Pupil behaviour
The National Union of Teachers has launched its charter on pupil behaviour.
It calls for clarification of teachers' rights when dealing with classroom disruption and urges ministers to make persistent disruption a reason for expulsion.
Government Response: Department for Education and Skills
A DfES spokesman said: "Ofsted tells us that behaviour is good in most schools most of the time, and we have made tackling poor behaviour a major priority through our zero tolerance approach.
"We have commissioned an expert group of Heads, including representatives nominated by the NUT, to report to us next month with their views on what more can be done to ensure good discipline in schools."
Steve Sinnott, general secretary of the NUT, said: "Teachers have a deep commitment to the education of their pupils. They believe that no child should ever be written off.
"That is why support is needed to overcome the damaging behaviour of the few for their own sake and for the sake of every other child in the school.
"This charter offers a way to try to ensure that every member of the school community can teach and learn free from fear of physical or verbal abuse or bullying.
"Learning and teaching are at their best when they can take place in a calm, ordered atmosphere."
Stakeholder Response: Local Government Association
An LGA spokesman said: "Whilst we support the call for clarification of teachers rights when dealing with classroom behaviour we believe that this must be part of policies being developed to improve the behaviour of children and young people throughout our communities.
"Policies to improve behaviour in schools cannot be implemented in isolation, they must support, and be supported by, the work of local authorities, police and the local community to reduce anti social behaviour. "
Stakeholder Response: Advisory Centre for Education
A spokesman said: "The Advisory Centre for Education (ACE) applauds the NUT’s behaviour charter in its stress on parents’ and pupils’ rights as well as responsibilities.
"We agree with the union’s view that no child or young person should ever be written off, and that schools which interest pupils in what’s taught and where pupils feel safe and confident tend to have low levels of difficult behaviour.
"We would go further and agree with Ofsted who stated this year that to avoid behaviour problems, pupils need to feel valued and cared for as well as safe.
"Schools can and do make a difference: in its 2001 report, Ofsted found that 10 per cent of exclusions were from just 100 hundred schools, while 41 per cent of schools did not exclude at all.
"Where we disagree with the charter is in two important areas. The first is something that is probably implicit in the document, but cannot be stated clearly enough. That is, to again quote Ofsted, most of the pupils displaying difficult behaviour have special needs and/or face disadvantage and disruption in their home lives.
"To further disrupt these lives by exclusion from school, which has been shown to have a profoundly damaging effect on pupils and their families, must be something to be prevented at all costs.
"We agree with the NUT’s recommendations that support (both for behaviour and special needs) should be provided by local government and not left to the will and resources of schools, but also believe that schools need to own the problems and solutions.
"Schools also need to adapt their behaviour policies to allow for behaviour stemming from children’s disabilities, and to tie behaviour procedures in with those for special needs.
"ACE’s experience is that some schools do not exclude as a last resort, nor do heads follow the existing statutory guidance, and many pupils and parents are left feeling victimised by an unfair process, especially if the cause of the behaviour was lack of understanding or support for the child’s difficulties.
"The second area of disagreement is in the suggested changes to the guidance to include ‘persistent low-level disruption’ as a reason for permanent exclusion.
"Schools can already exclude for ‘persistent and defiant misbehaviour’. To insert this new phrase does not help as it is so inexact that it will further encourage poor practice and will be unenforceable.
"We have examples of trivial reasons used for exclusion which might fall into this category, such as the autistic six-year-old excluded for humming and the 12-year-old with sickle cell anaemia who had to go the toilet and get drinks too often – this, said the school, was persistently disruptive behaviour.
"We also disagree with the suggestion that the membership of independent appeal panels are further biased by the inclusion of teachers, and refer to the views of the Council on Tribunals on the existing make up of these panels.
"Overall, however, we must repeat that we agree with very much of this document, and welcome its publication."
Stakeholder Response: Association of Teachers and Lecturers
Dr Mary Bousted, general secretary of the Association of Teachers and Lecturers, said: "ATL members have been expressing their concerns about the unacceptable behaviour of a small, but significant, number of pupils for well over a decade.
"Bad behaviour is regularly listed as one of the chief reasons why good teachers leave the classroom. Seventy-two per cent of ATL members responding to a survey this March said they had considered leaving teaching because of poor pupil behaviour.
"It is simply not acceptable for teachers or support staff to have to deal, on a continual basis, with bad behaviour in schools and colleges. Much more needs to be done to support schools and teachers to cope with the effects of the disruptive behaviour of a small minority.
"As members of the DfES leadership group, led by Sir Alan Steer, on behaviour and discipline, we have made a number of recommendations to the government to tackle poor behaviour.
"We have recommended more and better quality behaviour management training for everyone working in schools, pastoral staff in schools to be given dedicated time and resources to deal with problems, review of the curriculum to focus on pupil motivation, and greater co-operation between agencies working with children.
"Ultimately, where appropriate, we expect schools to take action against disruptive pupils and exclude them if necessary. However, we all need to recognise there are no magic bullets, or easy solutions.
"Some young people face considerable challenges in their lives outside school and come from difficult backgrounds. They have a right to be taught, and we must do all we can to provide them with the best possible education."
Related News
- Teachers to get search powers
- Parents accused over pupil discipline
- Balls aims to improve excluded education
- Tory pledge to restore school discipline
- Rise of large schools 'threatens discipline'
Stakeholder Comment
Discuss this article via video now
