| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale moved Amendment No. 95:
The noble Baroness said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 96 and 99. The purpose of the amendments is to ensure that the LEA or, in the case of voluntary schools, the relevant diocesan authority is consulted on school behaviour policies; and that the governors of maintained schools have regard to the advice issued on that subject. The amendments will also require grant-maintained schools' governors to be aware of the plans and policies of the relevant LEA.
These amendments are very straightforward and are simply intended to acknowledge on the face of the Bill the role which LEAs have in supporting schools in drawing up and implementing sound and effective pupil behaviour policies at school level. LEAs routinely offer guidance and advice to schools on a wide range of matters. Teachers, governors, parents and the wider community accept and value that as a vital element of the LEA's role in supporting and promoting the efficient and effective running of schools.
The Bill as currently drafted rightly acknowledges that, in drawing up individual school policies to promote good behaviour and discipline, the governing body should have regard to any guidance which the Secretary of State may give from time to time.
The Bill does not appear to acknowledge the contribution which LEAs similarly can and do make, and indeed which the Bill requires them to make. These amendments are intended to rectify that apparent oversight. LEAs have considerable expertise and experience in the administration and management of schools. They have a unique contribution to make in the provision of support to local schools. As a chair of governors of a county primary school, I know that that support is of outstanding value. I hope that these amendments can be accepted. I beg to move.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: We now come to a part of the Bill which is a good deal less contentious than the one that we have just left and where the Government can reasonably claim to have hit several spots quite well. These amendments suggest a small but significant change to their proposals. I hope that the
Lord Henley: As the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, said, we have come into calmer waters. I have got through Clauses 1 to 19, possibly bloodied but unbowed.
We believe that it is important that the head teacher and staff should be seen to be implementing and operating a behaviour and discipline policy with the full support of the governors. That is why we are placing a new duty on the governing body to draw up and review periodically a written statement of general principles upon which the head will determine the school's discipline policy. By so doing, we have increased the role of the governing body in promoting good behaviour and discipline within the school. Many governing bodies already do this, but that good practice needs to be disseminated more widely. Clauses 19 and 20 will ensure that every governing body determines the broad principles for its school's behaviour and discipline policy.
It is clear that the governing body and head teacher have distinct roles in that process: the governing body makes the statement of general principles; the head teacher determines the measures which make up the school's code of conduct. Each school is unique. The behaviour and discipline policy needs to reflect the particular circumstances of each school and of its pupils. We believe that the governing body and head teacher are best placed and have the principal roles in determining that. It would be impracticable to impose a blanket policy on all schools in an LEA or diocesan area reflecting those bodies' priorities or philosophies on disciplinary matters. If I may say so, that would be the implication behind, and potential unwelcome effect, of the amendment.
Since the Education Act 1988, schools have been autonomous in a significant number of ways. Even before the 1988 Act, the measures for maintaining behaviour and discipline were determined at the school level. We believe that schools are best placed to carry this out. They are, of course, free to seek the advice of the LEA and diocesan authorities as they see fit. But I do not think that it is sensible to require them to do so. For that reason, I certainly would not want to go down the line proposed by the noble Baroness, although I appreciate the good intentions behind Amendment No. 95.
As for Amendments Nos. 96 and 99, when the governing body is making its written statement of general principles it will be important that it should have access, as needed, to guidance on pupil behaviour and discipline. That will ensure that the governing body is as well informed as possible about these important issues. That is why Clauses 19 and 20 require the governing body to have regard to any guidance given from time to time by the Secretary of State.
I believe that many noble Lords will be familiar with our circular of guidance 8/94, which I bring forward again as an exhibit, issued in May 1994 which dealt specifically with pupil behaviour and discipline. It built on the findings of the report of my noble friend
There is some attraction in the amendments put forward by the noble Baroness. But the effect would be specifically to require the governing body to have regard to any guidance given either by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State or by the LEA. That could have far-reaching implications for how a governing body approached the important task of making its statement of general principles.
No two LEAs are identical in every respect; indeed, the noble Baroness will know that better than I do. Their approach to, or their philosophy about, pupil behaviour could differ markedly and the guidance could be variable in quality. More importantly, a governing body could be faced with guidance from an LEA which conflicted with or contradicted that from the Secretary of State; for example, on which particular sanctions to use as a reasonable response to a disciplinary incident.
Further, Amendment No. 99, which relates to grant-maintained schools, would be wholly inappropriate. Grant-maintained schools are self-governing and, as a result, are independent of LEAs. It would, therefore, be quite inappropriate to require them to have regard to any guidance given by the LEA. It would be for GM schools themselves to decide whether or not to do so. With that explanation, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: I am afraid I join the ranks of the disappointed on these Benches tonight. The response of the Minister is rather mean spirited. All the amendments sought to do was to put on the face of the Bill an acknowledgment of the role that LEAs play in the general advice they give to schools. The amendment states,
Therefore there is no question of LEAs imposing any blanket formula on schools and certainly not as regards a whole LEA area. I am sure the Minister is well aware that that is not what happens in these cases in local education authorities. Local education authorities can lay down some principles and give advice but each individual school and governing body makes its own decisions on whether to accept them, reject them or amend them. The fears that the Minister expressed about a blanket imposition from an LEA do not stand up. As it is late and I do not wish to
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness David moved Amendment No. 97:
The noble Baroness said: As the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, and indeed the Minister, said, we are now moving into rather calmer waters. I think there is a certain amount of agreement about what happens in the ensuing clauses.
We are trying in a number of amendments to improve the Bill and to make what the Government propose just that little bit better. I hope that the amendments will be accepted in the spirit in which they are proposed. I am delighted to see the noble Lord, Lord Elton, is present. I shall refer to him and I may echo a few of the points that the Minister has just made.
In moving Amendment No. 97, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 98. The amendment requires governors and head teachers to give consideration to the views of pupils, staff and parents on discipline measures. It seems to me an obvious amendment.
The amendment places a duty, first, on the governing body when drawing up the general principles underpinning the behaviour policy, and, secondly, on headteachers when determining the details of the policy to seek to give due consideration to the views of pupils, staff and parents. At Commons Committee stage the Government agreed to amend the Bill so as to require the governing body to consult with heads and parents on the general principles. The amendment to subsection (3) was introduced at Commons Report stage. It seems strange that the Government declined to accept the involvement of the school staff and pupils in this process, given that they are both in situ and crucial to the success of the policy.
It is perhaps important to note that the amendment does not give pupils, staff and parents any powers to decide these measures; it simply represents the commonsense principle that measures will be more effective if the whole school community has been involved in the process of drawing them up.
The amendment represents the advice of the most recent government guidance on Pupil behaviour and discipline (circular 8/94) to which the Minister has just referred, reflecting the recommendations of the government inquiry chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Elton, into Discipline in schools in 1989.
That report recommended all schools adopt a "whole school behaviour policy". This was accepted by the Government who sent out guidance after the Education Act 1993 with the express aim of,
The recent Ofsted report Exclusions from secondary school noted:
As regards staff, it should go without saying that a good head teacher would involve his teaching staff in the formulation of the school behaviour code. The amendment, however, refers to "staff" which includes the non-teaching staff. This is deliberate because, for example, it is playground and lunch supervisors who are at the sharp end of dealing with disruptive pupils and incidents of bullying or vandalism. It is obvious what the amendment seeks to do and I hope that the Government will accept it. I hope, too, that I shall have support from the noble Lord, Lord Elton, who advised this policy in his report. I beg to move.
Page 16, line 29, after ("shall") insert ("in consultation with the local education authority and, in the case of a voluntary school, the body which appoints its foundation governors").
10 p.m.
"in consultation with the local education authority".
Page 17, line 5, at end insert--
("(c) the registered pupils at the school, and
(d) teaching and non-teaching staff at the school.").
"encouraging a whole-school approach to behaviour and discipline".
25 Feb 1997 : Column 1153
"Schools can ... nurture a greater sense of responsibility in pupils, and greater commitment to the aims of the school, by encouraging them to discuss the aims and rules of the school ... Many schools have found that pupils can play a positive role; for example in exposing bullying in their school, in helping design play areas ... Schools' councils ... are possible means of encouraging pupils to become involved".
"The great majority of schools (and almost all high excluders) made little effort to involve pupils themselves in fostering and setting high standards of behaviour. The senior pupils interviewed by HMI showed a perceptive understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of their schools and a broad appreciation of what the staff were trying to achieve, yet they felt insufficiently consulted or trusted by staff; expectations of behaviour were set by staff. Sometimes this lack of trust was reciprocated, and a quite unnecessary distance between staff and pupils grew, as it were, by default".
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page