children from deprivedbackgrounds have poorer literacy skills from an early age than those of their peers, and this deficit goes onto affect their later educational outcomes.117 A higher proportion of children from poor backgrounds alsohave greater problems with their behaviour. One study118 found that a child of parents in the lowest socioeconomic groups is around eight percentage points more likely to have behavioural problems than a childwith parents in the highest group. Such children are also more likely to attend a school with behaviourproblems. For example, data shows that pupils receiving free school meals (FSM) are more likely than otherpupils to have been excluded for a fixed-period or permanently from school and the rate of fixed periodexclusions is related to the level of deprivation of the school.119 Our Pupil Premium will direct additionalfunds to schools to support pupils from poorer backgrounds in ways that schools judge to be best, givingthem flexibility to help those pupils who most need it.

5. Tackling absenteeism in schools is also a crucial part of the Government’s commitment to increasingsocial mobility and to ensuring every child can meet their potential. There is a demonstrable link betweenattendance and attainment with persistently absent pupils being around 61

2 times less likely to achieve 5 A*–Cgrades at GCSE than those who attend school regularly.120

6. The recent fall in overall absence and persistent absence rates are welcome, but the overall level ofabsenteeism in schools is still too high. We need to do more to tackle the underlying factors that result inthousands of children being absent from school each day. Schools need to continue to be strict aboutauthorising absence only when it is necessary, but need also to tackle unauthorised absence—which is stillrising in primary schools.

7. Pupils identified as having special educational needs (with or without a statement) are more than eighttimes more likely to be permanently excluded than those pupils with no special educational needs (SEN). In2008–09, 24 in every 10,000 pupils with statements of SEN and 30 in every 10,000 pupils with SEN withoutstatements were permanently excluded from school. This compares with three in every 10,000 pupils withno SEN. Pupils with SEN are also more likely to receive a fixed period exclusion. In 2008–09, 810 in every10,000 pupils with statements of SEN and 700 in every 10,000 pupils with SEN without statements receivedone or more fixed period exclusions. This compares with 140 in every 10,000 pupils with no SEN.121 Pupilswith SEN have consistently been more likely to be excluded from school than their peers; we hope that theCommittee’s inquiry will focus on the reasons why this is the case.

8. The recent Ofsted review of SEN and disability122 highlighted that schools classify a wide range ofpupils as having SEN, from those whose needs could be met through good quality teaching to those withcomplex and severe needs requiring significant additional support. Correct identification and appropriateprovision for pupils with SEN is a priority for this Government and the Green Paper on SEN, recentlyannounced by the Minister of State for Children, will look at this area in detail. The Government wants to

117 In 2009 63.3% of pupils receiving free school meals (FSM) achieved a level 4 or above at Key Stage 2 English compared to83.0% of pupils not receiving FSM.

118 Propper, C and Rigg, J (2007). Socio-Economic Status and Child Behaviour: Evidence from a contemporary UK cohort.Centre for Analysis of Social Exclusion (CASE) paper 125, LSE.

119 National Statistics: DCSF: Permanent and Fixed Period Exclusions from Schools in England 2006–07—Amended, DCSF2008

120 DfE unpublished internal analysis based on 2009 KS4 attainment data and pupil level absence data from the School Census121 National Statistics: DfE: Permanent and Fixed Period Exclusions from Schools in England 2008–09, DfE 2010122 A statement is not enough—Ofsted review of special educational needs and disability, Ofsted 2010



look at how we can improve the services these vulnerable children, including those with behavioural,emotional and social difficulties (BESD), and their families, receive. The system needs to be moretransparent for parents with more choice and involvement in the decision-making process.

Behaviour in Schools Today

9. It is true that many schools have very good behaviour and that most children will behave well if theyare in a school where there is a positive ethos and a strong behaviour policy that is communicated to staff,parents and pupils and implemented consistently at all levels. However a closer analysis shows that thereremain substantial problems in too many schools. A significant minority of pupils are causing disruptionwhich impedes teachers’ ability to teach and other pupils’ opportunities to learn. As at December 2009, while78.6% of state-funded secondary schools were judged as “Good” or “Outstanding” for standards ofbehaviour at their most recent Ofsted inspection, there were still 20.2% that were judged to be only“Satisfactory” and 1.1% judged to be “Inadequate”.123 This equates to 677 secondary schools (21.3%) wherebehaviour was only satisfactory or inadequate.

10. In 2008–09124 there were:

— an estimated 6,550 permanent exclusions from primary, secondary and special schools.125 Thisrepresents 0.09% of the number of pupils in schools (nine pupils in every 10,000);

— 307,840 fixed period exclusions from state funded secondary schools. There were 39,510 fixedperiod exclusions from primary schools and 15,930 fixed period exclusions from special schools;

— 17,930 pupil exclusions for violence against an adult in primary, secondary and special schools,equating to approximately 11% of permanent exclusions and 5% of fixed period exclusions; and

— a further 79,060 exclusions for threatening behaviour or verbal abuse against an adult (representing11% of permanent exclusions and 22% of fixed period exclusions).

11. In 2008–09, the average number of fixed period exclusions per enrolment was 1.9 exclusions. Of the194,700 pupil enrolments with a fixed period exclusion, 119,420 pupils were excluded once (61%), 36,750pupils were excluded twice (19%) and 38,540 pupils were excluded three or more times (20%).

12. The most common reason for exclusion was persistent disruptive behaviour (30% of all permanentand 23% of fixed period exclusions).

13. The latest TellUS survey shows that 28.8% of children say they have been bullied in the last year andalmost half of children have experienced bullying at some point whilst at school.126

14. There is evidence to suggest that different groups experience bullying more than others. There isanecdotal evidence from pupils and teachers to suggest that homophobic bullying continues to be a problemin schools. Due to the nature of homophobic bullying accurate data on its prevalence in schools is limited.However a 2007 survey of 1,145 pupils who identified as lesbian, gay or bisexual conducted by Stonewall,reported that 65% of young lesbian, gay and bisexual pupils have experienced direct bullying.127 A 2003study, which compared survey responses from 1,200 lesbian, gay and bisexual people with those from 1,200heterosexual people, indicated that 51% of homosexual men experienced bullying at school compared to47% of heterosexual men and 30% of homosexual women experienced bullying at school compared to 20%of heterosexual women.128

15. The Longitudinal Survey of Young People in England (LSYPE)129 showed that young people with adisability were more likely than those without a disability to be called names, to be subject to socialexclusion, to have their money and possessions taken, to be threatened with violence and to be victims ofactual violence.

16. There is violence and assault in our schools. NASUWT have estimated that there is one assault (verbalor physical) every seven minutes.130 A recent poll by the Association of Teachers and Lecturers (ATL) foundthat 38.6% of respondents had dealt with physical aggression that academic year.131 Most reported incidents(87%) involved violence towards another pupil, more than a quarter involved violence against therespondent, with 44% of incidents involving another teacher or a member of support staff (more than oneanswer could be given).

17. There is a growing trend to bully and harass teachers by making false allegations against them. A 2009survey132 of 1,155 ATL members found that a quarter of school staff have had a false allegation made againstthem by a pupil, and one in six have had an allegation made by a member of a pupil’s family. In addition,

123 Statistical Release NI86: Secondary Schools judged as having Good or Outstanding Standards of Behaviour at December2009, DCSF 2010

124 National Statistics: DfE: Permanent and Fixed Period Exclusions from Schools in England 2008–09, DfE 2010125 From a pupil population of over 7.4 million126 The TellUS figures cover bullying in and out of schools, DCSF 2010127 Stonewall (2007) The experiences of young gay people in Britain’s schools128 King and McKeown (2003) Mental health and social wellbeing of gay men, lesbians and bisexuals in England and Wales129 Green, R., Collingwood, A & Ross, A (2010) Characteristics of Bullying Victims in Schools130 NASUWT, 2010131 ATL, 2010132 ATL 2009



the same survey reported that 50% of school staff reported that they or a colleague have had a false allegationmade against them in their current school or college by a pupil or a member of a pupil’s family. In half thecases the allegation was immediately dismissed by the school. The police were notified in only 16% ofinstances, and took no further action in 55 of the 67 cases they investigated.

18. Pupil behaviour has a significant impact on the recruitment and retention of teachers. Issues ofworkload and poor pupil behaviour are important factors in dissuading undergraduates from entering theteaching profession and influencing serving teachers to leave.133 A 2008 poll of undergraduates found thatfeeling unsafe in the classroom was the greatest deterrent134 to entering the teaching profession.135 Forteachers, workload is the highest demotivating factor (56%), followed by initiative overload (39%), a “targetdriven culture” (35%) and, pupil behaviour (31%).136 Another study137 found that 68% of 1,400 teachersagreed that negative behaviour is driving teachers out of the profession, with secondary teachers more likelyto agree with this statement than primary teachers. Half of the sample (51%) felt that teachers with lessexperience were more likely to be driven out of the profession by negative behaviour, while 19% disagreedwith this.

19. Not only can pupil indiscipline be demotivating for teaching staff, it can also be disruptive to otherpupils. The 2009 Teaching and Learning International Survey (TALIS) carried out by the Organisation forEconomic Co-operation and Development (OECD) showed that of 23 countries researched, an estimated30% of teaching time is lost due to poor pupil behaviour.138

20. In a one-week period in March 2009, NASUWT undertook a survey of teachers and headteachersworking in primary and secondary schools, and over 10,000 responses to the survey were received.139 Thesurvey confirmed the OECD finding that the impact of lost teaching and learning time as a result of pupilindiscipline was acute. In primary schools, an average of 30 minutes of available teaching time was lost perteacher per day, whilst in secondary schools, the figure for lost teaching time increased to 50 minutes perteacher per day.

21. In international surveys of 15-year old students’ beliefs and expectations by Elliott et al,140 the beliefthat classmates had poorer behaviour and disrupted lessons was linked to lower levels of perceived workrates for pupils in both the UK and the US (Sunderland and Kentucky) compared with a Russian samplein which behaviour was perceived to be better. A similar pattern was shown in a later survey of nine andten year-old pupils, although these students tended to be more positive in their ratings of their classmates’behaviour.141

22. Some poorly behaved pupils may face a bleak future. Studies have found142 that exclusion isassociated with: offending behaviour including offences classed as serious (drug use; possession of weapons);being NEET; academic underachievement; limited ambition; homelessness; and mental ill health.

23. Youth Cohort Study data for 2007 was used to compare, on various measures, those who had beenexcluded at some point to those who had never been excluded. This found that young people who had beenexcluded (for a fixed-term or permanently) from school in Years 10 or 11 were much less likely to be in full-time education at age 19 (20% compared to 45% of non-excludees) and much more likely to be out of workat age 19 (13% compared to 5%). Similar results for the negative outcomes for excluded pupils were alsoshown in the earlier Youth Cohort Studies.

24. Analysis of all pupils permanently excluded in Year 9 in the 2004–5 academic year data showed thatpupils who entered secondary school with very low literacy skills (below National Curriculum Level 3 inEnglish) had an exclusion rate five times that of pupils entering Key Stage 3 at Level 4 or above (0.5% ofthose with severe literacy difficulties were excluded, compared to 0.1% of those with at least average literacylevels).143

25. The DfES 2004 youth cohort study found that only 20% of pupils with a fixed term or permanentexclusion from school in Years 10 and 11 achieved five or more GCSE A*–Cs or equivalent, compared to58% of non-excludees.

133 Ashby et al 2008: Beginner teachers’ experiences of initial teacher preparation, induction and early professional development:a review of the literature. DCSF

134 18% with salary being the next most common factor at 16.8%135 YouGov Plc (2008) for Policy Exchange. Cited in Freedman, S; Lipson, B; & Hargreaves, D (2008): More Good Teachers136 MORI (2003): One in Three Teachers to Leave Within Five Years.137 NFER (2008): Teacher Voice Omnibus June 2008 Survey: Pupil Behaviour. DCSF138 OECD (2009) Creating Effective Learning and Teaching Environments: First Results from TALIS139 NASUWT, 2010140 Elliott, J; Hufton, N; Hildreth, A (1999). Factors Influencing Educational Motivation: a study of attitudes, expectations and

behaviour of children in Sunderland, Kentucky and St Petersburg.141 Elliott, JG, Hufton, N, Illushin, L & Lauchlan, F (2001). Motivation in the Junior Years: international perspectives on

children’s attitudes, expectations and behaviour and their relationship to educational achievement.142 Youth Justice Board (2004): Mori Youth Survey 2004; Goulden et al (2001) At the margins: drug use by vulnerable young

people in the 1998/99 Youth Lifestyles Survey; DCSF (2005) Youth Cohort Study: Activities and Experiences of 17 Year Olds:England and Wales 2005; DCSF (2004) Youth Cohort Study: Activities and Experiences of 17 Year Olds: England and Wales2004; Randal et al (2009): Prevention is better than cure; Thomas et al (2008) Targeted Youth Support: Rapid EvidenceAssessment of Effective Early Interventions for Youth at Risk of Future Poor Outcomes; Daniels et al (2003): Study of youngpeople permanently excluded from school

143 DfES (2006) KPMG Foundation (2006) The long-term costs of literacy difficulties.



How well Schools Manage Behaviour

26. Good teaching underpins good behaviour. Pupils are more likely to behave well when they areinterested and engaged. Analysis of the Longitudinal Study of Young People in England indicated that ofthe cohort of 14–16 year-olds, those classified as “disengaged” were far more likely to report misbehavingthan other young people. 40% of “disengaged” pupils reported misbehaving in half or more of their classescompared with just 7% of “engaged” young people.144

27. Smith et al. (2005)145 conducted a systematic review of research on what pupils aged 11–16 believedimpacted on their motivation to learn in the classroom. The reviewers concluded that what teachers do canimpact both positively and negatively on pupil motivation. There appeared to be a connection between pupilenjoyment of a task and the degree to which it engaged them cognitively. Across the studies in the review, itwas found that engagement in learning was more likely if:

— the lessons were perceived as “fun”;

— the lessons were varied and participative;

— teachers used collaborative approaches; and

— pupils perceived activities to be useful and authentic.

28. Qualitative research with primary school pupils showed that pupils disengage with their educationwhen they feel bored with the general curriculum or specific educational tasks—something not mentionedby parents or teachers in their equivalent interviews. The pupils also described their behaviour whendisengaged; this included disruptive behaviours such as play fights and throwing objects in the classroom.146

29. Against this backdrop, it is nevertheless clear, that most young people are well behaved most of thetime and that most teachers and head teachers employ effective behaviour management strategies in theirclassrooms and schools:

— the vast majority of teachers (93%) who responded to the NASUWT survey147 said that theirschools had a whole-school behaviour policy;

however

— the same survey found that teachers felt that the behaviour policy was inconsistently applied by arange of staff, including the most senior;

— 80% of respondents to the Teacher Voice survey148 saw themselves as well equipped to manage pupilbehaviour;

but

— were less sure about whether the appropriate training and support was available to help them todeal with behaviour management issues.

30. We expect that schools’ performance management arrangements will identify any difficultiesindividual teachers have in managing behaviour and that their CPD arrangements will address these.

31. We also believe that there is a minority of pupils who are persistently poorly behaved and needtargeted support. However, any child may misbehave if their behaviour is not managed properly at schoolor at home and we expect parents to play their part in supporting the authority of schools and teachers.

Our Approach

32. The Elton Report (1989) pointed to the growing body of evidence indicating that, while other factorssuch as a pupil’s home background affect behaviour, school-based influences are also very important.

33. The most effective schools are those that have created a positive atmosphere based on a sense ofcommunity and shared values. There is now a well established professional and academic consensus on whatschools can and should do to ensure good behaviour from their pupils. These include: clarity and consistencyof approach (including towards rewards and sanctions) by all staff, led by a strong leadership team; goodsupport and development for staff; and a targeted and differentiated approach towards some pupils andtheir parents.

34. Despite this consensus, poor behaviour remains a problem in some schools. We expect goodbehaviour from every child and in every school. Our guiding principles are:

— teachers should be trusted to find the approaches that work in their schools;

— government should free teachers by stripping away unnecessary regulation and prescription fromthe centre but hold schools to account for outcomes through a sharper inspection framework;

144 Ross, A (2009) Disengagement from Education among 14–16 year olds145 Smith, C., Dakers, J., Dow, W., Head, G., Sutherland, M. and Irwin, R. (2005) A systematic review of what pupils, aged

11–16, believe impacts on their motivation to learn in the classroom. In: Research Evidence in Education Library. London:EPPI-Centre, Social Science Research Unit, Institute of Education, University of London.

146 Ravet, J (2007) Making sense of disengagement in the primary classroom: a study of pupil, teacher and parent perceptions.147 2010148 NFER 2008



— teachers must be able to exercise authority in a manner that is clearly understood by pupils andtheir parents;

— government will give heads and teachers the powers they need;

— head teachers should back teachers’ authority and support them in dealing with difficult pupils, orwhen facing allegations;

— pupils and their parents must take responsibility for attendance and behaviour and parents mustsupport teachers when they insist on good discipline; and

— the most challenging children need extra support.

What we will do to Support Teachers

35. Informed by our research149 on barriers to teachers using their powers to ensure good behaviour, wewill work with teachers to set out a framework of rights and responsibilities, making clear that Governmentsupports schools in ensuring good behaviour, and that we expect school leaders to support teachers. Theframework will support heads and teachers in promoting positive behaviour and provide clarity around theuse of powers of discipline, whether dealing with violent incidents or disruptive pupils.

36. We will:

— restore schools’ authority by giving heads and teachers the powers and confidence to excludestudents when poor behaviour warrants it;

— issue shorter clearer guidance on disciplinary powers, including on the use of force, to strengthenteachers’ confidence to deal with violent incidents;

— extend teachers’ powers to search for and confiscate items;

— abolish 24 hour notice for detentions, allowing teachers to tackle poor behaviour immediately;

— protect teachers from malicious allegations which will strengthen their authority in the classroom;

— ensure that teachers and heads understand their powers and are therefore able to use them; and

— ensure that parents and pupils understand the powers that schools and teachers have to maintaingood order and deal with poor behaviour.

37. We will remove the disincentives to exclude, so that schools can make exclusion decisions based onlyon the pupil’s behaviour and improve the quality of alternative provision by, amongst other measures,encouraging third sector and other providers with proven success in helping children and young peopleovercome behavioural and other problems, to expand provision.

38. Ofsted inspection of behaviour and attendance will underline the importance of behaviourmanagement and incentivise schools to focus on good behaviour as part of their overall approach to schoolimprovement.

39. We are committed to making bullying unacceptable in all circumstances. No young person should goto school dreading the treatment they will receive. We will raise schools’ awareness of the importance oftackling homophobic bullying and other forms of prejudice based bullying. To do this we will:

— review the Department’s guidance to ensure that schools are given the right message about tacklingbullying effectively;

— work with Ofsted to ensure that tackling poor behaviour and bullying is given more prominencein planned changes to school inspection; and

— empower schools so that they can take a zero-tolerance approach to preventing and tacklingbullying.

40. We will continue to collect and monitor data on overall absence, unauthorised absence and persistentabsence rates. The emphasis, however, will be on persistent absence as the best indicator of problem absence.

41. We accept that there remains more to do and in some areas we are still considering how best to moveforward. We look forward to a dialogue with the Committee and with other interested parties.

September 2010

149 Unpublished at the time of this submission



Memorandum submitted by the Training and Development Agency for Schools

1 Introduction

Since 2004, the TDA has invested significantly in support and challenge for the initial teacher training(ITT) sector to ensure that all programmes include high quality training in behaviour. Alongside this therehas been a focus on e-safety and how to deal with cyber-bullying and homophobia. Classroom training tomanage the behaviour of children and young people is an integral element of every ITT programme.Training providers must design and deliver their training programmes to enable all trainee teachers to meeta set of rigorous standards for qualified teacher status (QTS). These include standards relating specificallyto discipline, the management of children and young people, and the organisation of the classroom. Thestandards were subject to a substantial process of review between 2005 / 7, and resulted in a coherentframework of standards for initial teacher training and for teachers at every stage of their careers. Thestandards on behaviour were a significant focus of the consultation and review process.

2 The Professional Standards for Teachers

In 2007 the revised standards for teachers were introduced. The revised framework for teachers sets outa logical progression of expectations from entry to the profession, via the core standards for all servingteachers to threshold and advanced and excellent teacher status.

The standards for the award of Qualified Teacher Status (QTS)

The TDA provides extensive support for ITT providers and their trainees and sets out the scope andexpectations related to each of the QTS standards in an easily accessible web-based format. All of those tobe awarded QTS must demonstrate that they have met them in their practical classroom teaching.

Standard Q10: Have a knowledge and understanding of a range of teaching, learning and behaviourmanagement strategies and know how to use and adapt them, including how to personalise learning and provideopportunities for all learners to achieve their potential.

This standard requires trainees to demonstrate a range of learning, teaching and behaviour managementstrategies, and apply these to promote the kinds of behaviours that allow teachers to teach, and pupils tolearn without hindrance. Trainees are expected to show that they can maintain secure discipline in the classesthat they teach.

Standard Q31: Establish a clear framework for classroom discipline to manage learners’ behaviourconstructively and promote their self-control and independence.

This standard requires trainees to demonstrate that they know about and can use a range of strategiesthat promote positive attitudes to learning. Trainees are expected to demonstrate that they can:

— ensure that pupils know the boundaries of acceptable behaviour and understand the consequencesof their actions, and

— minimise the impact of the negative behaviours of some pupils on teaching, and on the learningof others.

Standard Q2: Demonstrate the positive values, attitudes and behaviour they expect from children and youngpeople.

Trainee teachers are expected to understand and demonstrate the values and attitudes that they wantpupils to develop. Such values will include respect for other people and social responsibility. Trainee teachersare expected to demonstrate that they can:

— establish high expectations for pupils’ behaviour, and resolve conflicts inside and outside theclassroom, and

— implement the school behaviour policies, for example on equality, discipline, bullying andharassment.



Standard Q18: Understand how children and young people develop and that the progress and well-being oflearners are affected by a range of developmental, social, religious, ethnic, cultural and linguistic influences.

TDA guidance on this standard makes clear that those who might be at risk depend on teachers, amongothers, to monitor and manage their learning, and provide them with the support that they need. Thisstandard gives trainees a focus for developing skills in tackling bullying and social exclusion in theclassroom.

Standard Q3 (a): Be aware of the professional duties of teachers and the statutory frameworks within whichthey workStandard Q3 (b): Be aware of the policies and practices of the workplace and share in collective responsibilityfor their implementation

Trainee teachers are expected to demonstrate that they know the statutory framework in which they workincluding in relation to their responsibilities to maintain discipline, and the powers that they have to achievethis. Additionally, they are expected know and implement the range of policies that support school practiceincluding in relation to bullying, racial harassment, and abuse.

The QTS standards and accompanying extensive guidance can be accessed at www.tda.gov.uk/qts.

3 Resources to Support High Quality Training in Behaviour and Maintaining ClassroomDiscipline

Since 2005 the TDA has commissioned practical resources to support providers in improving the qualityof teacher training programmes.

— The teacher training resource bank (TTRB) provides access to a range of relevant resources tosupport trainee teachers with guidance on behaviour management. The TTRB can be accessed atwww.ttrb.ac.uk. The TTRB offers a direct link to other relevant resources including onlineTeachers TV video material and the National Strategies resources.

— The Behaviour4Learning website at www.behaviour4learning.ac.uk, features high qualityresources that enable trainers and trainees to engage with the principles of “behaviour forlearning”. This in turn supports improvements in the management of classroom behaviour, andthe raising of achievement. Evaluation evidence shows that trainees exploit the website to informtheir writing of assignments on behaviour and to find ideas to use in teaching.

— The Multiverse website (www.multiverse.ac.uk) contains relevant and practical resources forteacher trainers and trainees, addressing the educational achievement of pupils from diversebackgrounds.

4 Other Elements of Training that Contribute to Effective Behaviour Management

Special Educational Needs (SEN)

There is a strong link between SEN and effective behaviour management. It is recognised that persistentlow-level disruption often arises when pupils cannot engage with the lesson. The TDA works with providersto embed SEN resources into ITT to ensure that trainees acquire strong skills in meeting the needs of pupilswith the commonly encountered forms of SEN and know when to draw on the specialist support of theSENCO as appropriate. The TDA is also working to provide specialist dyslexia training to build capacitywithin the schools system to meet the needs of pupils who might otherwise become disaffected.

Early reading and literacy

There are also clear links between behaviour and literacy. Early intervention to improve literacy ensuresthat pupils are more likely to be engaged with their learning. For primary trainees, their preparation to teachliteracy, including reading, is a crucial element of their training and a key way of narrowing the attainmentgap. Following the publication of the report of the Independent Review of the Teaching of Early Readingin March 2006, the TDA has worked closely with the National Strategies to provide a robust programmeof challenge and support to the sector to improve the quality of the initial preparation of primary teachersto teach reading using an approach based on synthetic phonics.



5 How Behaviour Training is covered in Teacher Training

i) Initial teacher training

University led ITT:

The programme will include sessions on effective classroom control strategies. Trainees will also learnabout the statutory responsibilities of teachers and specific aspects of behaviour such as how to identify anddeal with bullying. They will learn how to plan interesting lessons that will engage pupils positively and sominimise poor behaviour in the first place. All trainees on University-led programmes of ITT spend aconsiderable part of their programme in practical teaching experience in at least two schools. They are basedin schools for 24 weeks on a PGCE secondary programme and 18 weeks for primary. For the undergraduateprogramme the time based in schools for the equivalent of 36 weeks or one full year of the programme.During this time they behave as a member of the school team and are expected to show that they can operatethe school’s behaviour policy effectively in their own teaching. At the start of the school-based experience,trainees will have the opportunity to participate in school-based sessions setting out the school’sexpectations on behaviour and the policies which they must adopt. Each trainee has a mentor who giveswritten feed -back on every lesson observation giving emphasis to behaviour management and setting targetsfor improvement.

Employment based ITT:

Trainees are employees of the school and are based there typically for a full school year. Within this timesixty days of the programme devoted to training. Employment based trainees are expected to operate theschool policy on behaviour and discipline. Behaviour training is seen by trainees as a particular strength ofschool based ITT. Part of the reason for this high level of satisfaction is that trainees typically progress toemployment in the schools in which they are trained.

All trainees recommended for the award of QTS must demonstrate in practice that they have met thestandards in relation to behaviour management.

ii) Induction

In the first full year of teaching newly qualified teachers (NQTs) develop their classroom practice bydemonstrating that they have consolidated their skills in managing behaviour. They are supported in thisby an induction tutor who will regularly observe and give feedback on their classroom management.

6 Evidence of Impact and the Satisfaction of Newly Qualified Teachers (NQTs) with theirTraining.

Ofsted inspection evidence indicates that providers are preparing trainees well to meet the standards at ahigh level. The 2006/07 Annual Report of her Majesty’s Chief Inspector noted that trainees “whosuccessfully complete primary and secondary teacher training programmes are competent in managing thebehaviour of the classes that they teach because the training programmes equip them well with practicalstrategies.”

In addition the TDA carries out an annual survey of NQTs in the spring term following the year in whichthey complete their training, probing their views on the effectiveness of their training. Typically over 12,000respond each year, giving us a robust evidence base. The data show that there has been steady progress overtime in response to the question: “How well did your training prepare you to establish and maintain a goodstandard of behaviour in the classroom?”

Primary NQTs responding: Secondary NQTs Responding:“Very good / Good” “Very good / Good”

2003 57% 60%2010 67% 69%

Overall 94% of NQTs surveyed in 2010 stated that their preparation in this vital area was satisfactoryor better.

The TDA uses data from the NQT survey and Ofsted inspections to work with providers rated as “poor”or “satisfactory” to develop improvement plans in order to bring about system wide quality improvement.We are currently reviewing the NQT data on behaviour at provider level in order to identify those whosignificantly above or below the sector average in the preparing new teachers to manage behaviour andmaintain discipline in the classroom.



7 Current TDA Activity:

We continue to emphasise the importance of effective training in behaviour and discipline in raising thestatus of the teaching profession and in meeting the government’s objective of narrowing the attainment gap.

To this end, we are currently:

(i) Reviewing the NQT survey data in order to identify the most effective providers and develop casestudies to be used to exemplify best practice and to improve the performance of weaker providers.

(ii) Working with Ofsted to ensure that training in behaviour is given priority in the review of theframework of inspection of ITT.

(iii) Reviewing our advice to ITT providers ensuring it clearly and consistently represents what isknown about effective practice nationally and internationally.

(iv) Working with the Department for Education to develop new routes to QTS such as “Troops intoTeaching” to bring fresh skills into the classroom, from mature entrants who may have significantskills in motivating and managing the work of young people.

December 2010

Memorandum submitted by the National Association of Social Workers in Education (NASWE)

1. The National Association of Social Workers in Education (NASWE) was founded in 1884 and is theonly association representing staff in the education welfare service (EWS) across all grades. The associationhas no paid officers and is run by its members for its members and has membership across the UK.

2. This NASWE submission to the House of Commons Select Committee inquiry into behaviour anddiscipline in schools will focus on one aspect of the inquiry, the links between behaviour and attendance andmay be summarised as follows:

— There are strong common causal factors between poor attendance and disruptive behaviour

— That more than 90% of cases currently coming to the attention of the EWS are resolved withoutthe need for enforcement action in the courts.

— Interventions should be based on a thorough assessment of the causes of poor attendance and theneffectively targeted at children and young people for whom the impact on future life chances willbe greatest.

— That the Education Supervision Order (ESO) is an under used tool that should be extended tocover poor behaviour as well as attendance where this has been a serious barrier to education.

— The threshold for statutory involvement by an education welfare officer (EWO) has historicallybeen relatively low compared with other services such as social care or youth offending.Deteriorating attendance, punctuality and behaviour can be an early warning sign of difficultiesin a family and present a valuable opportunity for early intervention.

— Schools should not be expected to deal with the impact of the raft of difficulties facing somefamilies without access to sufficient support from statutory services.

Background

3. The EWS has existed in some form since the inception of compulsory education. The school board(precursor to the EWS) highlighted the range of barriers to school attendance;

poverty, mental and physical ill-health, domestic violence, alcohol and drug misuse and child cruelty(Williams et al 2001).

4. These barriers or indicators remain and young people grow up to reinforce the cycle of deprivation andenduring social exclusion. These indicators are equally applicable in predicting poor behaviour.

5. A poor educational experience can be both a cause and an effect of social exclusion. The work of theEWS presents an early opportunity to provide help and support for families at an early stage. See table 1.



Table 1.

THE LINKS BETWEEN POOR ATTENDANCE AT SCHOOL AND MULTIPLEDISADVANTAGE.

(EXTRACT FROM EARLY INTERVENTION—A NEW OPPORTUNITY FOR EDUCATIONWELFARE, 2010, NASWE)

Outcome Evidence Source

Stay Safe “In some cases, pupil absence from Extract from National Audit Office—school can be an indicator of child Improving school attendance in Englandprotection issues. The report of the (2005). Stationery Office.Victoria Climbie Inquiry highlighted aconsiderable number of concernsincluding the importance of socialservices investigating the day carearrangements of children not attendingschool. Schools that we visitedconsidered that tracking the attendanceof some pupils was crucial in maintaininga record of pupils at risk and in enablingschools and local authorities to identifypossible problems”.

Enjoy & “Only 13% of persistent truants achieved Youth Cohort Study and longitudinalAchieve 5 A*-C at GCSE compared with 67% of study of young people in England 2007.

those who never truanted.”“Statistical analysis of school attendance Understanding truancy-Links betweenrecords shows that as the level of absence attendance truancy and performance.increased attainment decreased. However Malcolm H, Thorpe G, Lowden, Kthere is considerable variation among (1996) SCRE.schools and the findings of this researchcannot take into account factors otherthan attendance on attainment. Explainedabsence is comparable in its effects withunexplained absence.”

Be Healthy Persistent truants are more likely to McAra, L (2004) Truancy, Schoolsmoke, drink, take drugs, be sexually Exclusion and Substance Misuse—active, all factors that have clear long- quoted in NPC Report Misspent Youthterm health risks.There is a direct correlation between NPC Misspent Youth (2007)—Feinsteinlower educational achievement and the cited in DFES (2003) Education andincidence of health issues including Skills: The economic benefit.obesity, depression, respiratory problems,lack of exercise.

Make a “Excluded children and persistent truants Absence from School: A study of itsPositive risk underdeveloped social skills, which causes and effects in seven LEAs.Contribution can prevent then from holding down jobs Malcolm H, Wilson V, Davidson J, Kirk

and forming relationships, they frequently S. The SCRE Centre, University ofstruggle to make friends.” Glasgow. DfES 2003 Research Report

RR424.Truants are both more likely to commit Stevens, A, Gladstone B (2000) Learningcrime and to become the victims of not Offending: Effective interventions tocrime. Being in school reduces the tackle youth transitions to crime inopportunities for criminal behaviour. Europe. RPS RainerPoor attendance through exclusion ortruancy increases the likelihood ofgetting poor qualifications and becomingunemployed, both well-known predictorsof crime. 65% of teenagers who truantonce a week or more self report offencescompared to 30% of their peers.

Economic 75% of homeless teenagers had either SEU Report Rough Sleeping 1998 (basedwell-being been excluded from school or had been on CentrePoint study.)

persistent truants.27% of persistent truants in year 11 end Youth Cohort Study and longitudinalup NEET compared to just over 8% of study of young people in England 2007.all young people.



Is all Absence the same?

6. NASWE is committed to the promotion of regular school attendance for all children, and young peopleof compulsory school age; however the extent, origin and impact of poor attendance is not the same for allchildren. Truancy is a complex issue with potentially multiple causes which are often dynamically interactive.

7. Low level absence is best dealt with by schools through effective whole school policies including clearinformation to students and parents, rapid follow up and attention to aspects of the curriculum, effectiveteaching and learning and effective anti bullying policies.

8. For some vulnerable young people the root causes of poor attendance and behaviour may lie indifficulties at home, many of which will be complex and concern parental needs that are unmet—these arethe children who should concern us most as it is likely that they will have a range of other needs which willimpact negatively on many aspects of their lives (see table 1 on page 2). It is unrealistic to expect schools totackle these issues without adequate support but it is essential that schools are kept fully involved. Teachershave a unique relationship with children and their knowledge is an important contribution to anyassessment.

9. Many schools employ non-teaching staff to support school attendance. Whilst we recognise thevaluable role that they play the statutory enforcements duties held by LAs are generally delegated to theEWS who would still be required to intervene where the schools efforts have failed.

10. This is a specialist task and schools should expect an appropriate level of support from the localauthority with sufficient EWOs with appropriate skills to support them in educating vulnerable children andyoung people.

11. The EWS is unregulated and whilst many officers are highly skilled and highly regarded by schoolsthere are no mechanisms in place to ensure that this is always the case.

12. Recent data obtained by Children and Young People Now magazine revealed that there are currently2,214 EWOs in England. EWO:Pupil ratios vary considerably across the country from 1: 500 to 1: 18,000.Latest DFE statistics tell us that there are 208,380 persistent absentees. The numbers of EWOs is likely todecrease as spending constraints take effect. (CYPN 20th April 2010)

13. We recognise that demand will vary in different parts of the country and would not necessarily wanta nationally agreed pupil : EWO ratio however it would be useful to have some guidance on what would bean appropriate minimum level of staffing to meet statutory duties.

Responses to Poor Attendance

14. The current legislative framework on school attendance is complex and its application variable andin some cases arbitrary. It is a mixture of provisions located in criminal and child care law which may beused singularly, consecutively or in some instances concurrently.

15. Recent years have seen a significant increase in the number of parents being prosecuted in the criminalcourts because of their child’s poor attendance.

16. Figures show a parent is sent to prison every other week in term time for failing to ensure their childgoes to school. (Guardian 2009). A jail sentence is a very costly intervention- its efficacy is as yet unknown.The data we currently have in relation to the effectiveness of these punitive approaches suggests that theyare not effective, either in improving attendance in a sustained way or as an effective deterrent (Zhang 2004& 2007).

17. Using enforcement measures is sometimes necessary—but this relies on high-level assessment andintervention skills. Strategies that rely on establishing systems and pre-determined processes can beunhelpful when they are used to replace, rather than support, skilled and professional judgements. Women(as single parents) are 3 times more likely to face prosecution for failing to ensure their child’s regularattendance than men. (Kendall et al 2004).

Case Study “Terry”*

Terry is in year 10 and last year he completely stopped going to school. His mother is the victimof serious domestic violence from Terry’s father who has also turned against Terry believing he wassiding with his mother. He has been sending abusive text messages to his son. Terry is devastatedby what has happened. When the EWO first became involved Terry tried to smash up his roomand set fire to his school uniform. At this stage neither Terry nor his mum felt able to speak abouttheir situation.

Because of Terry’s protracted absence the EWS arranged a formal meeting to clarify theauthority’s intention to take enforcement proceedings. This acted as a catalyst for the family anddespite proving very difficult to engage initially, Terry, with the help of a skilled EWO began tospeak about his difficulties. Terry began to attend school again and despite some ongoing issues



with his attendance and behaviour he remains positive about his future. The EWO working closelywith the school has secured day release at college and a work experience placement. This wouldhave been out of the question the previous year.

*Case studies in this submission have been previously used in the NASWE document Early Intervention-A new Potential For Education Welfare. They are real cases supplied by NASWE members.

What kinds of Families do Education Welfare Officers work with?

18. Long before the integration of education and children’s social services, the EWO worked across thetwo major systems. EWOs do not have the luxury of declining to work with young people and parents whomay not want to co-operate.

19. NASWE commissioned Independent consultants who undertook a matching needs and services auditto gain a picture of need among EWS clients. Key findings from the audit may be summarised as.

— All four agencies are working almost exclusively with children at levels 2 and 3.

— 37% are judged to have reached the significant impairment threshold

— More than a third of the children have emotional/mental health problems

— 25% of their parents have mental health problems

— 22% of children have a parent who misuses drugs and/or alcohol

20. It is clear that EWS in all four areas are working with children with serious and complex needs andthere is little difference across the four samples:

21. The study showed that in 65% of cases needs were believed to have been fully or partially met, largelyby the EWS. Needs were least likely to be met where it was in relation to parental mental health, trauma,much improved care at home and/or problems with adult/child relationships.

Poor Attendance and Behaviour—A Barometer of Family Well-Being.

22. Deteriorating attendance and behaviour at school are indicative of deeper issues and are a goodbarometer of family well-being. Truancy can be a complex behaviour; symptomatic of a range of differentfactors within schools, communities and families, which in many cases are dynamically interactive.

23. Whilst NASWE fully supports the notion of parental responsibility the current legislation has its rootsin an era when young people left school at an earlier age. This “extension” of adolescence is not withoutproblems and it is no coincidence that the majority of parental prosecutions concern the parents of teenagers.To deny that young people can and will make decisions for themselves is naive and an emphasis on anoutdated notion of absolute parental authority is unlikely to resolve the issue. It is our experience that manyyoung people who are persistently absent from school are not necessarily beyond parental control in otherdomains of their lives.

24. The EWS also works with young people who are very vulnerable but do not yet meet thresholds forother statutory interventions, this will include young people who are neglected, at risk of criminal behaviour,harming themselves through reckless behaviour, early parenthood, substance misuse and mental healthdifficulties (See case study “Peter” on page 6). Where parents and young people are unwilling to engage, theEWS may be the only agency where thresholds for statutory intervention have been reached and do not relyentirely on consensual engagement by the young person or their parents.

25. It is vital that those implementing statutory interventions have high level assessment skills in order toplan and deliver appropriate and targeted interventions that have a greater chance of success.

26. We believe the EWS role should be strengthened in this area and that existing interventions,particularly in regard to Education Supervision Orders (ESOs)150 should be broadened to include vulnerableyoung people whose education is severely interrupted, whatever the reason.

Case Study “Peter”

Peter attended and achieved well in primary school. His attendance did not become and issue untilhe went to secondary school. His mother has long term issues with drug addiction and poor mentalhealth and despite her best intentions is unable to be the parent Peter needs. There was no recentsocial services’ involvement in respect of Peter. Some support was offered at a local Children’sCentre regarding his younger brother. Peter has been involved in some extensive cannabis use,which is believed to have contributed to his mental health difficulties. Peter’s mother shared hergrowing concern for her son’s mental health with the EWO. Peter refused to cooperate psychiatricoutpatient appointments.

Unable to cope with Peters deteriorating mental health and consequent challenging behaviour he

150 An ESO is a provision under Section 36 of the Children Act 1989 that places a child of school age who is not attending schoolregularly under the supervision of the local authority initially for a period of 12 months. The purpose of the ESO is to workin partnership with school child and family to strengthen parental capacity and improve school attendance. During the lifeof the ESO both parents and child may be given directions. The application is heard in the family court.



went to live with this father who also has ongoing mental health difficulties. This quickly brokedown and Peter assaulted his father. His mother did not wish him to return home and he waseffectively homeless. The EWO, fearing for Peter’s well-being both in terms of his education andmental health applied for an ESO. This effectively put Peter and his parents under the localauthority’s supervision for the remainder of Peter’s education. A condition of the ESO was forPeter to attend his psychiatric out patient appointments. His mental health had deteriorated tosuch an extent it was felt inappropriate for him to return to school but he was provided with tuition.

When Peter was made homeless the EWO intervened on his behalf and referred the matter to socialservices who accommodated him in a local hostel with minimal support. The EWO was the onlyperson remaining in frequent and regular contact with Peter, his psychiatrist and both his parents.With skilled negotiation she managed to persuade his father not to press charges for the assaultand facilitated reconciliation. She also supported Peter to maintain contact with his mother andyounger brother. Peter got the psychiatric care he needed, attended all of his tuition sessions andsubsequently moved on to further education and training. He now lives independently in the localarea and maintains a positive relationship with his family and has his cannabis habit under control.Peter recently told the EWO that without her intervention he would probably be dead.

27. There is a huge untapped potential to meet that gap between identified needs and children in needthresholds making a significant contribution to early intervention. It is however, vital that the primary focusof the EWO is on securing education.

28. In light of the above considerations we recommend that that there is review of the EWS role with aview to:

— Greater clarity and understanding of the role and its overall contribution to the welfare of childrenand young people and its role in early intervention.

— Ensuring that the skills, knowledge and use of statutory powers available to the EWO particularlyEducation Supervision Orders can be fully exploited as part of a targeted early intervention service

— Ensuring that EWOs have the skills to make high level assessments of the causes of poor attendanceand are able to better target interventions.

— Ensuring that schools have sufficient EWO resources to undertake statutory duties in relation toattendance.

References

Guardian.co.uk Thursday 12th February 2009

Kendall S, White R, Kinder K, Halsey K, Bedford N (2004)School Attendance and the prosecution of parents: effects & effectiveness of parental prosecutions. Final report(LGA Research report 2/04) NFER

NASWE (2010)Early Intervention-A new Potential For Education Welfare

Pritchard, C & Williams R (2010)Measuring Social Work. Professional Social Work, June 2010

RyanTunnardBrown (2008)“An audit of the needs of 197 children in touch with education welfare services in 4 local areas.” NASWE

A. Susan Williams, Patrick Ivin & Caroline Morse (2001). The Children of London-Attendance & Welfare atschool 1870-1990. Institute of Education

Zhang, M (2004) Time to change the truancy Laws? Compulsory education: its origin and modern dilemma.Pastoral Care June 2004

Zhang, M (2007) School absenteeism and the implementation of truancy related penalty notices. PastoralCare 2007

Memorandum submitted by Bill Gribble, further to the Oral Evidence Sessionon Wednesday 1 December 2010

On Ev 80, the “six core principles” of the Steer Reports appear in full in, “LESSONS LEARNED”: Areview of behaviour standards and practices in our schools: Sir Alan Steer April 2009. In 2005 the Practitioners’Group identified six core beliefs that they saw as the essential elements of successful school behaviour anddiscipline strategy (Annex).

Sir Alan Steer opens the 2009 report with the statement: “I confirm my commitment to these beliefs whichhave guided my work in carrying out this review.” In my opinion, the principles and guidance from Sir Alan’sPractitioners’ Group should be reflected strongly in any forthcoming document produced by the EducationCommittee. As I mentioned at the oral evidence session, core principles 4 and 5 are, in fact, given over tothe importance of parents as partners in the educational process.



Annex

LESSONS LEARNED: A REVIEW OF BEHAVIOUR STANDARD AND PRACTICES IN OURSCHOOLS: Sir ALAN STEER APRIL 2009

In 2005 the Practitioners’ Group identified six core beliefs that they saw as the essential elements of asuccessful school behaviour and discipline strategy. I (Sir Alan Steer April 2009) confirm my commitmentto these beliefs which have guided my work in carrying out this review.

1. Poor behaviour cannot be tolerated as it is a denial of the right of pupils to learn and teachers to teach.To enable learning to take place preventative action is most effective, but where this fails, schools must haveclear, firm and intelligent strategies in place to help manage their behaviour;

2. There is no single solution to the problem of poor behaviour, but all schools have the potential to raisestandards if they are consistent in implementing good practice in learning, teaching and behaviourmanagement;

3. The quality of learning, teaching and behaviour in schools are inseparable issues, and the responsibilityof all staff;

4. Respect has to be given in order to be received. Parents and carers, pupils and teacher all need to operatein a culture of mutual regard;

5. The support of parents is essential for the maintenance of good behaviour. Parents and schools eachneed to have a clear understanding of their rights and responsibilities; and

6. School leaders have a critical role in establishing high standards of learning, teaching and behaviour.

December 2010

Printed in the United Kingdom by The Stationery Office Limited2/2010 006766 19585