Education Bill [Lords] | ||
|
Dr. Pugh: In my constituency, the process is actually taking place. Looking at the new clause, can the Minister anticipate difficulties if, for example, the majority of the pupils were Muslim and the proposal had the approval of the local mosque? Because it was Islam rather than Catholic or Church of England, it would not be possible to accomplish the change under the new clause. That could raise questions of equity. Mr. Twigg: The hon. Gentleman is right. That demonstrates the importance of significant changes in the pattern of local provision being properly considered locally. In a sense, it connects well with what I was about to say in closing. In recent years, a significant number of proposals have come forward. Since 1999, 14 proposals have been approved in England to establish schools with a religious character in place of existing community schools, as distinct from completely new schools, or existing independent faith-based schools coming into the state sector in place of existing community schools. Two similar schools were established in Wales during the same period. We are committed to reducing unnecessary bureaucratic burdens on schools. However, the arrangements ensure that all the relevant local parties have sufficient opportunity to make known their views about changes that will affect not only a particular school—I take the hon. Gentleman’s point on that—but others in the area. The new clause would deny many local people and parents a say, so I encourage the hon. Lady to withdraw the motion. 4.30 pmAngela Watkinson: Under the circumstances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion. Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn. Clause 119 Functions to be exercisable by National Assembly for Wales Amendment made: No. 31, in clause 119, page 65, line 4, at end insert—
Clause 119, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 120 to 123 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Schedule 19 Repeals Amendments made: No. 38, in schedule 19, page 150, line 15, at end insert—
No. 39, in schedule 19, page 150, line 25, at end insert— Column Number: 83
Schedule 19, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 124 and 125 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 126 The appropriate authority by whom commencement order is made Amendments made: No. 32, in clause 126, page 67, line 35, after ‘5’, insert ‘, 22A’. No. 33, in clause 126, page 67, line 44, leave out ‘22 to 24’ and insert ‘22, 23, 24’.—[Mr. Stephen Twigg.] Amendment made: No. 34, in clause 126, page 68, line 3, leave out ‘the Secretary of State’ and insert—
Clause 126, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 127 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 128 Short title, etc. Amendment made: No. 35, in clause 128, page 68, line 33, leave out subsection (3).—[Mr. Stephen Twigg.] Clause 128, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. New Clause 12 Abolition of Independent Appeals Panels
Brought up, and read the First time. Angela Watkinson: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. The new clause is about the abolition of independent appeals panels. The decision on appeals against exclusion should remain with the head teacher and governors of a school and should not be subject to being overturned by independent appeals panels. Head teachers exclude only as a last resort, when all their other disciplinary and pastoral procedures have been tried and have failed. Every school in my constituency has a pastoral unit and those units go to extraordinary lengths to turn round children who are disaffected or disruptive in one way or another. Column Number: 84 On the rare occasions when exclusion arises, it is only as a result of all other means failing. The head teachers will feel that they have failed; they do not like taking such action. However, when things get to an extreme state and the school feels that it can no longer contain a pupil for whatever reason, once it has made the decision, that decision should not be subject to being overturned by an independent appeals panel that has not been present in the school and is not familiar with the train of events that have led up to the exclusion, which is usually very long. We want the head teacher to have the autonomy, in consultation with his governors, to make a final exclusion order. That is the purpose of the new clause. Dr. Pugh: I have some sympathy with the general noises that the hon. Lady is making, but she is making the mistake that the Conservatives habitually make: they do not distinguish between how a system works or may work and the principle behind it. The principle behind this system is based on the sound argument that, although head teachers are undoubtedly wise, competent individuals who get most things right, they do not invariably get everything right. Although most head teachers, as she said, expel or exclude pupils for good reasons that no rational person would object to, we cannot rule out the possibility that, in certain circumstances, a head teacher may not do that and may not behave as other head teachers might behave in similar circumstances. Equally, there may be appeals panels that are untutored, know little about the realities of schools and simply fall for any gullible line spun by any dissenting pupil, but that is not necessarily the case, and it ought not to be. Appeals panels should be appropriately trained and experienced so that they can call the judgments correctly. If we cannot exclude the possibility that a head teacher may be wrong, we must consider that the system proposed by the Conservatives would allow no opportunity for redress or appeal when a headmaster has acted harshly. Although I have encountered lots of complaints about badly behaved children, I have also occasionally seen parents take up issues with respect to how their child has been treated. They are not necessarily parents who are antagonistic towards the objectives of the school. So, a general prima facie case can be made for having an appeals panel. If there are problems with the working of the panel, they should be studied and the Department for Education and Skills should do its best to get things right so that we do not have all the outcomes that the Conservatives allege that appeals panels are traditionally having, and that they may in some circumstances have. I am not confronted with the empirical evidence at the moment. When this issue was argued about on the Floor of the House, I think it was a Labour Member who made the point that, if there were not an appeals panel, that would not prevent a case from being taken to court involving the behaviour of a headmaster who it was thought had not been fair. The answer from the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins) went something like this: “Oh yes, there may be appeals to the courts. If we do not have an appeals
Mr. Pickthall: I want to add to what the hon. Member for Southport, my next-door neighbour, has said. The appeals panels make some potty decisions from time to time, and that is almost inevitable, but their one advantage is that they can see across an area the different thresholds for exclusion that schools have. I have seven large secondary schools in my constituency. They are all very good and I have no quarrels with any of them, but they have different tolerance thresholds for what they judge to be punishable by exclusion. It is not fair that a school with a good, cosy, middle-class intake can exclude a pupil for an action that a school a few miles away with a tough, rough intake would take in its stride without even considering exclusion. When those latter schools exclude, it is the absolute last resort, and they are seldom kicked back on appeal. Angela Watkinson: Would it surprise the hon. Gentleman to hear that one of my secondary schools, which is in a nice, cosy, leafy, middle-class area and is high-achieving, has a very good record of accepting excluded pupils from the less advantaged area where the least popular school in the constituency is situated? It does very well with them. Often, an excluded pupil does much better with a change of surroundings, circumstances and friends. That is sometimes the answer. Mr. Pickthall: That does not surprise me. What worried me about the hon. Lady’s remarks was that she said that head teachers in general would not make catastrophic errors. Some heads do. My hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker) told me a story about a school he knows where the head excluded a child for throwing the hat of another child out the window. The governors upheld the exclusion, although it was later turned down on appeal. That is perhaps an extreme example, but such reasons for exclusion are nonsense. Some heads will exclude. The pressure on heads from their school community and governors is sometimes quite strong. Sometimes the activities that pupils get up to that are not pleasant but are judged worthy of exclusion would not warrant such action in my experience of schools. The schools exclusion appeals system is a good safeguard against the nonsense perpetrated by a small minority of head teachers, but perhaps any head teacher, however good, is liable to make a mistake. I am married to a head teacher. However good they are,
Derek Twigg: The hon. Member for Southport and my hon. Friend the Member for West Lancashire made strong cases as to why we should oppose the new clause, but I would like to place the Government’s position on the record. The subsections of the Education Act 2002 to which the new clause refers provide for the setting up of an independent appeals panel to hear appeals against the exclusion of pupils from schools and pupil referral units. The Government believe unconditionally that an orderly and safe environment is essential for effective learning to take place. The work to sort out the root causes of exclusions and improve standards of behaviour has been placed for the first time at the heart of our schools policy. Through our behaviour and attendance strategy we are helping schools to tackle the behaviour that gives rise to exclusion, and we have made it clear on a number of occasions that we are committed to backing head teachers’ authority when pupils’ behaviour warrants exclusion; heads can permanently exclude pupils who are very disruptive or violent. Our guidance states that we do not normally expect independent appeal panels to reinstate such pupils. We believe that it is right, however, in a matter as serious as permanent exclusion from school, with all its implications, that parents should have a right of appeal to an independent body that is in a position to review the school’s decision impartially. In find it difficult to believe that, given their concern for parents’ interests, the Opposition do not seem to share that view. Independent appeal panels were originally known as appeal committees. They were introduced by the Conservative Government and came into operation in 1987. 4.45 pmWe are committed to the idea that excluded pupils should get the most appropriate education to tackle patterns of poor behaviour, so that they can be effectively reintegrated into mainstream education. A range of provision is available for excluded pupils. The number of pupil referral units has increased by nearly 50 per cent. since 1997 and the number of places in them has nearly doubled, from 7,500 to 13,000. Our recently published guidance will help to ensure that all alternative provision addresses pupils’ behaviour and attainment. For most pupils, however, mainstream school provides the broadest and most inclusive educational setting, but the pupils in question will be admitted to a school only when they are ready to return. We do not expect all permanently excluded pupils to be reintegrated into a mainstream school. That does not happen now and it will not happen in the future. It will depend on the child in each case. Appeal panels are a necessary safeguard for pupils and parents. They are needed in the interest of natural justice, and they comply with the Human Rights Act 1998. Abolishing them would inevitably lead to a
The majority of parents would not want that. A survey found last year that 60 per cent. of parents in England wanted to keep appeal panels. At present, there are about 1,000 exclusion appeals in each academic year, and parents seek judicial review of those in no more than a handful of cases. The risk of legal action being taken would increase significantly if appeal panels were abolished as parents would not have recourse to any other independent review of a school’s decision. That would be costly in time and money to everyone involved. The estimated cost would be in excess of £2,000 in legal fees per case—a cost that would fall on schools, parents and local authorities. I know that concerns have been expressed about decisions by appeal panels to reinstate particular pupils, such as the case in 2002 of two pupils at the Glyn technology school in Surrey, who were permanently excluded for making death threats against a teacher, but who were subsequently reinstated by an appeal panel, and the more recent case of a pupil at a school in Hampshire, who was reinstated by a panel following exclusion for assaulting a member of staff. In both cases, teaching staff refused to teach those pupils, and places for them were found elsewhere. Following the Glyn case, in January 2003, the composition of panels was changed to ensure that they would better reflect the realities of school life. Now a three-member panel comprises a serving or recently retired head teacher—or, in Wales, another education practitioner—a serving or recently serving governor and a lay member, who takes the chair. With a majority of panel members having experience of contemporary school life, there is less chance of odd or perverse decisions. Another change that was introduced in January 2003 was the option, in exceptional circumstances, for a panel to overturn an exclusion without reinstating the pupil. Since 2003, panels have also been required, in deciding whether to reinstate a pupil, to balance the interests of the excluded pupil against the interests of all the members of the school community, including pupils, teachers and support staff. The National Assembly for Wales has adopted the same approach in its guidance on the issue. Our guidance, to which, by law, appeal panels must have regard, emphasises the need for all panel members to be fully trained, and updated whenever changes are made to the law and guidance. Since 2001, a training pack has been available for the training of panel members in England. That has been revised to reflect changes in exclusion legislation. Independent appeal panels do not reinstate a large number of excluded pupils. In the academic year 2002–03, the last year for which we have figures, there were 990 appeals and 21.1 per cent. of them went in favour of the parents. In fact, only 149 pupils out of a
Angela Watkinson: The Minister referred to balancing the rights of the excluded pupil with those of the rest of the school. Such circumstances arise only when it has become impossible for a school to contain a disruptive pupil. The rights of the other pupils and, in some instances, the teachers—when there is violence against a pupil—must prevail. I listened carefully to the Minister’s comments, but I have great confidence in the good sense of experienced head teachers. It remains my view that schools should have autonomy over exclusions, which should not be overturned by appeals panels. However, under the circumstances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion. Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn. New Clause 13 Pupil referral units: supply and publication of information
Brought up, and read the First time. Angela Watkinson: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. The thinking behind the new clause is that, on the rare occasions when pupils are excluded from school, it is absolutely essential that they do not have part-time education; for the rest of the week they could be wandering around and getting into trouble. They need proper specialised full-time education. The new clause would embrace whether there is sufficient capacity in pupil referral units to accommodate all the students who need them, would ensure that they receive a proper education while they are there, and would monitor their attendance—we know that it sometimes a little too casual, to put it mildly. It would ensure proper monitoring of how many children are referred and what progress they are making while they are in the units, so that progress can be made towards returning them to mainstream schools when that is appropriate. Dr. Pugh: We are into the à la carte element of the agenda now, and I begin to wish that I had thought of all sorts of cunning little new clauses to detain everybody for a while. Actually, the new clause is very good and has a lot of sense behind it. There is a danger
If all that happens in the PRU is that a pupil goes on for a few more years in perhaps a more managed environment, but does not fundamentally achieve any more or change in any way, that pupil who has been thrown out of school as a problem will eventually go out into the world as a problem. Society picks up the tab for that. There is a lot of sense in a system in which the buck stops somewhere. If children are going to PRUs, we must rationally assess what good it is doing them, what progress they are making, and try to give the PRU a mission to be accomplished. I do not mean that patronisingly, but if they are subject to the same rigours as established, mainstream institutions, they will recognise that their job is every bit as, if not more important than, what happens in the mainstream. Derek Twigg: It worth establishing at the beginning that about 60 per cent. of the young people in most PRUs are not there because of behavioural problems in school, but because they have been hospitalised or have health problems, or problems with teenage pregnancy and so on. It is worth pointing that out, because there are often misconceptions about what type of young people are in PRUs. The new clause would enable the regulations to require PRUs to collect and publish data on levels of achievement, attainment and absence, numbers of full-time pupils and any other prescribed information. I hope to show that we do not need the regulations to obtain that information. Some of it is already published. The PRU census is published each year and already collects information on gender, ethnicity, free school meals, the number of pupils with statements of special educational needs and the number of pupils who are dual registered. Some of the information is not published. There are several reasons why we do not publish information on educational achievement and attainment in PRUs. Many pupils passing through the PRUs never sit an exam. As the majority of pupils spend fewer than two terms in a PRU, any achievement and attainment data collected would not give a reliable picture of the educational standards in that PRU, but would merely present a snapshot at a particular moment. One of the main ambitions behind the PRU is to re-engage the pupil in learning, with a view to their speedy reintegration into mainstream education. Although that often means a more flexible pattern of study and assessment, it does not mean a lower standard of care. Achievement and attainment data are recorded on a pupil’s individual learning plan, which goes with that pupil when he or she returns to the mainstream school. That allows the school to see how the pupil has
All PRUs are different. A hospital PRU will be different from a PRU for teenage mothers, which will be different again from a PRU catering for merely excluded pupils. Some PRU pupils are part-time, while some are dual registered and continue to attend a mainstream school for part of their time. Pupils who are sick are required to attend school for only five hours a week. It would therefore be difficult and misleading to publish comparative data. Sharing information about achievement and attainment would not necessarily be a useful form of accountability. Individual learning plans are focused on the specific needs of the child, not always their educational attainment. For example, a pupil with behavioural problems would probably have goals connected with their behaviour rather than their academic achievements. In that sense, it is important to realise that the goals of PRUs, their staff and their pupils are the not the same as those for mainstream schools. On the collection and publication of data on authorised and unauthorised absence, PRUs are legally obliged to keep an admissions register and an attendance register. However, as my hon. Friend the Minister for School Standards said in his letter of December of last year, there is currently no requirement on PRUs to pass on such data. I undertook to correct that. We intend to contact local authorities in England before the end of the school year, in order to allow those data to be collected for the 2006–07 academic year. The new clause proposes publishing information on
In order for the PRUs to collect and publish data on authorised and unauthorised absences, they will have to know which pupils are full-time and which are part-time. However, I do not believe that it is necessary to set that out in the regulations. I therefore ask the hon. Lady to withdraw the motion. Angela Watkinson: I am encouraged by some of the Minister’s comments about the intention to collect absence data in future, and about the number of children attending full-time. Those two things are crucial to a child’s progress, and to ensuring that they are not truanting, but receiving a full-time education. On recording attainment levels, I take the Minister’s point that students are often in PRUs for only a relatively short period, so it is difficult to map progress or to give a general indication of attainment. Each child is an individual. However, the service provided is quite different from that provided in a mainstream school and each child needs individual reporting and monitoring that take on board the circumstances that led to the child being placed in the PRU, and predictions of how long it might take to turn them round and send them back into a mainstream school. There ought to be some means of plotting their progress, although it may be completely different from the way that that is done in a mainstream school. Column Number: 91 5 pm |
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2005 | Prepared 23 March 2005 |