Memorandum submitted by The Advisory Centre
for Education
INTRODUCTION
1. The Advisory Centre for Education (ACE)
has been advising parents on school choice (among other things)
for 45 years, and about a third of the calls it receives on its
general advice lines are to do with admissions and admissions
appeals. We therefore have a unique perspective on the problems
parent face in their attempts to choose schools.
2. In 2004 we spoke to over 5,800 parents
and over 27,000 more downloaded advice from our website. Hearing
parents describe their experiences gives ACE privileged access
to how education law and practice impacts on children and parents,
and allows us to speak with authority on behalf of parents facing
difficulties with the education system.
3. We believe parents have three main concerns
relevant to the White Paper's proposals:
(1) They want a fair and uncomplicated admissions
system.
(2) They want their child to attend a good
local school.
(3) They want to understand and be involved
in their child's education, and to have their views treated with
respect especially when problems arise.
4. Will the proposed reforms in the White
Paper meet these demands? The aspiration of access for all expressed
by the Prime Minister and reiterated by the Secretary of State
is one we share, but we are not yet convinced that the package
of disparate elements on offer will do the trick.
5. One very helpful legislative change would
be to require admissions authorities to give the second highest
priority in their criteria, after looked-after children, to other
children judged as in need, disadvantaged, or vulnerable. Otherwise
schools have the slightly odd duty to admit only looked-after
children as a priority, but they may disregard other criteria
which might favour disadvantaged children, such as non-statemented
special needs.
6. As well as reservations over choice and
diversity versus access for all, our other major concern is over
the "zero tolerance" rhetoric around discipline, which
we believe may encourage poor professional practice, an unhelpful
"blame the parents" culture, and worsen relations within
communities in some areas.
7. We know from our dedicated exclusion
lines that problems are not necessarily the fault of the child
or the parent, but can arise for reasons to do with unmet special
needs, school failure to deal with bullying, difficult relationships
with individual members of staff, or stress in the child's life
such as bereavement or family break-up. This has often been acknowledged
by Government in the not-so-distant past, especially in the work
of the Social Exclusion Unit and in the Every Child Matters
programme. But it is a view that seems overwhelmed by threats,
fines and duress in the passages on behaviour.
8. Priority for disadvantaged children in
admissions needs to be matched by requirements to retain these
pupils in school. Positive action is needed by schools to keep
these children in education. Many of the aspirations and supportive
mechanisms suggested in the White Paper will help, but if the
emphasis is on punitive measures rather than positive behaviour
management, such children may get into "good" schools
but won't stay there.
A SCHOOL SYSTEM
SHAPED BY
PARENTS
9. How is the system envisaged a system
"shaped" by parents, if the new schools are to have
"academy-like freedoms"? The new system appears to place
much greater control in the hands of sponsors, heads and governors
of autonomous schools, each with the majority of governors appointed
by the trust, foundation or academy, and only one parent governor.
10. We are not aware of parents wanting
more autonomous schools run by organisations accountable not to
them or to the wider community but to their sponsors or trusts.
If this is a system shaped by parents, has the Government asked
whether parents want it?
11. We are not clear as to how independent
the new schools are: will they be regarded as "maintained"
schools or as publicly funded but not maintained, like academies?
This is a fundamental question which needs to be answered.
12. The often quoted figure for parental
approval of academies used to support more autonomous schools
is statistically flawed. In the evaluation by PriceWaterhouseCoopers,[25]
only 433 parents out of a sample of 1,632 returned their questionnaires,
and out of the 433, parents had "a lack of understanding"
of the role of the sponsor and the schools' autonomous government.
Additionally, many questions probing approval had higher results
for combined negatives and don't knows as against positives. Overall,
it is doubtful that parents were giving approval to more than
a glossy new school and enthusiastic staff. They do not seem to
have been asked direct questions about independence of the school
from the local authority. But had they been, it would have been
problematic to gauge general parental approval by sampling parents
whose experience has been only of failing/struggling community
schools, and we assume that this is the experience of parents
whose local school has been replaced by an academy.
13. We welcome the new duty on local authorities
to respond to parents who are not satisfied with the area's provision
of schools, but we are not clear as to what the authority can
then do, as its ability to, for instance, regulate admissions
or determine the pattern of provision in its area seems necessarily
reduced by more independence of schools from its control.
14. Will quicker action against failing
schools help or hinder improvement? Many commentators have noted
the time it takes to turn schools around and the tendency for
improvement to be impossible to sustain where, as with the Ridings
school, other schools in the area remain more attractive to parents.
We are concerned that if market forces are to be the chief determinant
of the pattern of provision, there will be many more schools that
fail so disadvantaging the pupils in them.
15. ACE welcomes the suggested new duty
on LEAs to do all they can to assist school improvement when Ofsted
has indicated problems, including their involvement of parents
in the process.
More complexity, more opportunity for covert selection
16. However, overall we foresee even more
complexity for parents in admissions with the increase in schools
setting their own criteria, with particular problems for disadvantaged
pupils and parents. We refer to the Committee's 2004 report on
secondary schools admissions which noted:
61. The number of different admission authorities
and the variety of admissions arrangements add significantly to
the level of complexity present in the school admissions system.
While the co-ordination of admissions arrangements will simplify
the process to some extent for many parents it will not address
variation in admissions policies. In our report on Diversity of
Provision[26]
we observed that:
"For parents, multiple admissions authorities
with diverse and sometimes conflicting criteria present a bewildering
prospect and we are mindful that it is the least advantaged parents,
including those from minority ethnic groups, who experience the
greatest difficulty in this context.[27]
Legislation now requires co-ordinated admissions arrangements
both within and between LEAs. This change calls into question
the whole issue of schools retaining the role as their own admissions
authorities."[28]
62. We have also been concerned that some
admissions authorities use their independence inappropriately
to select pupils. For example, research conducted by Professor
Anne West and Audrey Hind at the London School of Economics suggested
that:
"In a significant minority of schools, notably
those that are their own admission authorities—voluntary-aided
and foundation schools—a variety of criteria are used which
appear to be designed to select certain groups of pupils and so
exclude others. These include children of employees; children
of former pupils; partial selection by ability/aptitude in a subject
area or by general ability; and children with a family connection
to the school."[29]
[30]
17. We refer also to the Local Government
Ombudsman's special report on school admissions[31]
which was concerned at the sheer number of complaints received
and that there were "too many examples of practice that is
poor, sometimes spectacularly so".[32]
It noted that there were fewer problems with LEA admissions policy
and practice compared to those of schools running their own admissions.[33]
18. The LSE research is quoted in the 2005
research by Which?, where autonomous schools compared poorly with
LEAs on admission criteria for children with medical, social and
special educational needs:
Only 52% of foundation schools consider a child's
medical or social needs in their admission criteria, compared
to 80% of community secondary schools. Only 15% of voluntary-aided
and foundation schools took account of special needs, compared
to 48% of those run by local authorities.[34]
Academies
19. Admissions of pupils with statements
of special educational needs is an additional problem where academies
are concerned. Unlike most other publicly funded schools, academies
are not "maintained schools" and are not legally required
to admit pupils where local authorities name them in statements.
Problems have arisen and the DfES has constructed an elaborate
dispute resolution procedure where the Secretary of State mediates
between the local authority and the academy. Where parents stand
in this process is not clear. Additionally, ACE has obtained early
and tentative figures from the DfES for 2003-04 which show that
academies' exclusions of pupils with statements of special educational
needs are also worrying as pupils with statements were excluded
at more than twice the rate of pupils with statements in other
secondary schools:
MAINTAINED SECONDARY SCHOOLS AND ACADEMIES1
NUMBER OF PERMANENT EXCLUSIONS BY SPECIAL EDUCATIONAL NEEDS2
|
| Excluded Pupils SecondaryAcademies
|
|
| Number of permanent exclusions | 8,320
| 90 |
| Percentage of school population3 | 0.25
| 0.56 |
| Number of pupils with statements of SEN |
580 | 10 |
| Percentage of school population4 | 0.76
| 1.57 |
|
1 Includes middle schools as deemed.
2 Figures for secondary schools are estimates based on incomplete
pupil-level data. Figures for Academies are as reported and are
unconfirmed.
3 The number of permanent exclusions expressed as a percentage
of the number (headcount) of pupils.
4 The number of permanent exclusions expressed as a percentage
of the number (headcount) of pupils with statements of SEN.
20. Government exclusions guidance stresses that the
difficult behaviour of pupils with statements should be managed
as far as possible by use of the special needs framework rather
than the use of exclusions. We see the figures above as indicating
problems with autonomous, market-driven schools and such pupils.
The PriceWaterhouseCoopers report also noted:
some concerns among a significant minority of teachers and
parents about the adequacy of approaches being adopted to teaching
pupils with SEN.[35]
CHOICE AND
ACCESS FOR
ALL
21. We wholeheartedly welcome transport for children
of poor parents.
22. The White Paper does not propose, as recommended
by many informed and authoritative commentators including the
Select Committee itself, to make the existing admissions code
mandatory, or to use legislation to ban unfair practices such
as interviewing. We welcome the introduction of "choice advisers",
but believe this will not help parents of disadvantaged pupils
if the admissions system is distorted by covert selection.
23. New/expanded schools appear to be able to abandon
the code after three years. Will there be a free for all after
that?
24. If both the code and banding are seen to be useful
in ensuring "access for all", why should they not be
mandatory for schools/areas where fair access to all schools would
otherwise be in doubt? Won't autonomous schools simply ignore
them as many do now?
25. In October the Secretary of State ruled that a faith
school that continued interviewing as part of their admission
arrangements would be allowed to continue interviewing, despite
the current (2003) admissions code (para 3.16) stating that from
September 2005, there should be no interviewing. Unless the codes
are given full regulatory weight, they are virtually meaningless.
26. Individual parents cannot apply to the Adjudicator
on admission matters. A minimum of 10 parents is required and
only on two very limited issues (pre-existing partial selection
arrangements and when the admission number is set lower than the
indicated admission number).
27. The Local Government Ombudsman performs a useful
role in investigating parents' complaints where there may have
been faulty administration in an admission appeal. But their power
does not cover academies and it would appear likely that they
will not be able to investigate maladministration in the new independent
trust schools either.
The most vulnerable groups
28. The Government says (White Paper, para 3.2) that:
We will continue to ensure that priority is also given for
the most vulnerable groups such as children in care (Looked After
Children) and those with Special Educational Needs.
29. Priority in admissions is indeed now required by
law for looked-after children, but only those with statements
of special educational needs are ensured priority in admissions
(not special educational needs alone). The majority of children
with special needs do not have statements, and they will be subjected
to individual schools setting their own admissions requirements,
which, as the LSE research referred to above shows, by no means
ensures priority for these children.
30. We are not reassured here by the Secretary of State's
response to a question by Stephen Williams MP in the oral evidence
session of 2 November 2005:
Trust schools will be subject to the admissions code. Rulings
on a statutory basis will be made by the adjudicator, just as
the adjudicator does now for schools which comply with the admissions
code. One of the elements of the admissions code is that they
have to treat special educational needs pupils fairly. That could
be one reason, if a school clearly sets its catchment area, for
example, in order to exclude particular categories of pupils or
has a particular system which excludes SEN pupils, potentially
for referring them to the adjudicator, who could then rule against
that admissions policy.
31. We do not believe that this shows an understanding
of the relationship of "acceptable criteria" with equity
in relation to race, disability and class. The list of acceptable
criteria which appears as Annex B of the draft Code recently consulted
upon does not prioritise the criteria which would create a fairer
system for disadvantaged groups (see Appendix to this evidence).
But even more cogent is the question asked elsewhere in the same
session by Helen Jones MP as to why fairness has to wait on complaints
rather than being clear to all by legislative regulation.
32. We also note that assurances and safeguards for admissions
of vulnerable groups needs to be matched by schools' retention
of these pupils once admitted, and given the problems with academies
noted above, we would welcome a requirement that schools reduce
exclusions of such children (whether exclusions are achieved by
formal use of the exclusions procedure and by managed moves).
PERSONALISED LEARNING
33. We welcome the suggested increase in curriculum differentiation
for pupils, but wonder whether there will be sufficient resources
to secure its implementation.
34. We also hope that, given the lack of ring-fencing
of SEN budgets in schools, the increased delegation of SEN funds
for those pupils with significant needs from LEAs to schools,
and the fact that schools now have to buy in many support and
outreach services for SEN, the expansion of personalised learning
for all will not be at the expense of those children who cannot
access education at all without extra individual support.
35. We note there is only one proposal here for legislation:
curriculum entitlements for 14-19 including double science.
36. We also refer to the recent Nuffield report on 14-19
learning, which observed:
a serious tension exists between the recognised need for partnership
and collaboration between providers in order that the learning
needs of all young people might be met, and an increasing fragmentation
within a competitive system.[36]
SERVICES THAT
SUPPORT CHILDREN
AND FAMILIES
37. We applaud this chapter, and have previously welcomed
extended schools with their aims of supporting disadvantaged parents
and pupils. We are not sure how academies and trusts will work
in this area and would welcome more information on the incentives
for independent schools with "academy like freedoms"
to offer these services to the community.
38. We note that the only legislative proposal here is
for nutritional standards.
39. We further note the paucity of mentions of Every
Child Matters within the White Paper, and that this chapter
is the only one to refer to "a framework for local authorities,
health, Youth Offending Teams and other partners to agree priorities
and commission services that respond better to children's and
families' needs." We are not clear as to how the expansion
of independent publicly funded schools with academy like freedoms
will fit into this framework.
40. The admission, retention and educational success
of vulnerable children should be prioritised in evaluations of
all publicly funded schools' success.
PARENTS DRIVING
IMPROVEMENT
41. We are not sure how a legal requirement for thrice-yearly
progress reports on children will add to what schools already
do in supplying parents with information, but will be interested
to see this in the Bill. We would like to see a parallel legal
requirement for schools to draw up IEPs for children with SEN;
the evidence of parents on our advice lines, and comments by Ofsted,
indicate that the lack of planning and monitoring of these children's
progress leads to children not having their needs met and to the
breakdown of mainstream placements.
42. We welcome the requirement on the governing bodies
of maintained schools to have regard of the views of parents,
but note the significant practical difficulties facing governors
wanting to ascertain representative views. Guidance on how this
will work for minority groups whose rights are acknowledged to
be in need of recognition would be welcome (for instance, parents
of looked-after children).
43. We welcome the requirement to establish parents'
councils, but wonder why only trust schools are included in this
requirement, not foundation schools, voluntary schools or academies
(see WP p 115), or community schools. We do not want to see parent
councils being used as a sop to parents. They are no substitute
for having good parental representation on a governing body. We
hope that they are set up in all schools but in a way that complements
the governing body so that concerns and deliberations discussed
at the parent council feed into governing body debates, and the
governing body is required to consult them on a wide range of
issues—not just uniform and behaviour. They should be elected
on a year of child/class basis to ensure they are seen as a legitimate
democratic forum for all parents. Safeguards are needed to prevent
domination by narrow and unrepresentative interests, or the swamping
of minority rights by majorities (eg over punitive action against
looked-after children).
SCHOOL DISCIPLINE
44. Here, the Government seems to have selected only
the punitive recommendations from the Steer Committee, which set
out over 70 recommendations which were overwhelmingly about school,
pupil and parent support. We believe there is a danger that some
staff and schools will take the wrong messages from the selection
adopted by the White Paper, and that vulnerable children will
suffer as a result.
Mutual respect, not "zero tolerance"
45. The Steer Committee's "core beliefs" need
to be reiterated—note that "zero tolerance" is
not one of them, and even where preventative action has failed,
Steer envisages helping pupils manage their behaviour:
— The quality of learning, teaching and behaviour
in schools are inseparable issues, and the responsibility of all
staff.
— 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 the most
effective, but where this fails, schools must have clear, firm
and intelligent strategies in place to help pupils manage their
behaviour.
— There is no single solution to the problem of
poor behaviour, but all schools have the potential to raise standards
if they are consistent in implementing good practice in learning,
teaching and behaviour management.
— Respect has to be given in order to be received.
Parents and carers, pupils and teachers all need to operate in
a culture of mutual regard;
— The support of parents is essential for the maintenance
of good behaviour. Parents and schools each need to have a clear
understanding of their rights and responsibilities;
— School leaders have a critical role in establishing
high standards of learning, teaching and behaviour.[37]
Positive strategies are good professional practice
46. Steer recommended a number of positive strategies,
including behaviour audits; buying in professional support to
support pupils; senior staff walking the building, meeting and
greeting pupils; ensuring staff model good behaviour to pupils;
use of plenty of rewards as well as sanctions; using the national
strategies' materials and further funding the Social and Emotional
Aspects of Learning (SEAL) Programme to develop pupils' emotional
and social skills; training and informal learning opportunities
for staff in promoting positive behaviour; developing skills of
those with leadership responsibilities for behaviour; and secondary
schools becoming more active in linking with parents and carers,
including establishing Parent/Pupil Support Workers to help parents
who were reluctant to engage with the school.
47. We note that the White Paper (para 7.26) has picked
up the last recommendation but has confused the role with that
of learning mentor. These people perform an entirely different
role and it is essential not to confuse the two functions.
48. The Government has introduced many positive actions
such as SEAL which have made big differences in this area. The
Behaviour Improvement Programme (BIP) has just received an extremely
positive evaluation[38]
and among its findings is that exclusions fell in the schools
which engaged with the programme. It is important to acknowledge
that schools can make an enormous difference to pupils' behaviour
and are not helpless in the face of a hostile culture of parents
and pupils (as seems sometimes to be depicted in the media). One
aspect of the BIP evaluation pointed to the importance of within-school
(not specific to individual children) factors:
In one secondary school which had a considerable number of
fixed period exclusions it had been possible to analyse who were
repeat offenders, in what year group, and what lessons, day of
the week, time of day, seemed to be risk times. Specific subjects,
teachers and issues were identified, and this succeeded in shifting
the school management's thinking and making the problem more manageable.
The school had an influx of many difficult and challenging children
and the data were enormously helpful.[39]
49. The evaluation found that the greatest overall improvements
occurred where LEAs managed the programme effectively and where
they:
— offered support at the level of the individual,
the school and the community;
— focused on preventative initiatives and were proactive
rather than reactive in relation to behaviour issues;
— adopted a multi-agency approach through the operation
of BESTS;
— provided strong support within schools through
the use of audits and the appointment of LBPs and learning mentors;
— ensured that there were strong links and co operation
between schools and the BEST;
— ensured that there was good communication between
all involved parties;
— had strong management structures for the planning
and operationclising of initiatives;
— had clearly focused aims and commitment to carrying
them out;
— built on existing provision.[40]
50. This implies a continuing role for LEAs in this vital
area.
The "right to discipline"
51. All schools should be strongly advised to use physical
interventions by adults on children as the very last resort, and
should be offered support and training on special needs support
for children/behaviour management to avoid such use, and where
physical intervention is essential on the safe ways of doing this.
52. We do not believe there is any necessity for legislation
allowing more discipline and restraint, as teachers already have
powers here. On physical restraint, there is extensive guidance
in Circular 10/98, as well as additional guidance for pupils offering
some of the most severe challenges to teachers in the 2002 DfES
publication, Guidance on the use of restrictive physical interventions
for staff working with children and adults who display extreme
behaviour in association with learning disability and/or autistic
spectrum disorder, which emphasised:
For the first time, guidance covers all areas of service that
children and adults with learning disabilities and difficulties
will use throughout their lives.
It is vitally important for all staff to have effective training
and support in the use of restrictive physical interventions.
People with learning disabilities have a right to be treated with
respect, care and dignity especially when they are behaving in
ways which maybe harmful to themselves or others and as a result
require physical intervention from staff. By using this guidance
staff will be helped to act appropriately and in a safe manner,
so ensuring effective responses in difficult situations.[41]
53. Such care should be at the forefront of any new legislation/guidance
on physical control/restraint by teachers or others in schools.
We also note the draft Code of Practice prepared by the Youth
Justice Board for dealing with challenging behaviour, which stated
the following principles for restraint/physical intervention:
9.1 Only staff who are properly trained to use restrictive
physical interventions should undertake them.
9.2 Restrictive physical interventions must only be used
on the basis of a risk assessment. They should not be used as
a punishment, nor merely to secure compliance with staff instructions.
9.3 Restrictive physical intervention should be used only
as a last resort, when there is no alternative available or alternatives
have been exhausted.
9.4 Restrictive physical interventions should use the
minimum force for the shortest possible period of time.
9.5 The degree of physical intervention should be proportionate
to the risk.
9.6 Every effort should be made to ensure that other staff
are present before the restrictive physical intervention occurs
to act as assistants.
9.7 Medication will only be used for treatment of a medical
condition, and will not be used as a means of control.
9.8 Children must have the opportunity to "debrief"
following the intervention with the help of a friend or advocate
if requested.
9.9 Staff must have the opportunity to "debrief"
following the intervention with their manager.
9.10 A monitoring system must be in place that records
individual incidents in such a way that they are capable of being
aggregated over time to give a total picture of the use of restrictive
physical interventions in the establishment concerned.[42]
54. In view of their statutory duty to safeguard and
promote the welfare of children, schools should be required to
adhere to such guidelines. We are concerned that an extremely
limited consultation on the use of "reasonable force"
by school staff has just taken place, that the statute relied
upon allows force (albeit "reasonable") to be used to
prevent the pupil from:
engaging in any behaviour prejudicial to the maintenance of
good order and discipline at the school.[43]
and that the consultation document appears to give the green
light to further use of physical intervention by talking about
the "symbolic force" of reaffirming the right of schools
to restrain pupils.[44]
55. We have evidence from our advice lines that autistic
children who shout out or otherwise cause disruption are being
routinely subjected to force. In the last week, we had two calls
which signal a need for an entirely different symbolic message
to be sent out. One disturbing call was about an autistic child's
wrists were held so tightly he was forced to the floor and his
mother said this was happening frequently. Another parent of a
child with difficulty in understanding speech that became worse
when she was under stress told us that her daughter's support
assistant was regularly shouting in her daughter's face when the
child did not respond to instructions.
56. We do not believe that the proposals in the Legal
power to discipline: consultation paper would be endorsed by practitioners
concerned with looked-after children and implementing the Every
Child Matters agenda.
57. We further draw the Committee's attention to the
recent Second Annual Report of the Joint Inspectors of Social
Services and the debate in the House of Lords on it on 13 November
2005. Lord Rix noted that (our emphasis):
Mencap is aware of a significant number of cases where inadequate
safeguards have exposed children with a learning disability to
unacceptable levels of risk.
An example of this is a young woman with a learning disability
who was assaulted on more than one occasion at school. Her mother
said, "She couldn't tell us she had been hit and others wouldn't
believe her anyway, so the perpetrator got away with it. Nothing
has happened and as far as I know whoever did it still works there."
Four out of 10 residential schools are failing to meet
the national minimum standard for child protection systems and
procedures[45].
58. Baroness Massey of Darwen made the following point
in the same debate (our emphasis):
safeguarding is not just about protection; it is also about enabling
children to develop self-esteem and self-discipline, and to be
confident and independent. Various arenas can do that: families,
schools, services, communities and so on. Joint and agreed
strategies, with the child at the centre, must be in place. If
one institution has a punitive philosophy and one an enabling
philosophy there will be confusion.[46]
59. That cannot be said often enough for the sake of
such children. We believe that the consultation paper just released
by the DfES endangers schools' involvement in joint and agreed
strategies by reaffirming a right to discipline at odds with youth
justice and child protection.
60. It would be helpful for the Government to return
to its previous emphasis on reducing exclusions, rather than greeting
the rise revealed in this year's statistics as an affirmation
of the head's right to discipline. The Government's own research
states "reducing exclusion and improving attendance are crucial
for the individual pupil and for society as a whole."[47]
61. We agree with the Practitioners' Group that exclusion
appeal panels need more training, but our experience of advising
parents suggests there is no bias in favour of pupils or frequent
instances of pupils being reinstated on technicalities.
62. We consider that the proposal to limit the discretion
of the panels by requiring them to accept the judgement of heads
and governors "where it is clear that the pupil has committed
the offence" makes panels' decisions more likely to be unjust,
as the current guidance requires, for instance, the head, governors,
and panel to look at whether the incident was a response to bullying
or racist provocation, or other mitigating and explanatory factors.
Exclusion appeal panels are dealing with children, not hardened
criminals, and there is enormous variation in our experience in
the seriousness of the offence, the actions taken by the school
to avoid exclusion, and adherence to statutory guidance in investigating
and deciding whether exclusion is merited.
63. The White Paper (para 7.18) notes the over-representation
of black pupils in exclusion figures, but omits the more stark
over-representation, that of pupils with special needs/disabilities
in the figures (two-thirds of exclusions are of pupils with special
educational needs). We are extremely disappointed that neither
the Steer Report nor the White Paper has discussed that issue.
We therefore hope that the Select Committee and the Ministerial
Group on Behaviour will make it a priority to investigate further,
and that both will seek expert views from practitioners in this
field, including those representing parents and children. It is
now a widely held view that it is entirely inappropriate to use
the most punitive sanctions in a school's armoury against children
whose behaviour difficulties arise from special needs/disabilities.[48]
Punishing parents doesn't work
64. We further believe that to require parents to take
responsibility for the first five days of an exclusion ignores
the reality of parents' lives: most parents who are able to in
our experience already do this. If parents do not, it is either
because they will lose their jobs, endanger their ability to look
after other children, or have other real difficulties (eg one
parent who called us was the main carer of a seriously ill grandparent).
We would like an estimate by Government of how many problems will
be solved by this measure, as opposed to how many problems for
hard-pressed hard-working families will be created. Will punishment
solve the problems here?
65. Similarly we oppose the use of parenting orders and
fines for parents whose children do not attend school. This is
not a new proposal from the White Paper, but an existing power,
but the evidence for its effectiveness should be considered alongside
proposals to extend punitive measures against parents. The use
of the "fast track" to prosecution has been found to
be ineffective in addressing entrenched non-attendance by the
NFER, who comment:
. . . pupils' self-determined actions and a lack of parental
control were frequently identified as factors militating against
the success of Fast Track.[49]
66. In other words, parents were not able to exert control
over the young people in question, so prosecution was ineffective:
something else was needed to address the disengagement of the
young person from education.
67. We consider that the extension of parenting orders
to cover to parents of pupils whom the school consider to be misbehaving
is also impractical and unhelpful in an area where engagement
and dialogue are important, not blame.
68. It would be helpful to have data on social class,
ethnic group and disability to be available on parents who are
issued parenting orders, fined and/or prosecuted under these new
arbitrary powers.
69. While so many children with special needs/disabilities
find life so hard in ordinary schools and are excluded, we find
the idea that parents have no right to question the "teacher's
right to discipline" inappropriate.
70. We welcome responsibility for education for excluded
pupils to rest on schools and LEAs, but note that the existing
section 19 duty on LEAs to ensure suitable education after the
first 15 days of an exclusion is not honoured or enforced in the
majority of cases we deal with.
A NEW ROLE
FOR LOCAL
AUTHORITIES
71. We welcome the new role of LAs as champions of pupils
and parents, but believe this needs to be made practically possible
by the addition of powers to intervene and to direct schools in,
for instance, their adherence to race and disability discrimination
legislation, especially where individual children may suffer as
a result of the schools' actions/inaction. Otherwise the accountability
and regulation mechanisms which should control independent publicly
funded schools are too remote and difficult to access by individual
parents on behalf of their children.
25
Department for Education and Skills/PriceWaterhouseCoopers (2005)
Academies Evaluation: second annual report. Back
26
House of Commons Education and Skills Committee, Fourth Report
of Session 2002-03, Secondary Education: Diversity of Provision,
HC 94. Back
27
House of Commons Education and Skills Committee, Seventh Report
of Session 2002-03, Secondary Education: Pupil Achievement, HC
513, Q174. Back
28
House of Commons Education and Skills Committee, Fourth Report
of Session 2002-03, Secondary Education: Diversity of Provision,
HC 94, para 129. Back
29
House of Commons Education and Skills Select Committee, 2004,
Secondary Education: School Admissions, Vol 2, SA3. Back
30
House of Commons Education and Skills Select Committee, 2004,
Secondary Education: School Admissions, Vol 1, paras 61-62. Back
31
The Commission for Local Administration in England (2004) Special
Report: School Admissions and Appeals, March 2004. Back
32
ibid, p 3. Back
33
ibid, p 3. Back
34
Which? (2005) Which Choice? Education, London, Which?, p 33. Back
35
Department for Education and Skills/PriceWaterhouseCoopers (2005)
Academies Evaluation: second annual report, p 38. Back
36
University of Oxford (2005) Annual Report of the Nuffield Review
of 14-19 Education and Training, Press Release, p 2. Back
37
Department for Education and Skills (2005) Learning Behaviour:
the report of the Practitioners' Group on School Behaviour and
Discipline, p 2. Back
38
Hallam, S, Castle, F, Rogers, L, Creech, A, Rhamie, J. and Kokotsaki,
D. (2005) Research and Evaluation of the Behaviour Improvement
Programme, London, DfES, Research Report RR702. Back
39
Hallam et al, p 87. Back
40
Hallam, S, Castle, F, Rogers, L, Creech, A, Rhamie, J. and Kokotsaki,
D. (2005) Research and Evaluation of the Behaviour Improvement
Programme, London, DfES, Research Brief RB702, p 5. Back
41
DfES (2002) Guidance on the Use of Restrictive Physical Interventions
for Staff Working with Children and Adults who Display Extreme
Behaviour in Association with Learning Disability and/or Autistic
Spectrum Disorders, Ref: LEA/0242/2002. Back
42
Youth Justice Board (2005) Managing Children and Young People's
Behaviour in the Secure Estate, draft code of practice. Back
43
Section 550A Education Act 1996, (1)(c). Back
44
DfES (2005) Legal power to discipline: consultation paper, November
2005. Back
45
House of Lords Hansard, 13 Oct 2005 : Column 420-1. Back
46
House of Lords Hansard, 13 Oct 2005: Column 417. Back
47
Hallam et al, p 2. Back
48
Special Education Consortium's Evidence to the Committee's inquiry
into Special Educational Needs, September 2005. Back
49
Halsey, K, Bedford, N, Atkinson, M, White, R, and Kinder, K.
(2004) Evaluation of Fast Track to prosecution for school non-attendance,
NFER. Back
| 
