Unruly pupils
The education secretary, Ruth Kelly, has qualified a proposal that all secondary schools in
She said the principle would apply only when local partnerships had been formed and had agreed specialist provision to cope with such children. She is giving schools an extra year to do this.
Government Response: Department for Education and Skills
Ruth Kelly, secretary of state for education, said: "Behaviour is good in most schools most of the time. Often schools are the most secure and stable environment in the communities they serve. But any poor behaviour is too much and should not be tolerated. We need to re-draw the line on what is acceptable.
"Good schools already have a strong school ethos and a policy on behaviour that's respected by the whole school community because it's clear, consistent and rigorously applied. This approach must be in every school with any level of bad behaviour dealt with promptly and appropriately.
"Equally, pupils who lack respect for themselves, respect for their classmates, and respect for their teachers need to be made to take responsibility for their own actions.
"Parents too must support the school's behaviour policy and not automatically assume, when their child is punished, that their child must be in the right and the school in the wrong. Where parents do not take responsibility for their child's unruly behaviour, then it is right that action is taken to ensure that they do, through parenting orders administered by the courts.
"Every pupil and every teacher has the right to expect a safe, secure and orderly classroom, so that teaching and learning can flourish."
Party Response: Conservative
Tim Collins, shadow education secretary, said: "Labour's approach to school discipline has shown 'zero interest, not zero tolerance'. Labour are all talk on school discipline. Far from showing zero tolerance, they showed zero interest in order in the classroom until they saw that parents were being persuaded by the Conservative commitment to put discipline at the heart of our education strategy.
"It is time for a wholly different approach. One which trusts headteachers; which puts power where it belongs, back to schools; which gives new legal protections to classroom teachers; which treats indiscipline as sufficiently serious an issue to require additional resources, not just more words."
Party Response: Liberal Democrat
Phil Willis, Liberal Democrat education spokesman, said:"Labour has had nearly eight years to tackle school discipline and this latest piece of empty rhetoric will do little to solve the problem.
"School discipline is a complex issue which deserves a mature response, not a competition between Labour and Conservatives as to who can sound the toughest.
"Prevention is always better than cure, which is why the Liberal Democrats support smaller class sizes, reducing teacher workload and improvements to the secondary curriculum. We have to create a situation where children want to be in school and tackle bad behaviour before it starts."
Stakeholder Response: NASUWT
Chris Keates, general secretary of NASUWT, the largest union representing teachers and headteachers throughout the
"Teachers will be particularly gratified by her recognition of the damaging and corrosive effects of persistent low level disruption which NASUWT has highlighted consistently.
"Constant challenges to authority, refusal to co-operate, failure to accept reasonable instructions, flouting of school rules and verbal abuse can be as devastating to the health and well-being of teachers as a violent attack.
"I would, however, ask the secretary of state to think again about her seemingly ringing endorsement of independent appeals panels.
"She is, of course, absolutely right to assert that pupils facing exclusion have a right of appeal.However, the school community has a right to be protected from perverse decisions of appeal panels which have a history of reinstating pupils with a long record of serious disruption and violence.
"The government recognised this problem sometime ago and issued advice to the panels about reinstatement.Unfortunately, evidence shows that this guidance operates more in the breach than the observance.
"Careful consideration also needs to be given to the role and relationship between groups of schools collaborating to meet the needs of disruptive pupils and the role of the LEA in addressing their needs when all other strategies have failed. High quality off-site provision which can support excluded pupils in either the short or longer term is a vital component of the menu of options schools need to enable them to manage pupil indiscipline effectively and to maintain the high standards of discipline characteristic of the vast majority.
"NASUWT very much welcomes the opportunity to have further dialogue with the secretary of state on the important issues raised in her speech."
Stakeholder Response: National Union of Teachers
Steve Sinnott, NUT general secretary, said: "The government and the Opposition are competing with each other over the issue of pupil behaviour. This demonstrates that at last both recognize that unacceptable pupil behaviour destroys the learning of others and the motivation of teachers.
"So called zero tolerance offers pupils clear guidance on what is unacceptable and what they can expect if they break the rules. Young people like to know what is and what is not acceptable: they know where they stand and their parents know what will and will not be tolerated. All rules must be applied consistently but, for example, if a child is to be withdrawn from a class to a quiet area, the space and the staff support must be there to ensure that time is used constructively.
"Parents have a crucial role in overcoming poor behaviour. They must ensure that their children abide by the rules and that they understand why those rules exist. Parents cannot opt out of their responsibilities and assume that their children's 190 days a year at school can counter what happens in the home and elsewhere.
"There is much in Ruth Kelly's announcement that the u
"Ms Kelly needs to focus on overcoming bad behaviour rather than threatening schools with continual Ofsted visits. She must ensure they have the back-up from local authorities and the resources to deal with problem behaviour if she is not to undermine teacher confidence.
"Removing independent appeals panels entirely is not the answer. But it must be made clear to the panels that where a pupil has been permanently excluded because of violent behaviour, that pupil cannot be returned to the original school.
"It may be possible in other cases for conciliation to be considered. But this must be with the agreement of the school and if conciliation is to go ahead there must be a guarantee of additional resources to help the school deal with the problem behaviour of the excluded child."
Stakeholder Response: Secondary Heads Association
Dr
"Schools need more support from parents who too often accept their child's side of the story and complain when the head takes strong action.
"I welcome the secretary of state's support for heads and her recognition of the responsibilities of parents, but I do not see how the threat of repeat Ofsted visits fits with the new inspection framework, currently going through parliament. Where inspectors find discipline problems, the emphasis should be on the support that she mentions, not on more inspection.
"Schools are prepared to work collaboratively in dealing with difficult pupils, provided that the government and local authorities delegate adequate funding to do the job properly.
"SHA remains opposed to the abolition of appeals panels, as advocated by the Conservative Party, on the grounds that some parents will take their grievances to the courts, using valuable time and resources from the schools.
"I am also concerned that the Conservative proposals for 'turnaround schools', which would be likely to place too many disruptive pupils in one institution, to the benefit of none of them."
Stakeholder Response: Professional Association of Teachers
Jean Gemmell,PAT general secretary, said: "We welcome the government's recognition of the importance of good behaviour in schools.
"Exclusions, bullying and violence tend to grab the headlines, but the daily incidents of insolence, backchat, talking out of turn, rowdy behaviour, 'messing about', refusal to obey instructions and name-calling also have a disruptive effect on children's education and on the smooth running of schools.
"So much time is wasted in schools just trying to get children to behave, and teachers' and children's time in school is limited and precious. No child can progress to his or her full potential if their school experience is being damaged by the disruptive behaviour of others.
"Poor pupil behaviour is a major concern for teachers and we know that many have left the profession because of it.
"I'm sure teachers, headteachers and support staff will welcome the guidance and the focus these measures will bring to the issue of disruptive behaviour, although I suspect some of the 'new ideas' that will be announced are already in place in many schools. It is also important that such new codes of conduct are clear and easy to implement and don't result in yet more paperwork.
"Disruptive behavioursometimes occurs as the result of specific pupils' emotional or other special education needs. It is essential that these pupils receive the appropriate support in terms of specialist teachers and teaching assistants, tuition time, equipment and other resources. Disruptive behaviour isn't necessarily 'bad' behaviour that warrants a punitive outcome.
"Disruptive behaviour isn't a problem that schools can tackle alone. Schools, parents and the wider community need to work in partnership. Schools and teachers need the support of parents to deal with pupils' behaviour.
"We need to encourage parents to foster in their children a greater respect for schools, teachers and other pupils, and a belief in the importance of education. The government must also look at and tackle the underlying causes of anti-social behaviour."
Stakeholder Comment
Discuss this article via video now
