7 Managing exclusions
89. A school can exclude a child for a fixed period
of time only in response to breaches of the school's behaviour
policy, including for persistent disruptive behaviour. The exclusion
should be for the shortest time possible and a child cannot be
given fixed period exclusions which total more than 45 days in
one year. A school should set (and mark) work for a pupil on the
first day of an exclusion. By the sixth day of a fixed term exclusion,
full-time alternative education should be arranged by the school.
As Sir Alan Steer concludes, "the requirement to make [Day
6 provision for excluded pupils] has been a challenge for schools".[166]
In the same report,
Sir Alan also criticised the use of repeat fixed term exclusions
as a way of avoiding permanent exclusion and recommended that
"DCSF, for its part, should consider how to support and challenge
local authorities with disproportionately high exclusions and
DCSF guidance should particularly address the issue of repeat
fixed-period exclusions".[167]
90. A
school will usually only permanently exclude a child as a last
resort, after trying to improve the child's behaviour through
other means. Schools can exclude a child if the pupil has seriously
broken school rules or if, by allowing the pupil to stay in school,
it would seriously harm their education or welfare, or the education
or welfare of other pupils. However, there are exceptional circumstances
in which a head teacher may decide permanently to exclude a pupil
for a one-off offence. For permanent exclusions, it falls to the
local authority to provide full-time alternative education provision
on the sixth day of the exclusion. The 'six day' requirement on
local authorities for permanent exclusions was reduced from fifteen
days in 2007, increasing the pressure on local authorities to
have appropriate and responsive services available for permanently
excluded pupils.[168]
91. Data from the Department for Education, released
in July 2010, shows that there were an estimated 6,550 permanent
exclusions from primary, secondary and all special schools in
2008-9, representing 0.09% of pupils in schools. Compared to 2007-08,
the number of permanent exclusions has decreased by 19.4%. This
decrease is attributed in part to local authorities' and schools'
attempts to reduce the need for permanent exclusion by employing
alternatives such as 'managed moves'[169]
between schools. In 2008-9, there were 307,810 fixed period exclusions
from state-funded secondary schools and 39,510 from primary, compared
with 324,180 and 43,290 respectively in the previous year. It
is important to note that all data refers to cases of exclusion,
rather than the number of pupils excluded, as some pupils are
excluded more than once during the year. The most common reason
for exclusion was persistent disruptive behaviour.[170]
92. Pupils with special educational needs feature
heavily in exclusion statistics. Just over one in five pupils
(or 1.7 million school-age children in England) are identified
as having special educational needs. In theory those in need of
the most intensive support are given a statement of SEN. The proportion
of statemented pupils currently stands at 2.7% (a decrease from
3% since 2003), whilst the proportion of non-statemented pupils
with SEN has increased from 14% in 2003 to 18.2% in 2010.[171]
Pupils with SEN (both with and without statements) are
more than eight times more likely to be permanently excluded than
those pupils with no SEN. In 2008-09, 24 in every 10,000 pupils
with statements of SEN and 30 in every 10,000 pupils with SEN
but without statements were permanently excluded from school,
compared to three in every 10,000 pupils with no identified SEN.
For fixed period exclusions, the rate for pupils with statements
was 19.1%, 14.2% for pupils with SEN without statements, and 2.2%
for pupils with no SEN.[172]
93. As Professor Pam MarasHonorary General
Secretary of the British Psychological Societytold us,
"schools find it very difficult to interpret SEN policies
in relation to behaviour, because, of course, behaviour is also
dealt with through disciplinary action".[173]
Young Minds, a charity which aims to support the emotional wellbeing
and mental health of children, also pointed out that "many
children who have a special educational need, particularly those
who are said to have behavioural, emotional and social difficulties
(BESD), will also have mental health problems".[174]
94. Aside from pupils with SEN, other groups of pupils
also feature prominently in exclusion statistics:
- The permanent exclusion rate
for boys was approximately 3.5 times higher than that for
girls. The fixed period exclusion rate for boys was almost three
times higher than for girls
- Children who are eligible for free school
meals are approximately three times more likely to receive
either a permanent or fixed period exclusion than children who
are not eligible for free school meals
- Black Caribbean pupils
are 3 times more likely to be permanently excluded than the school
population as a whole.
This, however, clearly does not isolate race or low
income as drivers of bad behaviour per se.
95. Evidence from the British Psychological Society
outlined a range of other risk factors which can influence the
behaviour of young people. These include:
- Age-related factors (for example
teenagers tend to become more 'negative' around the ages of 13
to 15 when they are required to make important decisions about
their education, including GCSEs, which will affect their future
educational and employment opportunities)
- Life events, such as school change, educational
stress and life worries
- Changes in adolescence, including neurological
changes which are likely to impact on emotions and behaviour
- Correlations between school culture characterised
by perceptions of low teacher and classmate support, pupil conflict,
unfair school rules and disciplinary practices, and low pupil
autonomy and low attachment to learning and peer approval of deviance.[175]
Early identification of and intervention
with pupils at risk of exclusion
96. The Ministerial foreword to the 2008 White Paper
Back on Track reported that "school leaders and other
education professionals have told us that we need to do more to
intervene early to support and challenge those young people who
are starting to cause difficulties in school".[176]
Evidence to our inquiry demonstrated widespread support
for early interventions which can tackle the reasons for bad behaviour
as opposed to relying on exclusion once behaviours have escalated,
although it should be noted that some witnesses advocated retaining
exclusion as an "ultimate sanction" to aid teachers
in enforcing good behaviour.[177]
97. YoungMinds drew our attention to research undertaken
by Action for Children and the New Economics Foundation[178]
which found that providing more effective early interventions
could save the UK economy £486 billion over twenty years
by tackling problems early on rather than firefighting with expensive
interventions once behaviours had escalated.[179]
However, as Demos highlighted, "there is frequently
a lack of funding for spending on early intervention. Early intervention
approaches tend to be tied to short term, specific ring-fenced
funding from the Department which ceases after a few years, and
jeopardises the stability of these interventions [
] Those
schools that have adopted early intervention programmes on a long-term
basis have had to look for alternative sources of funding, not
available to all schools, or fund programmes from other budgets".[180]
Demos added that "preventative programmes and interventions
are not a legally binding element of local authority spending,
unlike provision for excluded pupils which is an obligation under
the Education Act 2003. For these reasons the legal impetus on
local authorities is retrospective, rather than proactive, when
it comes to tackling disengagement".[181]
The Committee also noted that schools do not always see
early intervention as a legitimate and essential priority when
it comes to allocating their budgets.
98. As with any preventative programme, there are
always challenges in proving what does and does not happen as
a result of investment in interventions. The lack of any solid
evidence base showing the effectiveness of early interventions
in managing the behaviours that may lead to exclusion is a problem
in this respect. As Sue Bainbridge told us, National Strategies
has tried to encourage schools to track the effectiveness of interventions
through improved data analysis.[182]
The Government should actively
pick up the work begun by National Strategies in encouraging schools
to track the effectiveness of interventions to manage behaviour.
99. Sure Start children's centres were praised by
some witnesses for providing effective early interventions.[183]
Sure Start and other intervention programmes will in future be
funded from a single Early Intervention Grant, worth £2.212
billion in 2011-12 and £2.297 billion in 2012-13.[184]
The Early Intervention Grant is earmarked to fund Sure Start Children's
Centres, an entitlement to free early education for disadvantaged
two year olds, short breaks for disabled children, as well as
services for young people currently funded through the Department
for Education, a range of interventions provided by local authorities
targeted at supporting vulnerable young people to engage in education
and training, and interventions to prevent young people from taking
part in risky behaviour such as crime and substance abuse. The
Grant replaces a number of former funding streams; but the amount
to be allocated through the Grant in 2011-12 will be 10.9% lower
than the aggregated funding streams for the various intervention
programmes in 2010-11.[185]
100. The effectiveness of Sure Start as a means of
early intervention has been challenged by a recent research study
by the Centre for Evaluation and Monitoring, based at the University
of Durham. The Centre's findings were based upon surveys of the
development of 117,000 children starting primary school in England
over eight years; and it concluded that there was no evidence
that early years initiatives, such as Sure Start, had improved
basic levels of development in early reading, vocabulary and mathematics.[186]
This is a disappointing conclusion, as early intervention through
improving parenting, which Sure Start has the potential to offer,
could make a big difference in improving children's readiness
for school and in reducing misbehaviour in consequence. We
welcome Government plans to extend free nursery care to disadvantaged
2-year-olds, and we urge the Government to improve its efforts
to look for the most effective, evidence-based forms of early
intervention, taking into account the work of the Rt Hon Frank
Field MP and Graham Allen MP in their reports.
101. Alongside its plans for investment in Sure Start
Children's Centres, the Government also announced in December
2010 that there would be "important new investment through
Department of Health budgets to provide 4,200 extra health visitors".[187]
It is not yet clear whether this will be additional funding or
whether these health visitors will be funded from the existing
allocation to Sure Start. The
Government should clarify how the proposed 4,200 new health visitors
will be funded and whether this initiative is also expected to
be funded from the Early Intervention Grant.
102. With regard to forms of intervention other than
Sure Start, the National Association of Social Workers in Education
(NASWE) pointed to the specific role for local authority education
welfare services (EWS) in securing appropriate early interventions
for pupils and their families, where schools do not have authority
to intervene:
The EWS [
] works with young people who are
very vulnerable but do not yet meet thresholds for other 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 health
difficulties.[188]
Bill Gribble, a behaviour consultant, stressed the
value of education welfare services, telling us that "when
I was a head teacher, the education welfare officer was my eyes
and ears in the communityand certainly my eyes and ears
for early warnings of problems with particularly vulnerable children
either coming into the area or developing within the area".[189]
103. A major part of the education welfare service's
role is to address school attendance issues. NASWE and other witnesses
observed that the factors which can predispose poor school attendancesuch
as poverty and mental or physical ill-healthare equally
applicable in predicting poor behaviour.[190]
The Association of School and College Leaders also commented
that poor attendance can trigger a "vicious circle"
as absence creates "a discontinuity in the learning experience
[
] and this can lead to them being uninterested and then
disruptive".[191]
104. As we noted earlier in this Report, strong engagement
with parents and carers is vital in managing behaviour. Andrew
Winton, Manager of Voice for Young People at the London Borough
of Havering, pointed out that parents of pupils not attending
school "are some of the most difficult to engage".[192]
NASWE added that "where parents and young people are
unwilling to engage, the EWS may be the only agency where thresholds
for statutory intervention have been reached and do not rely entirely
on consensual engagement by the young person or their parents".[193]
105. The Department for Education does not provide
specific earmarked funding for education welfare services. Local
authorities fund services from a combination of formula grant
and council tax, and it is for local authorities to decide how
much they can spend on these services. As Andrew Winton advised
us, in some local authorities cuts to education welfare services
are "huge" (50-80% in some areas).[194]
Mr Winton added that there are risks in devolving such a service
to schools, adding "a while ago, there was the opportunity
for it to be devolved to schools and, where it was devolved to
schools, it was unsuccessful. Where staff were based in schools
but were managed centrally under a professional management structure,
that worked well".[195]
106. Given the important role that education welfare
services can play in identifying and intervening at an early stage
with pupils at risk of poor behaviour and their families, we are
concerned at the prospect that local authorities will make significant
cuts to these services. We
believe that the value of education welfare serviceswhich
prevent the need for later, more expensive interventionsmay
be under-estimated. The Government should bear in mind, in a climate
of increased devolution of responsibility to schools for managing
behaviour, evidence which suggests that responsibility for the
central co-ordination of education welfare services should rest
with local authorities rather than with schools, if the services
are to function well.
Alternative provision
107. Under
section 19 of the Education Act 1996, local authorities have a
duty to provide suitable education for children of compulsory
school age who cannot attend school - for medical reasons for
example, or because they have been excluded. Around 135,000 pupils
a year, mostly of secondary age, spend some time in alternative
provision. Alternative provision provided by schools and local
authorities can range from pupil referral units (PRUs) and further
education colleges to voluntary or private sector projects. About
one third of placements are in PRUs, with the rest in other forms
of alternative provision. The 2008 White Paper Back on Track
observed that "it costs around £4,000 a year to educate
a pupil in a mainstream school, but about £15,000 a year
for a full-time placement in a Pupil Referral Unit, where most
permanently excluded pupils are educated".[196]
Schools can also arrange
alternative provision for their pupils as part of their wider
strategies for reducing exclusions. Schools and local authorities
must ensure that any education which they commission from outside
bodies is of high quality, and ensure that robust systems are
in place for monitoring the provision.
108. In
oral evidence to the Committee, Sir Alan Steer described the situation
regarding alternative provision as "hard to describe as anything
but scandalous", with "excellent provision in certain
places [and in other places] children who are out of school, receiving
as little as one hour a week of home tuition, week after week,
month after month.[197]
On the latter point, the Schools White Paper announces plans to
require all local authorities to provide full-time education for
all children in alternative provision from September 2011.[198]
Whilst this is a welcome developmentparticularly in ensuring
good attendance and continuity of a pupil's educationit
does not address one of the major problems arising from our evidence:
that of providing appropriate provision which is flexible to the
needs of pupils.
109. Sir Alan Steer was not alone in criticising
standards of alternative provision. The National Association of
Head Teachers said that "a wide variety of pupil referral
units existed, but all were facing similar barriers in providing
a good education for their children and young people. Some with
inadequate accommodation, pupils of different ages with diverse
needs arriving in an unplanned way, limited numbers of specialist
staff to enable a broad curriculum to be delivered and too often
there were difficulties in reintegrating pupils into mainstream
schools".[199]
The challenging task PRUs face was described by the National
Children's Bureau, which said:
Although it is of course the primary purpose of PRUs
to offer an educational intervention to these young people, our
research confirms that their welfare and mental health needs must
also be identified and addressedoften in the context of
difficult and complex family situations. PRUs must be equipped
to offer and/or broker the different types of support these children
need in order to increase the likelihood of successful reintegration
into mainstream education and, over time, improve their life chances.[200]
110. Where PRUs have been allowed to innovate and
respond to need as they see fit, excellent results have been achieved.
One good example, which we visited, is New Woodlands School in
Lewisham. Although formally a special school for children with
social, emotional and behavioural needs, in practice New Woodlands
operates as a Pupil Referral Unit for children without statements
of special educational needs referred from mainstream schools
in the London Borough of Lewisham, offering short-term spells
of alternative provision: anything from six weeks to several months.
Only a successful application for a "power to innovate"
under the Education Act 2002 had enabled New Woodlands School
to offer places to children without statements of special educational
needs, and we were told that while other institutions might have
the same philosophy, they were constrained by law from offering
the flexibility of provision for children without a statement
of SEN.[201]
111. The Government's view is that local authorities
currently see their own pupil referral units as the default provider
for alternative provision and that they fail to capitalise on
expertise from third sector and other providers.[202]
The Schools White Paper set out an intention therefore to "increase
the autonomy, accountability and diversity of alternative provision",
for instance by opening up the market to more providers, including
those in the third sector. The White Paper included a commitment
to bring forward legislation which would give pupil referral units
(PRUs) the same self-governing powers as community schools including
powers over staffing and finance. It also announced that the forthcoming
Education Bill would include provisions enabling PRUs to become
Academies.[203]
112. Opening up the market may make it harder for
commissioners to compare the quality of a wider range of alternative
provision. The White Paper recognised that currently there is
no "common or transparent measure of [
] quality"[204]
for third sector organisations, which could make it difficult
for these organisations to prove their worth to commissioners.
The White Paper announced therefore that the Government would
consider introducing a quality mark, or tighter regulation for
alternative provision, subject to a review of alternative provision
by Ofsted.[205] Demos
told us that "the quality assurance of alternative provision
needs to happen on the same basis as quality assurance for schools",
and it recommended that "Ofsted should be charged with inspecting
alternative provision regardless of sector (in other words, voluntary
and community sector and private sector provision should be inspected
by Ofsted in the same way that PRUs are)".[206]
Furthermore, Demos identified a need for greater
dissemination or "evidence-based practice" to advise
the development of new alternative provision.[207]
113. The Government believes that, through greater
devolution of commissioning and procurement of alternative provision
from local authorities to schools, the alternative provision market
will attract a wider range of providers.[208]
Although welcome in some respects, many witnesses alluded
to major cuts being made to local authority youth servicessome
of which contribute to the spectrum of alternative provision upon
which schools relyas a barrier to this policy. Leicestershire
County Council told us that cuts were a major threat, with serious
repercussions for behaviour both in and outside of school. The
council and its partners were also sceptical of the ability of
the third sector and volunteers to fill the void left behind as
services are withdrawn, meaning simply that services may not be
available for schools to commission in future.[209]
114. The measures
outlined in the Schools White Paper to allow greater freedom for
pupil referral units to innovate, and proposals to facilitate
access to the alternative provision market to a more diverse range
of providers, are welcome in principle. However, in the current
economic climate, the alternative provider market may come under
pressure from cuts in local authority budgetsparticularly
in Youth Services. The Government may be being optimistic in expecting
that significant numbers of new providers will enter the market
for alternative provision. A situation cannot be allowed to arise
where any pupil is left without good quality provision.
Behaviour and Attendance Partnerships
(BAPs)
115. The Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning
Act 2009 introduced a statutory requirement for all secondary
schools, including academies, to be part of a local Behaviour
and Attendance Partnership (BAP) -
that is, for schools to
co-operate with at least one other relevant partner with a view
to promoting good behaviour. Prior to the Act, such partnerships
were voluntary. Most secondary schools now operate in a behavioural
partnership which allows them to share expertise and resources
and operate protocols such as 'managed moves', whereby one head
teacher may ask another to admit a pupil in order to prevent exclusion.
Evidence from our witnesses confirmed that "working in partnership
with other schools, local services and the wider community to
draw on local expertise and resources [is] of critical importance
in addressing challenging behaviour, including exclusions".[210]
However, the Coalition Government has since revoked the
commencement order bringing in the requirement for schools to
form BAPs.[211] This
met with mixed reactions from our witnesses.
116. During our visit to Leicester City Council,
local partners were confident that there existed an established
culture of less challenged schools supporting those with greater
challenges in terms of pupil behaviour. Therefore, the removal
of the requirement to form BAPs was expected to have little impact
on local partnership working. This was reflected by head teacher
witnesses to our inquiry, who told us that "even if you require
people to participate in partnerships, they can be there in spirit
but not in body and vice versa, so required partnership working
tends to produce no better effects than voluntary [...] partnership
working".[212]
This is of little concern in areas where partnerships are
already well embedded, as in Leicester. However, our evidence
shows that the quality and effectiveness of partnerships varies
considerably across the country. As the Association of School
and College Leaders stated, "in some places partnerships
are still at a low level of effectiveness, particularly when some
schools remain outside the group".[213]
This accounts for the opinion of the NASUWTechoed by several
of our witnesses[214]that
"the Coalition Government's decision to revoke the requirement
for such partnerships is therefore a regrettable and retrograde
step that will harm developments to encourage cross-community
support for schools in managing behaviour".[215]
117. Sue Bainbridge, representing National Strategies,
highlighted some of the risks of revoking the requirement for
schools to form BAPs, telling us that "some partnerships
will use it as an excuse now for schools to drop out. At the end
of the day, schools will work with schools that they can benefit
from. [...] We may find that [some schools] are not as welcome
into the partnership, because they negatively contribute to the
number of excluded pupils without doing their bit to contribute
in a positive wayto offer services and support to schools".[216]
The NASUWT claimed that "evidence from academy schools to
date demonstrates that academies are far less likely to collaborate
with other local schools, were more likely to exclude pupils[217]
and less likely to admit pupils excluded from other schools".[218]
If this is so, it would suggest that schools performing
wellwhether academies or notmay be reluctant to
participate in arrangements which could depress their standing
in league tables or force them to accept 'problematic' pupils.
In oral evidence, the Minister for Schools pointed out that local
authorities' Fair Access Protocols[219]
should prevent all children who had been excluded in an
area going into one particular school.[220]
However, as Dr Mary Bousted, General Secretary of the Association
of Teachers and Lecturers contended, "the Secretary of State
repeatedly says that academies and free schools have to abide
by the admissions code, but my question back to him all the time
is, 'Who will enforce it?' If it is not enforced, schools will
play by other rules in order to get an intake that maximises their
position in the league tables".[221]
118. The Schools White Paper proposes the piloting
of a new approach to managing permanent exclusions whereby schools
will be held accountable for the pupils they exclude. Schools
would be free to exclude but would then be responsible for finding
and funding alternative provision themselves. This is likely to
act as a disincentive to exclusion but may encourage schools to
work in partnership with others to arrange managed moves and other
preventative interventions, as well as pooling budgets. However,
Dr John Dunford highlighted the drawbacks of an approach which
puts increased pressure on schools to avoid exclusion at all costs,
telling us that "at a time of difficult funding, [...] it
would be very difficult for schools to afford good provision on
an individual basis for excluded children full time".[222]
The Minister for Schools explained that the new Pupil Premium
would help schools buy services for individual pupils.[223]
The level of the Pupil Premium has been set at £430
per pupil per year, in addition to the underlying school budget
allocation per pupil.[224]
However, as Dr John Dunford observed, with the cost of a placement
in a pupil referral unit being £15,000,[225]
"the cost of dealing with this is much more than the money
that [schools] will get".[226]
119. We recommend that there should
be a 'trigger' for an assessment of need, which may include special
educational need, based on exclusion, for example a number of
fixed period exclusions or a permanent exclusion. Not only would
this ensure that children with undiagnosed special educational
needs do not 'fall through the net': it would provide information
of use to a future provider in meeting the needs of the excluded
child.
120. Schools need to work in partnership with each
other in order to prevent and manage exclusions effectively, whether
by operating effective managed move protocols or by securing appropriate
interventions to tackle challenging behaviour. The
proposed pilot to pass responsibility to schools for securing
alternative education for permanently excluded pupils may act
as a disincentive to exclude; and it may also provide an incentive
for schools to work in partnerships to address the behaviour which
leads to exclusion and provide alternative education for excluded
pupils. We support greater freedoms for schools to commission
their own alternative provision and decide how best to spend money
to support good behaviour, as long as they are accompanied by
robust quality assurance. However, the Government should clarify
how schools will be funded to meet the total costs of providing
full time provision for permanently excluded pupils, whether through
the Pupil Premium or other funding streams.
121. The Government
has decided to remove the requirement for schools to be part of
a Behaviour and Attendance Partnership (BAP). However, the Government
should monitor areas where voluntary partnerships do not exist
or are not operating effectively. The Government should be prepared
to reverse its decision on BAPs if voluntary partnership working
fails to deliver behavioural improvements.
166 Sir Alan Steer, Learning Behaviour: Lessons
Learned, 2009, p4 Back
167
Sir Alan Steer, Learning Behaviour: Lessons Learned, 2009,
p4 Back
168
http://www.teachernet.gov.uk/wholeschool/behaviour/exclusion/2008guidance/part2a/ Back
169
A head teacher may ask the head teacher of another school to
admit a pupil who is at risk of exclusion. This is intended to
give the pupil a 'fresh start' at the new school. Managed moves
must be carried out only with the full knowledge and co-operation
of all parties involved, including parents, governors and the
local authority, and with the pupil's best interests at heart Back
170
Source: Statistical First Release: Permanent and Fixed Period
Exclusions from Schools and Exclusion Appeals in England, 2008/9,
Department for Education, 29 July 2010 Back
171
The Special Educational Needs and Disability Review, Ofsted,
14 September 2010, Summary Back
172
Source: Statistical First Release: Permanent and Fixed Period
Exclusions from Schools and Exclusion Appeals in England, 2008/9,
Department for Education, 29 July 2010 Back
173
Q 23 Back
174
Ev 153 Back
175
Ev 99 Back
176
DCSF, Back on Track: a strategy for modernising alternative
provision for young people, May 2008, p 1 Back
177
Q 217 [Daisy Christodoulou] Back
178
Backing the Future: Why investing in children is good for
us all, Action for Children and the New Economics Foundation,
September 2009 Back
179
Ev 154 Back
180
Ev w18 Back
181
Ev w18 Back
182
Q 110 Back
183
See for example Q 36 (Dr Bousted) Back
184
HC Deb, 13 December 2010, col. 67WS Back
185
HC Deb, 13 December 2010, col. 67WS Back
186
http://www.dur.ac.uk/news/newsitem/?itemno=11251 Back
187
HC Deb, 13 December 2010, col. 68WS Back
188
Ev 177 Back
189
Q 331 Back
190
Ev 174 Back
191
Ev 140 Back
192
Q 331 Back
193
Ev 177 Back
194
Q 384 Back
195
Q 384 Back
196
Back on Track: A strategy for modernising alternative provision
for young people, DCSF, May 2008, p 1 Back
197
Q 93 Back
198
The Importance of Teaching, para 3.30 Back
199
Ev 143 Back
200
Ev w60 Back
201
Annex 1 Back
202
The Importance of Teaching, para 3.33 Back
203
The Importance of Teaching, para 3.32 and 3.34 Back
204
The Importance of Teaching, para 3.35 Back
205
The Importance of Teaching, para 3.36 Back
206
Ev w18 Back
207
Ev w18 Back
208
The Importance of Teaching, para 3.33 Back
209
Annex 2 Back
210
Ev 132 Back
211
The Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Act 2009 (Commencement
No.2 (Amendment) and Transitional Provision) Order 2010, S.I.,
2010 No.1891 Back
212
Q162 [Russell Hobby, supported by Mike Griffiths, Gillian Allcroft
and Charlie Taylor] Back
213
Ev 139 Back
214
Ev w52 [Fiona Wallace], Qq 322, 323 Back
215
Ev 124 Back
216
Qq 120,121 Back
217
See also Ev 115 (NUT): Figures for 2008/09 (published July 2010)
show that permanent exclusion rates in Academies were almost 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 period
exclusions in Academies was 13.51% compared with 4.89% in all
schools and 9.26% in local authority maintained secondaries. Source:
DfE Statistical Release, 29 July 2010: Permanent and Fixed period
exclusions from schools and Exclusion Appeals in England 2008/9,
Table 14 Back
218
Ev 124 Back
219
According to the School Admissions Code, Fair Access Protocols
exist "to ensure that access to education is secured quickly
for children who have no school place but for whom a place at
a mainstream school or alternative provision is appropriate, and
to ensure that all schools in an area admit their fair share of
children with challenging behaviour, including children excluded
from other schools. Along with devolved funding and responsibility
for alternative provision, an agreed protocol encourages local
authorities and schools to work together in partnerships to improve
behaviour, tackle persistent absence and help support improving
behaviour partnerships. Local authorities must not require undersubscribed
schools to admit a greater proportion of children with a recent
history of challenging behaviour than other schools". (School
Admissions Code 2010, 3.43) Back
220
Q 288 Back
221
Q 38 Back
222
Q 318 Back
223
Q 296 Back
224
HC Deb, 13 December 2010, col. 70WS Back
225
DCSF, Back on Track: A strategy for modernising alternative
provision for young people, May 2008, p 1 Back
226
Q 400 Back
|