Memorandum submitted by the Office of
the Children's Commissioner for England
1. THE ROLE
OF THE
CHILDREN'S
COMMISSIONER FOR
ENGLAND
1.1 The role of the Children's Commissioner
was created by the Children Act 2004, to promote the views and
interests of children and young people from birth to 18 (up to
21 for young people in care or with learning difficulties). We
do this with regard to the United Nations Convention on the rights
of the Child, i and with a particular emphasis on those children
and young people who would not otherwise have the opportunity
to have their voices heard.
1.2 We seek to make sure that children and
young people are actively involved in shaping all decisions that
affect their lives; are supported to achieve their full potential
through the provision of appropriate services; and live in homes
and communities where their rights are respected and they are
loved, safe and enjoy life.
1.3 We use our powers and independence to
ensure that the views of children and young people are routinely
asked for, listened to and that outcomes for children improve
over time. We do this in partnership with others, by bringing
children and young people into the heart of the decision-making
process to increase understanding of their best interests.
1.4 Young people in England spend around
a third of their waking hours at school. Their education is an
enormously important part of their everyday lives, as well as
being a major determinant of their future life chances. The Office
of the Children's Commissioner therefore sees ensuring that the
education system is meeting the needs of young people as a high
priority for our work.
1.5 More specifically, within education,
we are focusing on four areas of policy:
— Gathering children and young people's
views on the effectiveness of teaching in their schools, and feeding
these views into the ongoing policy debate on how best to improve
teacher quality;
— Ensuring fairness in the admissions system,
and how best to use the statutory code on admissions to close
attainment gaps between different demographic groups;
— The fairness and transparency of the
system for exclusions from schools, and the efficacy of provision
for excluded pupils; and
— The engagement of young people in the
management of their schools, and how best to encourage this.
2. COMMISSIONED
RESEARCH
2.1 In order to gather evidence on the views
of children and young people on the priority areas set out above,
we have recently commissioned research from the National Foundation
for Educational Research (NFER). NFER will be taking the views
of a representative sample of children and young people across
England on a number of issues, including the issues of behaviour
and discipline in schools. We expect to receive their final report
in December 2010. We would be happy to share this with the Committee
when it is complete, and would welcome a discussion with the Committee
at this stage.
3. STATEMENT
OF PRINCIPLES
3.1 In preparing this evidence, we are required
to have regard to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.
Specifically, we believe that the articles of the Convention of
most relevance to this area of policy are Article 3 ("The
best interests of the child must be a top priority in all actions
concerning children"); Article 12 ("Every Child has
the right to say what they think in all matters affecting them,
and to have their views taken seriously) and Article 28 ("Every
child has the right to an education. […] Discipline in Schools
must respect children's human dignity"). The evidence below
has been drafted with this in mind.
3.2 In our view, the key factor in discussing
behaviour and discipline in schools is how best to ensure that
every child's right to an education is balanced with the child's
responsibility to behave in a way which does not damage the education
of others.
3.3 Schools should be safe, orderly environments
for all the members of the school community. Every member of this
community has a right to expect this, and a responsibility to
make it happen. Each member of the school community has both a
right to expect to be treated with respect by all others, and
a responsibility to show respect. Disruptive behaviour must be
managed effectively by teachers for the good of the majority.
In exceptional cases this will require the removal of a small
number of children from mainstream education. However, we believe
that this must always be a last resort, and that the children
who are excluded from schools retain their right to an education.
The proposals we make below are based on this set of principles.
3.4 In responding to this call for evidence,
we do not propose to address every point raised by the Committee.
Rather, this submission will address those issues where we have
evidence of the views of children and young people, or where we
feel the views of young people may have particular relevance to
the inquiry.
4. THE SCALE
OF THE
ISSUE
4.1 It is important at the outset to assess
objectively the extent to which behaviour and discipline in schools
is a problem requiring a national policy response. It is dangerous
to rely on anecdote or media reporting in doing this. Media reporting
will inevitably focus on the newsworthy or sensational, and often
does not have any interest in placing individual stories in context,
other than to create a narrative which backs up the general editorial
line of the news organisation on "the youth of today".
4.2 Equally, it would be entirely possible
to produce convincing reports based on anecdote/individual experience
(for example from teachers) to argue both for and against the
idea that discipline in schools is a substantial problem.
4.3 This is important because there is a
need to ensure that any policy response aimed at improving behaviour
is proportionate to the magnitude of the issue.
4.4 Evidence from Ofsted inspections suggests
that behaviour in state schools in England is "good"
or "outstanding", in over 75% of schools inspected.
ii Given that Ofsted disproportionately inspects schools which
have previously given cause for concern, or which face challenging
circumstances, it is likely that the figures across all of the
school population will be even more encouraging. This trend is
likely to be exacerbated in future, as Ofsted is expected to focus
almost exclusively on lower performing schools. It will therefore
be important to ensure that other measures of behaviour (and,
indeed other metrics of school performance at a national level)
are available.
4.5 Moreover, research commissioned by DCSF
in 2008 showed that 94% of parents are satisfied with their child's
school, with 74% being either "very" or "extremely"
satisfied. iii While 37% of those who were dissatisfied with their
child's school cited behavioural issues as the reason, this only
represents 2.2% of the total sample. The overwhelming majority
of parents do not see behaviour in their child's school to be
a significant problem. iv
4.6 Finally, rates of exclusions from school
are low and have been falling consistently for several years.
The most recent DFE figures show that in 2008-09, the number of
permanent exclusions in school fell by 19.4% to 0.09% of all pupils
(ie nine pupils in every 10,000). v The number of fixed term exclusions
also fell, from 326,000 to 304,000. Almost all (97%) of fixed
term exclusions were for periods of less than a week. vi
4.7 None of this is to say that behaviour
in schools is perfect, or to say that nothing can or should be
done to improve it. On the contrary, as set out above, it is in
the interests of all young people to be able to learn in an orderly
and stable environment, and the education system as a whole should
do all it can to achieve this. The issue of bullying in schools,
for instance, is one which the minority of young people who are
victims find extremely distressing, and on which much more needs
to be done by schools. However, the evidence above does point
towards a situation where behaviour in most schools is good most
of the time, and where seriously unruly young people—those
who are then permanently excluded—are in a very small minority.
4.8 We would therefore strongly urge the
Committee to make recommendations which are proportionate to the
scale of the issue, and to argue that policy should not advocate
a punitive approach based on a popular perception of schools which
may not be supported by evidence. The Office of the Children's
Commissioner works to challenge negative perceptions of young
people, particularly where they are not supported by evidence.
We are constantly seeking ways to work with media outlets to address
these misconceptions.
4.8 Above all, as we argue below, we believe
that the use of exclusions must remain a last resort; that the
processes for its use be fair and transparent, and that there
is a right of appeal for all young people who are excluded from
school.
5. NEW POWERS
FOR TEACHERS
5.1 On the specific issue of extensions
to teachers' powers to search pupils, and on the use of physical
restraint, we believe that caution should be used in taking these
new powers forward. Guidance should be clear that these new powers—particularly
those relating to physical restraint, are intended only to be
used as a last resort. Moreover, we feel it should make a distinction
between teachers intervening to prevent pupils harming each other
(or members of staff), and other forms of restraint, which require
specialist training, and are only suitable for use in very extreme
circumstances, by suitably qualified (and pre-approved) staff.
Clarity is needed to ensure that teachers are reassured that they
will not lay themselves open to action for intervening to protect
a pupil or a colleague.
5.2 As a general rule, teachers should not
be expected to place themselves in situations where they feel
their personal safety is at risk. Violent confrontations should,
where appropriate, be treated by teachers as public order offences
(as they would in their lives outside the classroom), and if necessary
they should involve the police.
5.3 In practice, we expect that effective
teachers will rarely if ever need these powers, as they will be
able to prevent classroom situations from escalating to the point
where they are required. New rights for teachers should be accompanied
by new responsibilities. Records should be kept of when teachers
have made use of these new powers, with an expectation that head
teachers monitor their use to discourage ineffective teachers
from becoming over-reliant on them. We would also strongly welcome
clear guidance on what pupils can, and cannot, expect from teachers
in relation to these new powers. We believe that this will benefit
both teachers—who will be able to exercise these powers
without fear of malicious allegations—and pupils, who will
have clarity on what teachers can, and cannot, lawfully do.
5.4 We also have concerns with regard to
the ending of the requirement to give 24 hours notice for detention.
We understand the intention of this change—both in terms
of making detention a more meaningful sanction for teachers, and
in more closely linking the behaviour and the punishment. However,
we fear that it may have unintended consequences which could reduce
its effectiveness. As we set out above, we believe that behaviour
management is best served by creating an atmosphere of mutual
respect between all members of the school community. We feel that
designing sanctions for poor behaviour (such as this one) which
are explicitly designed to inconvenience pupils and their families
seriously risks undermining this atmosphere of respect.
6. EFFECTIVE
PRACTICE
6.1 The schools who are most successful
in behaviour management share a number of characteristics:
— They have a consistent "whole-school"
approach to the issue: strong school leadership ensures that disruptive
behaviour is dealt with consistently by all teachers.
— Communication of behaviour management
systems to all members of the school community is clear and effective;
— Rules are reasonable, and are often drawn
up in consultation with the students. They are strictly and consistently
enforced, while taking account of individual pupils' needs.
— Behaviour management tends to be "assertive",
based on a system of rewards for good behaviour and sanctions
for poor behaviour, rather than solely punitive.
6.2 There is substantial evidence of the
effectiveness of this approach, vii which is reflected in its
promotion in guidance issued to schools by the (then) DCSF in
2007. viii
6.3 We also welcome the continued expansion
of UNICEF's programme of "Rights Respecting Schools"
in the UK, and feel that their work should be given attention
by the Committee. This programme of awards started in 2004 and
is running in more than 1600 schools across the UK. It gives school
leaders support in defining a clear set of values—not just
rules—with the full involvement of the school community.
The programme uses the United Nations Convention on the Rights
of the Child (UNCRC) as the values framework that enables this
to be achieved.
6.4 Headteachers involved in the programme
say that it can help shape the ethos of the school and unifies
what can often be seen as a range of disparate educational initiatives
and government priorities in all UK jurisdictions; the global
dimension, SEAL (social and emotional aspects of learning), sustainable
development, and community cohesion. However, although this was
not one of the reasons for developing the programme, it also leads
to improved behaviour in the schools which have taken part. An
independent evaluation of the Rights Respecting Schools Programme,
undertaken by the University of Sussexix, found that it improved
relationships between pupils and staff, improved behaviour and
led to a reduction in both truancy and exclusions in the majority
of participating schools.
6.5 We believe that there is considerable
merit in studying the impact of this programme further as a means
way of improving behaviour.
7. EXCLUSIONS
SYSTEM
7.1 Permanent exclusion from school is a
significant life event for a young person. While it will sometimes
be necessary to prevent disruption to other young people's education,
we feel that it should only ever be considered as a last resort.
We also believe strongly that the processes for excluding young
people should be clear, transparent, and accessible to all young
people and their parents. Finally, we believe that a right of
appeal to an independent body is a necessary part of this system.
There are two reasons why we feel this is important.
7.2 Firstly, the consequences of being permanently
excluded from school are extremely significant for the young person
concerned. Many never re-engage with formal education, severely
limiting their future life chances. 40% of 16-18 who are not in
Education, Employment or training (NEETs) were previously permanently
excluded from schoolx. This is particularly significant given
that the permanently excluded represent only 0.09% of the school
populationxi. Given this, it is only fair that all other options
be tried first.
7.3 Secondly, exclusions disproportionately
affect particular demographic groups, including those who are
most vulnerable for other reasons. Boys are three times more likely
to be excluded than girls. Children from certain ethnic groups
(particularly traveller and black Caribbean backgrounds) are the
most likely to be excluded. Exclusions are also higher among pupils
on free school meals. xii Children with special educational needs
(both with and without statements) are over eight times more likely
to be excluded from school. xiii
7.4 It is extremely worrying that the most
vulnerable and marginalised young people are so much more likely
to be excluded from schools, when school is often the most stable
aspect of their lives. While the under 18's are not protected
by many aspects of age discrimination legislation, we believe
that the legal duty placed on public bodies under the Equalities
Act 2010, to address direct or indirect discrimination on the
grounds of gender or race, should apply in this case. Given the
different rates of exclusions by gender and ethnicity, there is
a compelling case for research to be conducted by the Government
to examine the cause of these differences, and to determine whether
it is due to direct or indirect discrimination. Equally, the systems
intended to protect against such discrimination (in particular
the appeals process) should be at least left in place, and ideally
strengthened. In line with Article 12 of the UN Convention on
the Rights of the Child, children who are being excluded should
have the opportunity to express their views, and to have these
taken seriously. We strongly welcome the powers recently given
to the Local Government Ombudsman to intervene in such cases.
We strongly believe that these powers should cover all state-funded
schools, regardless of governance structure.
7.5 Finally, we agree with the Association
of School and College Leaders, and the National Association of
Head Teachers that the removal of a right to appeal will not be
in the interest of schools, who will otherwise find themselves
involved in lengthy and costly legal action as a result of exclusion
appeals.
8. SUMMARY OF
RECOMMENDATIONS
8.1 In summary, we believe that the Committee
should:
— Focus on available research evidence
as to the true state of behaviour in schools, and avoid relying
on anecdote or media reporting;
— Take account of the evidence that suggests
that behaviour in most schools is good most of the time;
— Encourage guidance on new powers for
teachers which gives clarity on what young people can and cannot
expect from teachers;
— Note the substantial evidence for the
effectiveness of whole-school approaches to behaviour management;
— Investigate the effectiveness of UNICEF's
"Rights Respecting Schools" programme in improving behaviour;
— Support research to establish whether
differential rates of exclusions between different genders and
ethnic groups are caused by direct or indirect discrimination;
and
— Recommend that the system of independent
appeals for exclusions be at least maintained and ideally strengthened.
September 2010
REFERENCESi http://www.unicef.org/crc/
ii http://www.dcsf.gov.uk/rsgateway/DB/STR/d000923/OSR10-2010-TemplateNI86Final8.pdf
iii http://www.education.gov.uk/research/data/uploadfiles/DCSF-RW041.pdf
iv ibid
v http://www.dcsf.gov.uk/rsgateway/DB/SFR/s000942/SFR22_2010.pdf
vi ibid
vii http://nationalstrategies.standards.dcsf.gov.uk/node/97651?uc%20=%20force_uj
viii http://www.teachernet.gov.uk/wholeschool/behaviour/schooldisciplinepupilbehaviourpolicies/
ix http://www.unicef.org.uk/publications/pdf/sussex_interim_summary.pdf
x http://www.dcsf.gov.uk/rsgateway/DB/SBU/b000937/b01-2010v2.pdf
xi http://www.dcsf.gov.uk/rsgateway/DB/SFR/s000942/SFR22_2010.pdf
xii Ibid.
xiii ibid
| 
