Q
8Annette
Brooke: That is probably an area that we need to revisit
to ensure that the measure is practical—thank you. On the
behaviour and attendance partnerships, does making something statutory
necessarily make it work
better? Sir
Alan Steer: I think that the development of
partnerships in schools is one of the most exciting possibilities. It
is something we have been searching for
in the system for a good number of years, and it is certainly very much
in line with the thinking behind the children’s plan. My concern
is that we can approve of the concept of partnership—it is a
word to which we can give nothing but approval—but when we
scratch it we sometimes find that it does not actually
exist.
In my
opinion, schools need to work in partnership. I was an autonomous head
teacher for 23 years and loved it—well, I was an autonomous head
teacher for 18 of those years and loved it, but for the first five
years I was not. I would never want to take that autonomy away from
schools, as it has been beneficial for them and for children. Autonomy,
in my book, has to exist within certain parameters, and we should tell
schools that we expect a certain minimum element of co-operation,
because that not only meets the needs of children in the wider
community, but is helpful for schools.
I am
interested in the concept of schools creating the capacity to be able
to pick up problems through joint appointments between them, as
suggested in the children’s plan. As a head teacher, I could
have used a psychiatric social worker but would not have been able to
keep them in full-time occupation. However, if I had been in
partnership with three or four schools and had easy access to someone
who could pick up problems and then perhaps help the child or school
through the system, the benefits would have been enormous. I think that
it is right and proper to say to schools, “Yes, you ought to
work in partnership.” I do not think they should do that at too
high a level, because the autonomy of schools is very important, but
they have to work inside a community. They are not just separate items
but are responsible to the community and to each
other.
Q
9Annette
Brooke: Following on from that, are all the necessary
players who might be part of that specified in the Bill? For example, I
do not think that pupil referral units are
specified. Sir
Alan Steer: No. However, I gather that PIUs will be
included—this is where I will flail a bit—through
subsequent guidance.
Q
10Annette
Brooke: I have one final question. This morning, one of
our witnesses commented on that and suggested that it might be possible
for one school not to pair up and almost not to be chosen for the team,
as it were. Is there a danger that you might get some really strong
partnerships, but that perhaps the school that needs to be supported is
left out on the
edge? Sir
Alan Steer: I agree with you, as that is a danger. I
noted that the document, “21st Century Schools”, which
came out before Christmas, referred to the involvement of the local
authority in helping to guide the formation of partnerships. That might
be necessary in time, because the last thing you want is a partnership
with all those who, in a sense, did not need to be in partnership with
all the ones that needed to be on the outside of that. That needs to be
looked at to ensure that it does not
happen.
Q
11The
Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Children, Schools and
Families (Sarah McCarthy-Fry): My apologies for being
late, Mr. Chope. The Bill, as currently drafted, relates to
secondary schools, and I wonder whether you thought that we should go
wider and include primary schools.
Sir
Alan Steer: I did consider the issue of primary
schools and behaviour partnerships but concluded that, unless one was
careful, they would become such large and unwieldy organisations. I
have described the concept of partnerships as exciting, and my
fantasy—it will not be me who is engaged in this in five or 10
years’ time—is that you will have groups of schools
working much more closely together, and I very much want that to be
cross phased. The example of efficiency resource use shows that it is
often the small primary school that can least afford to get the
specialist services. I have worked in partnerships, and in my
experience we worked in closest partnership with our primary school.
However, with regard to the initial development, one should get
one’s behaviour partnerships going in a manageable number
without making them so large that they would possibly be unwieldy. That
was the
thinking.
Q
12Sarah
McCarthy-Fry: Carrying on with the behaviour partnerships,
obviously you have been around a great number of schools, and
presumably you have examples of good practice. What would be the best
way for us to disseminate that good practice throughout the
partnerships? Sir
Alan Steer: I saw some outstanding practice. I saw a
practice in Leeds and one in Waltham Forest—I think it was in
the report—that actually made me quite emotional. The quality of
what was being done for some really quite troubled children between
schools was exemplary. As I said, it was quite an emotional experience.
I think that there is a very fine balance between the Government
setting the parameters for things to happen and getting too much into
micro-management. I might be accused of too much micro-management with
the recommendation on the compulsory element of schools in
partnerships, although I do not accept that. We need to create a
situation for schools and then enable and encourage them to run with
it. You will find outstanding examples of such practice. This is
something that we always need to remember.
In our
system, we have outstanding examples of good practice. Our problem is
that we have variation; we do not have consistency, which is a word
that I go on and on about in relation to all sorts of issues. That is
one of the things we need to put a driver on. However, we need to
create the baseline, parameters and expectations. It seems legitimate
for the Government to say, “These are our expectations for a
state service”, but then hopefully we can let the schools
develop and learn. I have found that some people are not only doing
what I have recommended in this review, but going much further than I
ever thought of. That is one of the joys of being in the educational
world.
Q
13Sarah
McCarthy-Fry: I want to follow Annette Brooke’s
question about the remarks this morning of our NUT witness. He said
that he was concerned about there being only one relevant partner, and
he mentioned using the local authority. Do you think that the local
children’s trust board could have a role to play in this? Would
that be
effective? Sir
Alan Steer: It could have a role to play, but that is
a difficult one to answer, because of course that is very much
embryonic. When we consider the role of children’s trust boards
and the representation of head teachers it is looking into the future.
If children’s trusts meet our
aspirations for pulling together all the services around the child, it
would certainly be good, but that is very much speculating on a desired
outcome, rather than evidence that one can see at the
moment.
Q
14Sarah
McCarthy-Fry: Do you think it important that academies are
included in the
partnerships? Sir
Alan Steer: It is important that all schools are
included in partnerships. If some are not included, it will have a
devastating effect on everybody else and will be harmful to those
schools. Schools cannot be islands. The most dangerous situation for a
school is when it looks into itself all the time without outside
influence and support. In my view, if academies are to meet our
aspirations for them, which includes changing what are often very
difficult circumstances, they must also have things to teach. If they
meet that aspiration, which we hope they will, they will have expertise
and contributions to make to people in the community, too. Absolutely,
I think that all schools in an area need to be engaged with each other,
without removing their autonomy—as I said, I was an autonomous
head teacher. I think that that is perfectly possible to
do.
Q
15The
Minister for Schools and Learners (Jim Knight): In the
absence of other questions—I would hate to be accused of hogging
anything—I would like to know what the benefits are of changing
the name of pupil referral units and calling them schools for the first
time. Sir
Alan Steer: They are educational institutions. They
are about children learning, not about putting them somewhere because
we do not know what else to do with them, which has sometimes been the
situation. Any child of school age ought to be in a school and the
concept ought to be of them learning. Why do we assume that because a
child goes to a PRU they are not capable of passing exams or doing
well? One of my closest educational friends, and the head of an
extremely able and high-performing school for children with emotional
and behavioural difficulties, went to an emotional and behavioural
difficulties school and, according to him, was illiterate until the age
of 15. We lose that concept. Right back in 2005, we called our report
“Learning Behaviour”. The whole concept is that the vast
majority of children are capable of learning, improving and removing
their problems. We have always got to hang on to that. PRUs ought to be
seen as schools; they are learning
institutions.
Q
16Jim
Knight: This morning we heard John Bangs from the NUT
express concern about reporting the use of force. Do you think that
there is a significant danger, about which we should worry, of
situations whereby an incident has taken place in school and is
reported to a parent, who is consequently violent towards their
child? Sir
Alan Steer: It is not a new problem. As a head
teacher, a situation would occasionally occur where one was aware of a
problem family and an issue would arise, which you jolly well knew that
the parents should know about. You would approach that situation with,
hopefully, skill and expertise. You would, perhaps, see the parent, or
make sure that it was presented in a certain way. As I said earlier, if
you were really concerned that that child was at physical risk, you
would be duty bound to have
taken certain steps already, under specific child protection procedures,
possibly involving social services or the educational welfare
service.
However, I do
not think that you should remove the—in my eyes—absolute
guiding right of parents to know whether their child has been
physically restrained. If my child had been physically restrained
because they needed to be, and I did not know about it, I would be
furious. It is an absolute right of parents to know what is happening
to their children in school. In those extreme cases, we have to be
skilful and clever in order to deal with them, but the absolute right
of parents to know what is happening to their children at school seems
to me
unanswerable.
Q
17Jim
Knight: Finally, this is a slightly dangerous question,
because I do not know what your answer will be. All members of the
Committee would acknowledge your expertise and the importance of the
work that you have done in your reports on behaviour. Is there anything
else, in the context of behaviour, about which we should legislate? Is
there anything that we have not done in successive pieces of
legislation that we use to implement our
work? Sir
Alan Steer: The key things about improving the system
are sometimes the simple things which, because they are so simple, do
not excite us. I used the word “consistency” earlier and
I always use it when I do presentations to groups on behaviour. I often
say to them that the trouble is that it does not sound sexy. Our task
is to make the word “consistency” sexy. You say that to
people and they nod wisely, but they instantly move on and I feel that,
in their minds, they think that that is a bit boring. It is not boring,
it is hugely significant. There is so much research about the impact of
good quality teaching on children, especially the most vulnerable. It
is one of the most significant equal-opportunities issues that you can
think of—who gains most from good quality teaching?
I am going
around the houses to answer your question, but my answer is that our
task is to implement what we have got and do it well. As I said
earlier, we have got outstanding practice—outstanding
practice—but I understand that the variation in these schools,
not only between but within them, is one of the highest in OECD
countries. If we could only close that variation and lift the weakest
up to the standard of even the average, we would probably
meet—and exceed—all our targets. I actually think that it
can be—I do not know if this is parliamentary language—a
cop-out always to search for the big solution. We have the solutions;
we just have to get on and implement
them.
Q
18Alison
Seabeck (Plymouth, Devonport) (Lab): Can we go back to the
question of whether primary schools should be included? I do not know
if you have had the opportunity, as part of your research, to look at
the work done in Plymouth by the Plymouth Excellence Cluster?
Sir
Alan Steer: No, I have
not.
Q
19Alison
Seabeck: It has been working for many years and has 26
schools—primary and secondary—engaged in dealing with
barriers to learning. That obviously includes behaviour, and it is very
successful. I know that
there are a range of views on how to deal with pupils who, for many
reasons, do not learn or engage. I would say that there is some value,
having seen the specific work in Plymouth, in possibly including
primary schools. It does work. I hear what you say about a range of
views, horses for courses, having flexibility in the system and all
those sorts of issues, but I am not sure that primary schools should be
precluded. Sir
Alan Steer: The Bill does not preclude them, does it?
It makes a requirement of secondary schools to be in a partnership, so
in a sense there is flexibility in areas such as
Plymouth.
Q
20Alison
Seabeck: So others could be drawn
in? Sir
Alan Steer: Part of my thinking is that schools are
in partnerships, but our problem is that they are in a huge number of
them, in all directions. My school was a specialist school in
technology and languages and also a training school; I was the leader
of the Redbridge network, which contained 56 schools, and there were
other links, too. The danger, as Estelle Morris said a few years ago,
is that too many relationships are a bit like bigamy: you cannot get a
deep relationship with anybody. Real partnership depends so much on
trust between
people. My
image is one of fewer schools working in partnership, but there is no
earthly reason why combinations could not be put together. I cannot
imagine a successful system that does not engage with, and link the
different phases of primary or further education. If we want genuinely
close partnership, we need to think about the optimum number of
relationships that a school can have and meaningfully carry them
forward.
| 
