Memorandum submitted by the National Association
of Head Teachers
The National Association of Head Teachers (NAHT)
welcomes the opportunity to submit evidence to the Committee,
given the nature of this particular inquiry. As a professional
association for leaders in education, it is well placed to give
voice to the views of its members. These number 40,000 in total,
of whom more than 28,000 are currently based in and leading educational
establishments.
HOW TO
SUPPORT AND
REINFORCE POSITIVE
BEHAVIOUR IN
SCHOOLS?
1. NAHT believes that there is already sufficient
legislative provision for schools when it comes to the practicalities
of behaviour management. There is also adequate guidance, including
a suite of documents, on tackling different "categories"
of bullying. Section 91: Education and Inspections Act (2006)
provides clarity on the powers schools have to regulate the conduct
of their pupils both in and outside the school premises covering
confiscation, detention and restraint (use of reasonable force).
2. We also note the proposed repeal of legislation
relevant to detention (24 hours notice outside the school hours).
The proposed review of the extent of teachers' disciplinary powers
announced 7 July 2010, when consideration will be given to broadening
the powers of search to include: mobile phones, ipods and personal
music players. NAHT welcomes these proposed reviews.
3. We acknowledge the right of schools to
enact the existing provisions within its discipline policy. However,
we would stress that what is important is communicating the school
behaviour policy to the school community so that both parents
and pupils are aware of and accept the schools' power to discipline.
Some pupils and parents are more aware of their rights—not
necessarily their responsibilities. It is, therefore, an important
message to continually emphasise and convey.
4. Schools are also aware of the need to
engage parents and carers in circumstances where it is necessary
to manage their children's challenging behaviour, supported through
developing a school/parent partnership. Schools equally recognise,
however, that developing successful partnerships is very dependent
on various factors, for example parental background and culture.
The association is aware that some guidance exists to support
schools.
WHAT IS
THE IMPACT
ON SCHOOLS
AND THEIR
STAFF?
5. There can be a significant impact on
classrooms and the whole school community when pupils exhibit
challenging behaviour, affecting both staff and pupil well-being
and not least the teaching and learning environment. Resources
are important to avoid an imbalance of the ecology within the
classroom. There is a delicate balance between the resources schools
can bring to bear on the task of teaching and the demands created
by some children, Dyson et al. (2004).
ALLEGATIONS AGAINST
STAFF
6. NAHT welcomes the Government's promises
to include an absolute right to anonymity during an investigation.
This has been an issue of grave concern over the past few years.
More than 1,700 staff in UK schools accused of misbehaviour by
parents or pupils during 2009, 50% of complaints of alleged physical
assault, or inappropriate restraint led to 143 of those accused
being dismissed or resigning. Despite the number of complaints
only a small percentage merited police investigation and an even
smaller number concluded in conviction. We do support the need
for robust systems, without dragging innocent staff into lengthy
periods of proving their innocence.
APPROACHES TAKEN
BY SCHOOLS
AND LOCAL
AUTHORITIES TO
ADDRESS CHALLENGING
BEHAVIOUR
Exclusions
7. National statistics illustrate that permanent
exclusions and fixed-term exclusions are decreasing and this is
to be welcomed. Hopefully this has been achieved through improved
strategies for dealing with behaviour, rather than pressure from
local authorities on schools to "contain" pupils, or
through government driven policies on managed moves. To ensure
managed moves operate fairly and successfully there needs to be
structures in place that enable honest exchange between all professionals
in those schools involved in the process.
8. What is significant is the number of pupils
with "Special Educational Needs" both those with statements
and without statements. The statistics indicate those pupils are
over eight times more likely to be permanently excluded than those
pupils with no SEN. The message is clear not enough is being done
to avoid this ultimate sanction. We continue to hear from our
members that they cannot get the necessary support and exclude
because there is no alternative. A school leader's ultimate priority
is to balance the health and safety of the whole school community.
To address this dilemma early intervention is needed by the relevant
agencies within the local authority and strategies put into place
and this necessitates resources. It is essential that careful
consideration is given to the most appropriate educational placement.
Lots of exclusions happen because the pupil is in the wrong setting
and is absolutely fine when moved whether to a specialist mainstream
unit, special school or PRU, or given better support where s/he
is. Far more consideration needs to be given to using short-term
placements as part of early intervention.
9. But Politicians and Local Authorities also
need to stop thinking in the short-term and to realise that in
the longer term early intervention of the right kind (including
changing the provision or level of support) is essential.
10. Another important issue for schools
in addressing behaviour is the "deprivation factor":
those pupils on free school meals are three times more likely
to receive either a permanent of fixed period exclusion than those
who are not eligible for free school meals. NAHT welcomes the
idea of a "pupil premium" but is concerned that to make
significant impact in narrowing the gap will require a "significant
premium" as earlier research evidences. As with other intractable
issues, the underlying cause lies beyond the school—in our
expectations of parents, attitudes towards "youth".
Home school contracts may be supportive but they are only binding
on the school. The enduring solution to poor behaviour in schools
lies outside school. Stable family environments, decent incomes,
parenting skills responsibility, higher levels of equality satisfying
leisure opportunities, etc.
11. We note that the rate for boys' permanent
and fixed-term exclusions is also three times greater than for
girls and NAHT would stress that this is an area that needs to
be further explored—whether relevant to the need for a more
flexible curriculum and/or to improved behaviour management at
home and in schools. Personalising learning should include allowing
for a more flexible and active curriculum, with plenty of opportunities
for short-breaks, changes of activities and outdoor learning,
etc.
12. With regard to the current statutory
exclusion procedure this is well embedded in schools. NAHT would
also support the retention of Independent Appeal Panels. Only
1% of all exclusions lead to a successful appeal where a pupil
is reinstated. Better to retain the IAP as a buffer to avoid heads
being dragged through courts to defend their decisions.
LINKS BETWEEN
ATTENDANCE AND
BEHAVIOUR IN
SCHOOLS
13. Statistics also demonstrate that school
attendance is improving and this is to be welcomed because there
is an obvious link between attendance and behaviour in schools.
For example when pupils miss out through non-attendance this significantly
impacts on their ability to participate in developing their learning
abilities and in consequence has an effect on behaviour. In circumstances
where it is difficult to engage children and young people, pupils
may often become disruptive to draw attention away from their
learning difficulties.
BEHAVIOUR IN
SCHOOLS WHAT
IS THE
POSITION?
14. The message that perhaps also needs
to be conveyed is one of proportionality with regard to behaviour
in schools. Challenging and disruptive behaviour in schools has
received "media hype" over the last decade.
15. Alan Steer's Learning Behaviour: Lessons
to be Learned (2009) stated that perhaps we need to look at
the overall picture. It reflected that out of the 7 million pupils
in schools it is the behaviour of a small percentage of pupils
that tends to impact on the majority!
16. The latest statistics from Ofsted show
that pupils' behaviour was good or outstanding in 95% of primary
and 80% of secondary schools inspected in 2008-09, and that behaviour
was inadequate in just 1% of secondary schools and less than 0.5
per cent in primary. In fact out of 21,920 schools only 48 were
judged to have inadequate behaviour: December 2009.
17. The aim of the "Behaviour Challenge"
was to move the Ofsted `judgement' of satisfactory to good or
outstanding by 2012 and we acknowledge the reasons for support
in that direction. At that time 43 local authorities received
communication from the Department by way of a trigger for additional
support. Lead Behaviour Schools were to be identified, supposedly
100 by autumn 2010, we are only aware of 20 schools. NAHT would
like to raise the question what is intended will this initiative
proceed—what is happening now?
Also what has happened regarding the profile of the
National Programme for Specialist Leaders in Behaviour and Attendance?
TEACHER TRAINING
18. The NAHT is of the opinion that what
is a priority is improved initial teaching training and continuing
professional development in behaviour management and most importantly
improved teacher training in working with children with special
educational needs, behavioural and learning difficulties to include
a focus on "child development". A renewed emphasis on
training and development would have a significant impact on the
outcomes for those pupils. Inspired students, who are learning
things that feel relevant to them, are far less likely to be disruptive
and to create trouble.
19. We would also like to emphasise that many
new routes into teaching have little or no opportunities to spend
sufficient time on developing a suite of classroom management
strategies to suit different types of problems.
20. Another important point we would like
to make is about training for head teachers or aspiring heads.
It is recognised in research that school leaders need to be trained
to be effective school leaders and this is particularly relevant
to the context in which they will working—for example in
areas of disadvantage, developing different skills, but we are
not sure to what extent this is being promoted, Leithwood and
Bevin (2005); Muijs et al (2007)
WHAT IS
THE EFICACY
OF ALTERNATIVE
PROVISION?
21. We would also like to emphasise our
concern around alternative provision. PRUs are particularly good
with dealing with the disaffected, school phobics/refusers and
those who cannot cope with a normal school environment, despite
having the ability to do so. They are not designed for students
with long-term SEND (Special educational needs and disability).
22. Ofsted acknowledged in 2007 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. In the main this position would appear
to be unchanged.
23. However, we would emphasise that the
success of pupil referral units depends on the ability to respond
to these challenges and this is very much dependent on the support
PRUs receive from the local authority. We are aware that the LGA
is carrying out its own "closed" consultation regarding
PRUs; Behaviour; Exclusions. It would be of concern if this was
ultimately an exercise purely linked to resource implications
rather than needs of children and young people.
24. NAHT is extremely concerned that some
Local Authorities place pupils with statements in PRUs, naming
the PRU. This we would argue is not good practice although not
illegal and the NAHT believes this is an area that needs to be
addressed. It also appears to be the case that too many children
with special educational needs are also being placed in pupil
referral units, because there is no other provision in the local
authority area.
25. The original concept of a Pupil Referral
Unit was for dealing with pupils disengaged from education, exhibiting
challenging behaviour; their focus was on turning those pupils
around. We believe that these units, however, remodelled, should
be part of a continuum of provision so that pupils are reintegrated
back into mainstream provision. However, too often a gap exists
between intention and practice, so children and young people often
stay in a PRU for an indefinite period. This causes longer-term
planning difficulties and opportunities to reintegrate pupils
into mainstream are then further limited, due to subsequent provision
not being identified before pupils are admitted to the PRU, so
poor practice exists.
26. To further evidence this in "answer
to questions to the house: 20 July 2010", it was stated that
the number of pupils placed in PRUs with special educational needs
without a statement as at January 2010 (all ages) totalled: 8,130
in England. The number of pupils with a statement of special educational
needs 1,700 in England. What is also significant is that no figures
on the length of time a pupil had been in a pupil referral unit
were available.
27. NAHT would urge the committee to investigate
this and to carry out a review on the whole area of alternative
provision. In March 2010 we as stakeholders responded to two separate
consultations on Alternative Provision. The first focused on improving
what exists and the second relevant to regulations empowering
governing bodies to require a pupil to attend a premise outside
the school to address behavioural problems.
28. NAHT believes it is essential to ensure
quality alternative provision is available to suit the needs of
children and young people. Consideration should be given to separate
provision for those children identified with special educational
needs and those children exhibiting challenging behaviour. However,
we appreciate that there is often an overlap as much of the evidence
conveys.
CONCLUSIONS
29. School leaders are dedicated professionals,
determined to deliver the best opportunities for all the pupils
in their care. An important remedy to poor behaviour, within the
schools' control, is the opportunity to deliver great teaching
through having sufficient resources/funding to ensure the appropriate
provision is in place.
September 2010
| 
