| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
6 Feb 2003 : Column 421—continued
School Exclusions
3. Chris Grayling (Epsom and Ewell): If he will make a statement on his policy on exclusions from schools. [95746]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Skills (Mr. Ivan Lewis): We are committed to backing head teachers' authority when pupils' behaviour warrants exclusion. Local education authorities need to ensure that excluded pupils continue to receive full-time education, and we are investing some £470 million in a national behaviour and attendance strategy to help schools tackle deteriorating behaviour at an early stage.
Chris Grayling: I read with interest the speech by the Secretary of State on 12 December last year. One of the biggest complaints of the governing body involved in a recent case in my constituency was that it had no advice or representation when it went into the appeals process, whereas the parents against whom it came up had publicly funded advice and representation. The Secretary of State's speech made no attempt to redress that potential imbalance. Will the Department look again at the matter, and come back with new proposals?
Mr. Lewis: We have significantly reformed the appeals panel process to take account of the genuine concerns expressed by Members such as the hon. Gentleman. The appeals panel process has been changed in a number of ways. From now on, there will
be a head teacher and a governor on every panel, decisions will not be overturned on technicalities, and the needs of the whole school must be balanced with the needs of individual pupils. In addition, if a panel finds that an exclusion was not technically justified, it will not necessarily have to instruct that the pupil involved be reinstated, because of the effect that that would have on the school generally. However, if there is a feeling that local education authorities or schools are not being represented appropriately at appeal panel hearings, we would be willing to consider that.
Jonathan Shaw (Chatham and Aylesford): Yesterday's Ofsted report highlighted pupil behaviour as an obstacle to improving schools' educational standards. I recently visited a school in my constituency with a pupil referral unit on its campus. Pupils and students saw that the unit was working, and had a clear understanding of the programme. Students and staff said that the big difference was that that unit simply did not exist a year earlier. If we are to tackle pupil behaviour, is it not important that we get the resources into schools?
Mr. Lewis: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. We must back head teachers and teachers who have to make difficult decisions and who feel obliged to exclude students as a last resort. However, we must also do something that did not happen for 20 years—invest in preventive work to ensure that exclusion does not become an inevitability for far too many young people. For example, we have learning support units in schools that allow head teachers to withdraw pupils from classes but also to keep them in school so that they can be reintegrated into classes. We have key workers who provide a more individualised support for young people. We will have an emphasis on training teachers in the management of discipline and behaviours. We are focusing on the early years of secondary school when, traditionally, far too many young people have gone backwards in performance terms and been lost to learning as a consequence. We have also introduced proposals for a more flexible 14 to 19 curriculum.
As my hon. Friend says, from now on we will not merely exclude young people permanently: we will insist that they have access to a full-time, high-quality education so that we can reintegrate them into the mainstream and stop them drifting into a life of antisocial behaviour and crime.
Mr. Roy Beggs (East Antrim): Does the Minister agree that exclusion is the least satisfactory sanction and that school principals should use it only as a last resort? Does he also agree that to make provision other than at school for disruptive, unruly and aggressive pupils is very expensive? What consideration has been given to helping all schools to deal individually with difficult children by providing additional non-teaching time for senior teachers so that they can deal with the problems on their own school campuses?
Mr. Lewis: This Government have put an unprecedented number of adults into schools, in addition to teachers, to help teachers to ensure that challenging young people are offered an individually tailored programme of support, which considers not
only their educational needs but their home life and family relationships; for example, we have learning mentors and we have developed the Connexions service, which provides personal advisers. Increasingly, we also recognise that, for their continuous professional development, teachers need support for the management of discipline and behaviour problems. My hon. Friend the Minister for School Standards has concluded a ground-breaking agreement with the unions on the reform of the work force in the teaching profession, which will ensure that we make the best use of all the adults who contribute to the school community and that we allow senior staff to deploy their resources and skills more effectively.
Dr. Brian Iddon (Bolton, South-East): Bearing in mind the fact that parents can be taken to court for allowing their children to truant, who is responsible for monitoring the length of time of an exclusion; and when does that period become unacceptable?
Mr. Lewis: It is the duty of the educational welfare service and the local education authority to monitor whether exclusions are applied appropriately. In the past, one of the failings of the system was that neither fixed-term nor permanent exclusion was followed by decisive action to reintegrate and support the pupil and tackle the problems. However, we now have a commitment to full-time education for those who are permanently excluded, and that will make a real difference. Furthermore, for fixed-term—but not permanent—exclusions in schools in 34 LEA areas, we are insisting that from day one children will have access to proper education and that there will be a proper focus on their needs, so that they will not simply be left excluded to drift into further behaviour problems and social decline.
Teachers (London)
4. Mr. John Randall (Uxbridge): What recent assessment he has made of teacher recruitment and retention in London; and if he will make a statement. [95747]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Skills (Mr. Stephen Twigg): The teacher vacancy rate in London fell from 3.5 per cent. in 2001 to 2.7 per cent. in 2002. There are now more than 60,000 full-time equivalent teachers in London, a 6 per cent. increase since 1997. However, I acknowledge that many schools continue to face difficulties and we are taking measures to further improve the long-term position.
Mr. Randall : I am grateful for the Minister's acknowledgement that the problem is becoming serious, because it undermines the efforts of staff and pupils to improve standards. Can he confirm that the funding available through the standards fund for recruitment and retention will not be renewed? Are there any plans to do something constructive about that?
Mr. Twigg: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his acknowledgement that we are taking the problem seriously. The situation is by no means a new one. We have decided to ensure that money goes directly to
schools through local education authorities. The hon. Gentleman's authority received a good settlement under the recent local government settlement, which includes schools, and a significant number of schools in his constituency will benefit from our new leadership incentive grant. Many of the problems of recruitment and retention that we need to tackle in London relate to housing costs, and we are working closely with the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister to consider schemes that will build on the success of the starter homes initiative to attract more teachers into London and, perhaps more importantly, to keep more teachers teaching in London.
Mr. Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield): Does my hon. Friend agree that if recruitment and retention issues in London and elsewhere are to be met, we must carefully consider yesterday's Ofsted report—especially in regard to schools in challenging circumstances? I hope that my hon. Friend and the whole education team will examine the challenges faced by teachers in London. As behaviour, attendance and exclusion problems impact greatly on recruitment and retention, will my hon. Friend carefully consider David Bell's excellent report and learn its lessons quickly?
Mr. Twigg: I am grateful to my hon. Friend and agree that the excellent Ofsted report provides a great deal to consider. The issues around behaviour and attendance clearly apply throughout the country but I have no doubt that they are especially pronounced in some London communities. There is every indication that pupil behaviour is a much bigger factor in teacher retention in London than in other parts of the country—which is why our behaviour strategy focuses especially on London and other urban areas.
Dr. Vincent Cable (Twickenham): As I represent a south-west London constituency where teachers cannot remotely afford to live without a well-paid partner, can the Minister say how many key worker affordable homes have been made available to teachers, and how many the new initiative will make available in the next year or so?
Mr. Twigg: I will write to the hon. Gentleman with the precise figure. The starter homes initiative, which is aimed at public servants across the board, has been taken up by teachers more than any other category. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman shares my concern about teachers who are already in the profession, who want to settle into a family rather than a starter home. We are working with the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister on proposals for meeting that need.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |