Behaviour and Discipline in Schools

Memorandum submitted by Fiona Wallace, Head of Behaviour Support Service, Link Centre

1. This response is from the SMT of a large Behaviour Support Service and multi site PRU, working across an urban authority.

2. The timescale for submissions is unfortunate. The inquiry was announced on 29th July 2010, a date when schools and most other education providers were shut for the summer break and staff were on holiday. We are not aware that we were alerted to this inquiry, unless it was during the holiday, and so only heard about it by chance in mid September. We expect others are in a similar position and are concerned that a wide range of views will not be available to the Committee.

3. During the school holiday other changes to previous Government policy were made that effect work in the area of behaviour support. We feel these changes were made ‘by stealth’ and without notification or consultation. Some changes are welcomed for example we are happy not to have to change our name from a PRU to an SSS, a Short Stay School. However the disappearance over the summer of the requirement for all schools to work in a Local Behaviour Partnership is a backward step in our view. In this LA the close partnership working by all schools, including academies has had many positive outcomes. Allowing schools to ‘opt out’ of working with neighbouring schools and local youngsters will lead to additional pressure on a smaller number of schools, a fractured education system and more pupils out of school as a result of exclusion. Pupils need to remain the shared responsibility of all in a locality.

4. We need to ensure that partnership working is fostered and developed amongst primary schools. Guidance and encouragement from the DfE would be welcomed. This would add weight to local efforts to develop fair sharing panels with groups of primary schools.

5. The previous Government had compiled a great deal of evidence and information in the area of behaviour and discipline. The work that preceded the publication of the Steer Report and the Back on Track documents does not need to be repeated. The recommendations of both these need to be acted upon without further expenditure on consulting afresh. This new Committee of Inquiry feels to us like a means of delaying the time when timescales, resources and actions needed are made clear.

6. In this LA committed PRU staff work hard with vulnerable and challenging pupils. Managers need clear guidance on outcomes expected with realistic timescales and clarity on the funding mechanisms for PRUs. The exact nature of the LA statutory responsibility to provide for permanently excluded pupils must be clear – can an LA commission others to do this work or must they have a PRU that they remain responsible for running? The committee of Inquiry must not take too long to report.

September 2010